Latest news with #Schumer
Boston Globe
14 hours ago
- Politics
- Boston Globe
Democrats' wary response to transgender ruling shows party's retreat
Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up Even Democrats who condemned the ruling tried to turn the focus to other issues. Schumer suggested on the social platform X that Republicans were using the topic 'to divert attention from ripping health care away from millions of Americans.' Advertisement The careful calculus reflected how the fraught topic of transgender issues has tormented Democrats for months, with Republicans putting them firmly on the back foot. Many party leaders now believe that liberal politicians took positions in recent years that deviated too far from the beliefs of the average voter. Last year, Donald Trump painted Vice President Kamala Harris as too far to the left by pointing to her past positions on transgender care, including support for taxpayer-funded transition operations for prisoners and migrants, which she expressed on a questionnaire in 2019. (Trump elided the fact that appointees in his first administration provided gender-affirming care for a small group of inmates.) Advertisement 'Kamala is for they/them. President Trump is for you,' declared a widely circulated Trump ad. The line of attack was considered by some Democrats to be one of the most effective against Harris. Since her loss, they have made some efforts to pivot, conscious of polling like a New York Times survey in February that found that nearly 80 percent of Americans — including 67 percent of Democrats — believed that transgender female athletes should not be allowed to participate in women's sports. A survey from SCOTUSPoll in April found that 64 percent of Americans, including 38 percent of Democrats, supported states' being able to ban certain treatments for transgender minors. But many elected Democrats still see themselves as important defenders of transgender Americans, and plenty of rank-and-file lawmakers had full-throated condemnations of the ruling Wednesday. 'Trans youth and their health care are under attack — and now our highest court has joined in on the assault,' Representative Summer Lee of Pennsylvania wrote on social media. Representative Brittany Pettersen of Colorado added: 'As a mom, I can't imagine the pain these families navigate as they're denied the care their children need. Trans kids, like all kids, deserve the freedom to reach their greatest potential.' Governor JB Pritzker of Illinois, who has a transgender cousin, appeared to be the most forthcoming of the party's potential 2028 contenders, writing on X that 'Illinois has enshrined protections to meet this very moment.' Advertisement 'In a time of increasing overreach and hateful rhetoric, it's more important than ever to reaffirm our commitment to the rights and dignity of the LGBTQ+ community,' he added. 'You have a home here always.' In recent months, other ambitious Democrats have sounded a different tune, with Newsom making headlines in March when he suggested that transgender athletes' participation in women's sports was 'deeply unfair.' Pete Buttigieg, who ran for president in 2020 and later served as transportation secretary, offered a nuanced answer at a town hall in Iowa last month when asked about transgender rights. 'While I think we do need to revisit some of the things that we have had to say policy-wise that haven't kept up with the times as a party, that doesn't mean, ever, throwing vulnerable people under the bus,' said Buttigieg, who is gay. Asked whether Buttigieg had spoken about the ruling or would issue a statement, a spokesperson for him replied, 'He has not.' Even Democrats without evident presidential aspirations have shifted on transgender issues this year. As Senator Catherine Cortez Masto of Nevada voted against a bill barring transgender women and girls from participating on girls' sports teams, she said she supported 'fair play and safety' but not 'transgender athletes competing in girls' and women's sports when it compromises those principles.' And Representative Seth Moulton of Massachusetts, one of the first to break with his party on transgender athletes, faced a backlash in November when he said in an interview: 'I have two little girls. I don't want them getting run over on a playing field by a male or formerly male athlete.' Representative Sarah McBride of Delaware, the first openly transgender member of Congress, has focused less on her identity and more on issues like paid family leave and the minimum wage. In a statement Wednesday, she said that the Supreme Court ruling 'undermines doctors' and that 'politicians and judges are inserting themselves in exam rooms.' Advertisement In a podcast interview this week with Ezra Klein, a New York Times opinion columnist, McBride suggested that activists took their feet off the gas after gay marriage was legalized and public perception shifted in favor of LGBTQ+ rights. That has allowed, she added, 'for the misinformation, the disinformation — that well-coordinated, well-funded campaign — to really take advantage of that lack of understanding.' A member of the Supreme Court, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, was perhaps the most prominent voice defending transgender people on Wednesday. In her dissent, Sotomayor wrote that 'the court abandons transgender children and their families to political whims.'
