Category: Politics

Congressman Raja Krishnamoorthi has introduced an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act to limit presidential authority over military deployments without state approval.

WASHINGTON, DC — Congressman Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-IL) has taken a significant step by introducing an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) that seeks to restrict the president’s authority to deploy U.S. military forces or federalize the National Guard without obtaining approval from state officials.

This legislative measure, co-sponsored by Congresswoman Haley Stevens (D-MI), is a reintroduction of their previously proposed Stop Trump’s Abuse of Power Act. The amendment arises in response to actions taken by former President Donald Trump, who threatened to deploy the National Guard to Chicago without a request from Illinois officials. Additionally, Trump had previously sent active-duty forces to cities such as Los Angeles and Washington, D.C.

Krishnamoorthi expressed concerns regarding the implications of such unilateral military actions, describing them as an overreach of executive power that could undermine constitutional protections. “No president should be able to turn the U.S. military into their personal police force,” he stated. He further criticized Trump’s threats to militarize Chicago, suggesting that such moves would lead to “chaos and spectacle” rather than effectively addressing public safety issues.

The proposed amendment would mandate that a governor or state executive must formally request federal military support prior to any deployment of active-duty personnel or the federalization of the National Guard. Furthermore, it would prohibit the use of military troops in response to peaceful protests or demonstrations without the necessary state approval.

Currently, the amendment is under review by the House Rules Committee, which will determine whether it can advance to a floor vote as part of the NDAA.

As discussions around military authority and state rights continue, Krishnamoorthi’s initiative reflects a growing concern among lawmakers regarding the balance of power between federal and state governments, particularly in the context of public safety and civil liberties.

Source: Original article

Texas is embroiled in a contentious political battle over redistricting, raising concerns about representation and the voices of marginalized communities ahead of the 2026 elections.

The Lone Star State is currently facing a political firestorm that extends beyond party control; it delves into the fundamental issue of representation. The ongoing debate centers on whose voices are amplified and whose are marginalized in the electoral process.

On August 14, a briefing hosted by American Community Media (ACoM) brought together state lawmakers, civil rights lawyers, and advocates to address what they term a “redistricting war.” The focus of this conflict is the Republican-led initiative to redraw Texas’s electoral maps, a move critics argue is designed to benefit the party in the upcoming 2026 elections while undermining the voting power of Black, Latino, and Asian communities.

Texas State Representative Gene Wu, who participated in the briefing from Chicago, highlighted the urgency of the situation. Wu, along with numerous Democratic colleagues, had previously staged a dramatic walkout on August 3 to block a quorum and stall the redistricting bill. “This isn’t just politics—it’s cheating,” Wu asserted. “They’re trying to rewrite the rules mid-game because they know they’re losing.”

Wu elaborated on the tactics being employed in the redistricting process, describing them as “cracking and packing.” He explained, “They’re cracking minority communities into pieces and attaching them to districts that don’t share their interests. Or they’re packing us into one district, so we can’t influence others. Either way, it’s about silencing us.”

He raised a critical alarm about the implications of these changes: “If this goes through, your voice will carry less weight. If you’re Latino, your vote might count as one-third of a white vote. If you’re Black, maybe one-fifth. That’s not democracy.” Wu warned that if such practices are allowed to continue, it could set a dangerous precedent for redistricting efforts across the country. “If they get away with this, every state will start redrawing maps after every election they don’t like. That’s the end of our republic,” he cautioned.

The concerns surrounding the redistricting process are echoed by Karla Maradiaga, a voting rights attorney with the Texas Civil Rights Project. Maradiaga recounted her experience at a redistricting hearing in Houston, where nearly 1,000 individuals signed up to speak despite the maps not yet being released. “People showed up anyway,” she noted, emphasizing the community’s concern over the lack of transparency in the process.

Maradiaga criticized the current redistricting efforts as being driven by political pressures rather than the needs of the community or census data. “This process should be open and fair,” she stated. “Instead, it’s being driven by a letter from the DOJ under Trump.”

She also addressed the misconception surrounding partisan gerrymandering, clarifying that while Republicans assert it is legal, the Supreme Court has not endorsed it. “The Supreme Court didn’t say it’s OK. It said it’s not their job to fix it. That’s a big difference,” she explained. Maradiaga is currently pursuing legal challenges against the redistricting efforts, including a case in Tarrant County where a predominantly minority district was dismantled, resulting in the removal of a Black woman commissioner from office. “We’re fighting back,” she affirmed. “Because this is about protecting the right to vote.”

Melissa Ayala, a longtime activist and resident of Congressional District 29, shared her personal experiences regarding the impact of the new maps on her community. “We’re a working-class, mostly Latino district,” she said. “Now they’ve redrawn it into a weird box that favors Republicans. It’s clear parts we were left out on purpose.”

Ayala, who previously worked as a census worker, understands the importance of accurate representation. “I learned about redistricting through the census. But now, even older folks are just learning how it works—and how it affects them,” she remarked. She highlighted the economic pressures that hinder families from staying politically engaged, stating, “Groceries are up. Cars are expensive. People are just trying to survive. But we still need to vote. We still need to organize.”

Her message was clear: “We’re not just voters—we’re also on the menu. If we don’t fight back, we’ll be served up.”

Carmela Walker, Program Manager at the Houston Area Urban League, emphasized the high stakes for Black communities in this redistricting battle. “This isn’t just about race—it’s about humanity,” Walker said. “When you lose your voice, you lose your ability to fight for schools, healthcare, safety—everything.”

Walker shared troubling accounts of families facing mistreatment in schools and communities without representation. “We got a call about a mom who was arrested just for sitting with her child in the cafeteria. That’s what happens when you don’t have representation,” she recounted.

She called for unity and civic education, asserting that fairness is a civic value that transcends partisanship and race. “No one’s coming to save us. We have to save ourselves,” she urged, emphasizing the need for community solidarity.

Despite the grim outlook, the speakers at the briefing remained united in their call to action: stay engaged, stay vocal, and keep voting. In closing remarks, Wu advocated for “trigger laws” in blue states like California to counter Texas’s redistricting moves. Maradiaga reiterated the importance of litigation, while Ayala urged for more town halls and grassroots organizing. Walker reminded attendees that “we’re stronger together.”

Source: Original article

Democratic Party officials gathered in Minnesota for their annual meeting, facing internal divisions over the Gaza war and campaign finance reforms while emphasizing unity against former President Donald Trump.

Democratic Party officials and committee members convened in Minnesota on Monday for their annual summer meeting, where they engaged in discussions about competing positions regarding the ongoing war in Gaza and the need for campaign finance reforms.

The meeting commenced with a call for unity against former President Donald Trump, despite the underlying tensions within the party. “We are unified towards one single goal: to stop Donald Trump and put this country back on track,” declared DNC Chair Ken Martin to the more than 400 elected officials from all 50 states and seven territories.

While the Democrats appeared to rally around the objective of countering Trump’s controversial actions since his return to the White House, divisions among committee members were anticipated to surface during the discussions scheduled for Tuesday.

On the agenda was the ongoing conflict in Gaza between Israel and Hamas, alongside the issue of limiting dark money in presidential politics. The DNC’s Resolutions Committee was set to meet, where competing symbolic resolutions regarding the Gaza war would be voted on. This conflict was ignited by Hamas’s surprise attack on Israel on October 7, 2023, which resulted in nearly 1,200 Israeli deaths and over 250 hostages taken. In the aftermath, Israel’s military response has led to the deaths of over 60,000 Palestinians.

The Democratic Party’s historically strong support for Israel has begun to fracture amid rising concerns over the humanitarian crisis in Gaza, particularly among the party’s progressive base. Recent polling indicates a significant decline in support for Israel’s military actions among Democrats.

One resolution, which Martin supports, calls for a cease-fire between Israel and Hamas. In contrast, a competing resolution advocates for an arms embargo and the suspension of U.S. military aid to Israel, a long-standing ally in the Middle East.

Another resolution expected to generate significant debate is Martin’s proposal for the DNC to reaffirm its commitment to eliminating unlimited corporate and dark money in the presidential nominating process, starting with the 2028 cycle. This initiative aims to create a new panel that will propose enforceable measures to curb the influence of dark money in the party’s primary elections.

As the influence of super PACs, which can accept unlimited contributions but must disclose their donors, has grown in recent election cycles, the call for reform has gained traction among party leaders.

Democratic leaders are gathering at a critical time for the party, which is attempting to recover from significant electoral losses in the previous year. The Democrats lost control of the White House and Senate and fell short in their efforts to regain a House majority. Additionally, Republicans have made gains among voter demographics that were once key to the Democratic base.

The situation has only worsened for the Democrats in the ten months following those electoral setbacks. The party’s brand has become increasingly unpopular, particularly among younger voters, as national surveys show approval ratings at all-time lows. The DNC is also facing a substantial fundraising deficit compared to the Republican National Committee (RNC), with voter registration data indicating a decline in Democratic Party registrations while GOP sign-ups have increased in 30 states that register voters by party.

Amid these challenges, Martin and other party leaders emphasized the importance of unity. Minnesota Governor Tim Walz addressed committee members, stating, “There’s a division in my damn house, and we’re still married, and things are good. That’s life… We are strong because we challenge each other.”

Longtime Democratic strategist and DNC committee member Maria Cardona echoed this sentiment, expressing frustration over the focus on internal conflicts. “I’m so sick of people focusing on the infighting and the circular firing squad. All of that is crap when we have real issues, existential threats that we need to fight about, and we are all united on that front and that’s all that matters,” she said.