The Intercept
16 hours ago
- Politics
- The Intercept
How Democratic Leaders Quietly Support Trump's March to War With Iran
Support Us © THE INTERCEPT ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Some Democrats are fighting to stop war with Iran, but party leaders are silently acquiescing or, worse, supporting an attack. Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., conducts a news conference in the U.S. Capitol in Washington on May 20, 2025. Photo: Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call via Getty Images As President Donald Trump barrels toward a direct war with Iran, the most powerful Democrats in Congress are issuing statements that are at best tepid and confusing. At worst, they are cheering escalation. Even with some Democrats on Capitol Hill pushing for a War Powers Resolution and other legislation to stop Trump from attacking without congressional approval, the Democratic Party's most powerful politicians refuse to mount any meaningful opposition to a strike. Many outright favor direct U.S. involvement in yet another regime change war. Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., the most powerful Democrat in the Senate, where he is the minority leader, presents himself as a major opponent of Trump. As recently as June 15, for example, he boasted about his participation in the No Kings Day mass protest against Trump. Yet when it comes to the prospect of a direct war with Iran, Schumer is not only supporting Trump, but less than three weeks ago was goading the administration to be 'tough' on Iran and not make any 'side deals' without Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's approval. — Chuck Schumer (@SenSchumer) June 2, 2025 'The United States' commitment to Israel's security and defense must be ironclad as they prepare for Iran's response,' he said in a follow-up statement released on June 13, after Israel attacked Iran. 'The Iranian regime's stated policy has long been to destroy Israel and Jewish communities around the world.' Schumer did include a perfunctory nod to talks — 'a strong, unrelenting diplomatic effort backed by meaningful leverage.' The 'meaningful leverage' in question, however, is bombing Iran — something Schumer tacitly supports. Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., the most powerful Democrat in the House, responded to Israel's attack with a toothless statement that was vaguely supportive of war and packed with every pro-Israel cliche in the book. 'Our commitment to Israel's security is ironclad,' he said. 'It is clear that the Iranian regime poses a grave threat to the entire free world. There is no circumstance where Iran can be permitted to become a nuclear power.' Jeffries, too, mentioned diplomacy, but with no urgency. 'As soon as is practical, it is imperative to find a rigorous diplomatic path forward and avoid any situation where U.S. troops are put in harm's way,' he said. As with Schumer, 'diplomacy' is a box to be checked, a vague normative preference, but not a demand — and certainly not a requirement. A host of powerful Democrats issued strikingly similar statements. They repeatedly reinforced every premise of Trump's pending bombing campaign, namely the alleged imminent danger posed by Iran. This premise is undermined by U.S. intelligence assessments and leaks to both the Wall Street Journal and CNN, which suggest Iran hadn't decided to make a bomb and would be three years away from producing one if it did. If all of the statements look similar, it's because, according to DropSite and the American Prospect, many members of Congress are simply copy and pasting approved language from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, or AIPAC, the flagship pro-Israel lobby group. These outlets found that, in statements on congressional websites and social media, nearly 30 members of Congress used nearly identical language about how they 'stand with Israel' and another 35 gave their unequivocal support in similar terms but without the magic words. Among the influential Democrats pledging their unflinching support for Israel was Rep. Gregory Meeks, D-N.Y., the ranking member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. Like many others, Meeks hauled out a talking point about how 'Israel has a right to defend itself' — meant to front-run any discussion of Israeli aggression by asserting the premise that any and all military action is inherently defensive. It's a dubious premise in most contexts, but especially Orwellian in this one since Israel preemptively attacked Iran based on claims of an 'imminent threat' in direct contradiction of US intelligence. Even if one thinks Israel has a 'right to defend itself' in the abstract, under no neutral reading of international law is Israel doing so by bombing another country without legal basis to do so. The decidedly unhelpful approaches by powerful Democrats don't end there. Rep. Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick, D-Fla., and Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, D-NH, influential members of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, respectively, both issued mealy-mouthed statements trying to split the baby between 'diplomacy' rhetoric and reinforcing every pretense for U.S. involvement in Israel's bombing of Iran. These non-positions — or worse, positions in favor of unprovoked, almost certainly illegal war — are notable precisely because there are some lawmakers who are at least trying to do something to stop a direct, all-out conflict between the U.S. and Iran. According to the latest count by Prem Thakker, 37 members of Congress have thrown their weight behind some kind of effort to stop war. These fall into two camps. The first is a resolution in both the House and Senate that invokes the 1973 War Powers Act, which says that only Congress can declare war, a principle that has been routinely violated by U.S. presidents. Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., is leading this push in the Senate, where few cosponsors have signed on. (Someone with knowledge of the effort told us that the organizers aren't accepting co-sponsors in a bid to gain bipartisan support first.) Reps. Thomas Massie, R-Ky. and Ro Khanna, D-Calif., are leading the sister effort in the House, and it has 28 supporters total, including Reps. Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich., and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. D-N.Y. A total of 27, or 12.7 percent, of House Democrats have lent the bill their support. There is another effort afoot, too: the No War Against Iran Act that was already in motion before Israel attacked Iran on June 13, though it was introduced after the attacks began. The Senate bill, spearheaded by Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., would prevent federal funds from being used for a war that's not approved by Congress. Sens. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., and Tammy Baldwin, D-Wisc., are among its eight Senate supporters. Democratic leaders, however, are leaving their colleagues out to dry. Schumer, for instance, declined to join Sanders's bill as a cosponsor — despite having cosponsored the same effort in 2020. This tacit and open support for Trump's war aren't limited to active leadership; the upper echelons of the party establishment have been noticeably silent. Democratic elites by and large agree with both Israel's unprovoked attacks on Iran and Trump's direct involvement. Presidents Joe Biden and Barack Obama haven't publicly opposed Trump's reckless threats and build-up to war with Iran. Obama, for example, has re-emerged into the spotlight — but made no mention of Iran or Trump's push for war during a public appearance this week. Former Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton — despite frequently criticizing Trump for his military parade, detainment of a U.S. senator, and anti-abortion policies — hasn't spoken in opposition to a US war with Iran. And, likewise, 2024 Democratic nominee Kamala Harris, who has been speaking out against Trump, has yet to publicly criticize Trump's build up to bombing Iran. Surveying these responses — somewhere between muted disinterest and consent — there's only one plausible conclusion: Democratic elites by and large agree with both Israel's unprovoked attacks on Iran and Trump's direct involvement in this potentially catastrophic regime change war. It's unlikely most Democratic hawks will come out in open support of an attack that carries such political risks; like with Iraq 20 years ago, things could quickly go off the rails. Yet, even as party leaders seek to burnish their credentials as the 'resistance' to Trump, they're tacitly, and sometimes openly, giving Trump a green light to lurch America into yet another open-ended war of choice. Join The Conversation
Axios
3 days ago
- Politics
- Axios
Senate Dems fracture as Trump considers Iran strike
A small group of Senate Democrats is scrambling to keep President Trump from unilaterally involving the U.S. in the escalating conflict between Israel and Iran. Why it matters: The caucus is fractured over the quickly unfolding situation, with just a handful blaring the alarm while the party's leadership — at least for now — watches and waits, Just a few Senate Democrats have publicly backed Sen. Tim Kaine's (D-Va.) resolution to reassert Congress' authority over war powers. Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer(D-N.Y.) decided against sponsoring a separate bill that Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) introduced this week barring funding for military force against Iran. Schumer sponsored the same legislation in 2020. And in the 18-plus hours since Trump posted that everyone should evacuate Tehran, Schumer has not made a public statement on the conflict. The big picture: Israel's attack on Iran last week exposed longstanding Democratic fault lines that are only deepening. Some Senate Democrats, like Sanders and Jack Reed (D-R.I.), slammed Israel's action as "reckless." But others, like Schumer and Sen. Jacky Rosen (D-Nev.), were less critical, affirming first and foremost Israel's right to defend itself and arguing Iran can never be allowed to have a nuclear weapon. Almost every Democrat, including Schumer and Rosen, has said publicly that a diplomatic solution should be the goal. Between the lines: Behind the scenes, Schumer's position of staying off the Sanders resolution reflects the majority sentiment of the Democratic caucus. Many Democrats see the situation in a markedly different light than in 2020, when, they argue, Iran wasn't actively targeting Israel and threatening U.S. military bases. And members have stressed the need to maintain flexibility over military operations. Schumer has been in consultations with members on the unfolding situation, sources tell Axios. Just seven Democrats have signed on to Sanders' proposal. Yes, but: The power to declare war rests solely with Congress, and Kaine and others want to assert that authority. "The President does not have the authority to make this decision. There is no imminent threat to America from Iran," Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) posted on X on Monday. "He cannot take this action without congressional authorization." "The administration needs to come to Congress immediately for a classified briefing on their strategy rather than tweeting our servicemembers in the Middle East into graver danger," Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.) also posted on X.