Martin, who was elected DNC chair in February, has navigated considerable turmoil during his tenure, including controversy surrounding former vice chair David Hogg’s support for primary challengers against older House Democrats in secure blue districts.

In response to the DNC’s summer meeting, RNC communications director Zach Parkinson criticized Martin’s leadership, stating, “Under Ken Martin’s leadership, Democrats have sunk to their lowest approval rating in 35 years.” He added that Republicans view Martin’s leadership positively, suggesting they would endorse him to continue as DNC Chair.

Source: Original article

Democrats are renewing calls for Washington D.C. statehood as President Trump asserts control over the district’s police force, reigniting a long-standing debate about representation and governance.

The debate over Washington D.C. statehood has intensified as President Donald Trump continues to exert authority over the district’s police force. This situation has prompted House and Senate Democrats, along with D.C.’s non-voting delegates, to argue that if D.C. were a state, the president would not have the power to federalize its police force.

Last week, Trump invoked a provision of the Home Rule Act, which grants some autonomy to the nation’s capital, to effectively take control of the Metropolitan Police Department. This move was framed as a response to rising crime rates, leading to an increased presence of federal law enforcement agencies and the National Guard on the streets of D.C. The White House has highlighted rapid decreases in crime and numerous arrests since the federal takeover.

However, critics argue that the president’s actions represent an overreach of power and underscore the need for D.C. to achieve statehood. Currently, Washington D.C. lacks voting representation in Congress and is overseen by Congress despite having its own mayor and city council. Senator Paul Strauss, the district’s shadow senator, emphasized that if D.C. were a state, the president would not be able to impose such control outside of the federal enclave.

Strauss, who has long advocated for D.C. statehood, expressed concern that the current crackdown ignores the self-determination of D.C. residents. “It would be one thing if we actually had a crime emergency here, but we don’t,” he stated. “Violent crime in particular is down to 30-year lows. That’s not what’s happening here. He is using these national guardsmen and women as a stunt, and that’s wrong.”

Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton, D.C.’s non-voting delegate in the House, echoed Strauss’s sentiments. “The president’s abuses are evidence of the urgent need for D.C. statehood so that more than 700,000 D.C. residents can finally have the full rights and privileges afforded to other Americans, including control of their own local resources and policies,” she said in a statement.

In response, White House spokeswoman Taylor Rogers countered that violent crime in the district has “been spiraling out of control.” She accused Democrats of misleading the public regarding crime levels in the nation’s capital. “If they needed some anecdotal evidence, they could ask their own Democrat colleague about the time he was carjacked outside of his D.C. apartment by three armed criminals,” she remarked.

Lawmakers from neighboring Virginia and Maryland joined Strauss and Norton in arguing that Trump’s federalization of the local police highlights the urgent need for D.C. statehood. Senator Tim Kaine, D-Va., described the police takeover as a prime example of why D.C. deserves the same rights as states. Senator Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., criticized Republicans for playing political games with the district’s funding while supporting what he termed an authoritarian overreach by the president.

Van Hollen has announced plans to reintroduce a bill alongside Norton to grant statehood to D.C. He, Norton, and Representative Jamie Raskin, D-Md., have also introduced a joint resolution in the House aimed at halting Trump’s takeover of the D.C. police.

Raskin pointed out that residents of Washington D.C. are uniquely disenfranchised, being the only citizens in a capital city worldwide without representation in their national legislature. “The people of Washington have petitioned for statehood and should be admitted as a state rather than treated as a MAGA-colonized populace,” he stated.

Despite the renewed push for statehood, the likelihood of achieving this goal remains slim while Republicans control both chambers of Congress and the presidency. Strauss noted, “I think there’s probably not a pathway to get this done while Republicans control all three branches of the government. They have shown that they’re more interested in the partisan impact of controlling the legislative branch and not really interested in the principle of self-determination for Washington, D.C. residents.”

The ongoing debate over D.C. statehood continues to reflect broader issues of representation and governance in the United States, with many advocates arguing that the residents of the nation’s capital deserve the same rights as those in the states.

Source: Original article

Former diplomat Vikas Swarup discusses U.S. President Donald Trump’s dissatisfaction with India, citing tariffs and geopolitical tensions following recent military conflicts with Pakistan.

U.S. President Donald Trump’s imposition of punitive tariffs on India stems from his frustration over New Delhi’s dismissal of his claimed role in facilitating a peace agreement with Pakistan, according to former diplomat Vikas Swarup. The ex-High Commissioner to Canada emphasized that while the U.S. maintains a tactical relationship with Pakistan, its ties with India remain strategic.

In an interview with the news agency ANI, Swarup praised India’s resilience against U.S. pressure during trade negotiations, asserting that Trump’s tariffs could ultimately lead to increased inflation in the United States.

Swarup explained that Trump’s discontent with India is multifaceted. He noted that Trump perceives India’s membership in BRICS as a challenge to U.S. interests, viewing the group as an anti-American coalition intent on establishing an alternative currency to the dollar. “He feels that India should not be a member of the BRICS,” Swarup stated.

Another point of contention is India’s refusal to acknowledge Trump’s contributions to the ceasefire negotiations following the military conflict in May. New Delhi has consistently maintained that it does not accept external mediation in such matters. The ceasefire was directly negotiated between the armed forces of India and Pakistan, initiated at the request of Pakistan’s Director General of Military Operations.

Trump has repeatedly asserted that he played a crucial role in de-escalating tensions between the two nuclear-armed nations, claiming credit for averting a potential nuclear conflict. “He is miffed that India has not acknowledged his role, whereas Pakistan has recognized his contributions and even nominated him for a Nobel Peace Prize,” Swarup remarked.

In early May, India conducted Operation Sindoor in response to a terror attack in Pahalgam, targeting terrorist infrastructure in Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir. Following this, India successfully repelled further Pakistani aggression.

Swarup highlighted that India has resisted U.S. demands for greater access to its agriculture and dairy sectors, viewing Trump’s tariffs as part of a broader strategy to pressure India into compliance. He noted that this tactic also serves as a signal to Russia, as Trump has expressed frustration over President Vladimir Putin’s reluctance to agree to a ceasefire in the ongoing conflict in Ukraine.

As Trump prepares for a meeting with Putin in Alaska, concerns linger among Kyiv and its allies that the two leaders may attempt to dictate terms for peace in the nearly four-year-long war.

Swarup characterized Trump as a dealmaker who has positioned himself as a peacemaker in various global conflicts, including those in Thailand, Cambodia, Rwanda, and the Democratic Republic of Congo. He believes that the India-Pakistan situation is particularly significant due to the nuclear capabilities of both nations. “From that perspective, Trump feels that he deserves credit,” he said.

He also noted that Trump has expressed a desire to surpass Barack Obama, the only U.S. president to have received the Nobel Peace Prize. “He has made no secret of his longing for that Nobel Peace Prize,” Swarup added, suggesting that a successful ceasefire between Russia and Ukraine could be Trump’s ticket to such recognition.

Regarding the U.S.’s recent warming of relations with Pakistan, Swarup asserted that India’s foreign policy should not be blamed for this shift. He pointed out that Pakistan has successfully lobbied for greater access to U.S. decision-makers, which has influenced the current dynamics. “Pakistan, through some intermediaries, has gotten the ear of the U.S. President,” he said.

Swarup also mentioned Pakistan’s ambitions to become a hub for cryptocurrency, noting that a venture backed by Trump has signed a letter of intent with Pakistan’s crypto council. “I think Pakistan is now trying to position itself as the ‘Crypto King’ of South Asia,” he remarked.

Despite the current tensions, Swarup believes that India remains a vital partner for the U.S., and that the relationship is fundamentally strategic rather than transactional, unlike the U.S.-Pakistan relationship. “I think the relationship with Pakistan right now is very tactical and short-term, primarily motivated by financial gain,” he stated.

He cautioned against viewing the U.S.-Pakistan relationship as indicative of a permanent shift, describing it instead as a temporary phase. “I call it a storm, not a rupture. You just have to wait out the storms. All storms eventually pass,” he said.

Swarup criticized the U.S. for labeling India as a “Tariff King,” pointing out that the U.S. now holds that title with an average tariff of 18.4 percent compared to India’s 15.98 percent. He argued that the tariffs imposed by the Trump administration would ultimately burden American consumers and contribute to rising inflation in the U.S.

“If you cave in to a bully, then the bully will increase his demands,” he warned, asserting that India has made the right choice by maintaining its strategic autonomy. “Our strategic autonomy has been the bedrock of our foreign policy right from the 1950s,” he concluded.

In July, Trump announced a 25 percent tariff on Indian goods, which later escalated to a total of 50 percent due to India’s imports of Russian oil. This move came despite hopes for an interim trade deal that could have mitigated the impact of such tariffs.

Swarup also addressed the implications of India suspending the Indus Waters Treaty, noting that Pakistan is increasingly anxious about its water supply. He suggested that Pakistan’s military leadership is attempting to provoke fears of nuclear conflict to attract international attention. “They are deliberately provoking nuclear blackmail just so that they can catch the attention of the world,” he said.

India’s recent actions against Pakistan, particularly following the Pahalgam attack, have led to heightened tensions, with Pakistan’s military chief making nuclear threats during his visit to the United States.

Source: Original article