3 days ago
- Politics
Senators call for more funds for member safety following Minnesota shootings
Senators received a security briefing from U.S. Capitol Police and the Senate Sergeant at Arms on Tuesday following the shooting of Democratic lawmakers in Minnesota that some senators called "troubling" and "disturbing." The briefing focused on member safety after it came to light that a number of members of Congress were included on a list found inside the suspected shooters vehicle. Lawmakers leaving the roughly hourlong briefing were largely tight-lipped about what sort of recommendations were made in the room. But Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, who jointly requested the briefing with Majority Leader John Thune, said there was a bipartisan push for additional funding to be appropriated for member safety. The push for improved security measures comes after a masked gunman disguised as a police officer shot and killed Democratic State Rep. Melissa Hortman and her husband Mark at their Minnesota home. The gunman also wounded State Sen. John Hoffman, a Democrat, and his wife, Yvette. Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz called the shootings an "act of targeted political violence." Almost two days later, authorities arrested the suspected gunman, Vance Boelter. Authorities say Boelter had listed the names of several politicians in documents found in his possession, among them: Michigan Democratic Rep. Shri Thanedar, Ohio Democratic Rep. Greg Landsman, and Wisconsin Democrats, Rep. Mark Pocan and Rep. Gwen Moore. Democratic Sen. Adam Schiff and Republican Sen. David McCormick spoke during the meeting to suggest more money be appropriated for member safety, Schumer said. "The violence, the threats, against elected officials including people in the Senate has dramatically increased and that means we need more protection, more money, we need -- everybody: Democrat and Republican," Schumer said. Schumer also called for elected officials to tone down the politically violent rhetoric. "The rhetoric that's encouraging violence is coming from too many powerful people in this country, and we need firm, strong denouncement of all violence and violent rhetoric, that should be from the president and from all of the elected officials," he said. During the briefing with senators, there was discussion of a number of measures being taken to protect them. Most lawmakers declined to comment on those measures. Democratic Sen. Tim Kaine said there was also discussion in the room of the various threats facing members. He called it "disturbing" to hear. Kaine declined to get into the specific recommendations made in the room. So too did Minnesota Democratic Sen. Tina Smith, who thanked Capitol Police for their involvement in keeping her safe in Minnesota over the weekend. "I just think it was a very helpful review of the kinds of ways that Capitol Police can help to keep members, and our families and our staffs safe. I appreciate it very much and I very much appreciate the help that they provided to me this weekend," Smith said. But when pushed on what suggestions were made in the room she declined to share more. "I think it's important for member safety that we don't talk a lot about what is being done to keep us safe in order to keep us safe," Smith said. On Monday, ahead of the briefing, Republican Sen. Mike Rounds lamented that security threats are something those in public service are unfortunately aware of. "All of us are aware that there is a risk involved, it is unfortunate that you have something like this where you have to have a loss of life of state legislators. It is something I think that we all, we watch, but it's not something that we dwell on." While House and Senate leadership are provided with a security detail, rank-and-file members are not routinely protected unless there is a specific threat. On Monday, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries and Rep. Joe Morelle, the top-ranked Democrat on the House Committee on Administration, called for increased security for House members and to "substantially increase" money available for members to take additional security precautions. In a letter to Speaker Mike Johnson, Jeffries and Morelle called for him to "take all necessary steps to protect House members throughout the country." "At the same time, it is imperative that we substantially increase the Member Representational Allowance (MRA) to support additional safety and security measures in every single office," the letter said.
Washington Post
3 days ago
- Politics
- Washington Post
Schumer calls for increased security for senators
Politics Schumer calls for increased security for senators June 17, 2025 | 4:46 PM GMT Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) on June 17 called for additional security measures to better protect elected officials in the wake of the Minnesota shooting.
