Latest news with #UnitedStatesSenate
Newsweek
15 hours ago
- Politics
- Newsweek
John Fetterman On Iran Conflict: 'Not Warmongering, This Is Peacemongering'
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Democratic Senator John Fetterman of Pennsylvania continued to throw his full support behind Israel in its war with Iran this week, saying it's "not warmongering," it's "peacemongering." Why It Matters Israel and Iran have been lobbing missiles and strikes at one another since Israel first attacked Iran last week, decapitating Iran's military and intelligence chain-of-command, destroying nuclear sites and killing key nuclear scientists. The conflict entered its seventh day on Thursday, with Iran launching a strike that hit a major hospital in Israel, injuring at least 240 people and causing extensive damage. Israel subsequently accused Iran of crossing a "red line" and violating international law, and the country's defense minister, Israel Katz, said Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei "should not continue to exist." The White House, meanwhile, said President Donald Trump will decide within two weeks whether the United States will join the conflict and launch a strike at Iran. Sen. John Fetterman, D-Pa., participates in a debate with Sen. Dave McCormick, R-Pa., not shown, at the Edward M. Kennedy Institute for the United States Senate, Monday, June 2, 2025, in Boston, as livestreamed on... Sen. John Fetterman, D-Pa., participates in a debate with Sen. Dave McCormick, R-Pa., not shown, at the Edward M. Kennedy Institute for the United States Senate, Monday, June 2, 2025, in Boston, as livestreamed on Fox Nation. More Steven Senne/AP What To Know The rapidly escalating war has divided lawmakers and splintered President Donald Trump's typically ironclad MAGA coalition, as isolationists warn about the U.S. getting mired in another "forever war" in the Middle East and foreign policy hawks support the United States intervening to stop Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. Fetterman, one of the most pro-Israel Democrats in Congress, weighed in on the prospect of U.S. involvement on Wednesday, telling reporters: "I'd like to point out ... the polling has shown that, I think it's effectively ... 80 percent of Americans think that Iran should never acquire a nuclear weapon." "So, like, this isn't shocking," the Pennsylvania Democrat added. "You know, it's like, this is not warmongering. This is peacemongering ... I mean, that's not controversial. It definitely shouldn't be controversial for Democrats." Fetterman: This is not warmongering. This is peace mongering. — Acyn (@Acyn) June 19, 2025 A recent Washington Post survey asked about 1,000 Americans whether they would support or oppose the U.S. launching airstrikes at Iran over its nuclear program. According to the poll, 45 percent of Americans oppose the move compared to 25 percent who said they would support a strike. Among Republicans, 47 percent back a U.S. strike against Iran, while 53 percent said they are either unsure or oppose a strike. Meanwhile, just nine percent of Democrats said they would support the move, compared to 67 percent who oppose it and 24 percent who say they're unsure. The Post's survey was conducted on June 18 and had a sample size of 1,008 U.S. adults. It has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.6 percentage points. This is a breaking news story. Updates to follow.
Business Journals
2 days ago
- Health
- Business Journals
The real cost of the Big Beautiful Bill: Hunger and health
The Big Beautiful Bill, currently being considered by the United States Senate, is anything but beautiful. The proposed harms to people are many — jeopardizing millions of Americans' access to Medicaid, food assistance, higher education grants and infringing on the rights of lawful immigrants to pursue the American dream — all to make permanent tax cuts benefiting only the top 1% of earners. But what about the rest of us? The widespread harms of the bill have garnered bipartisan opposition at a time when polarization is the norm. Kansas Senator Jerry Moran spoke about the negative impacts of the bill on the Senate floor. Missouri Senator Josh Hawley has long been outspoken in opposition to the bill, calling it 'morally wrong.' Other legislators across the political spectrum have also raised grave concerns about this massive bill that will, even after cuts to essential programs, add $3.3 trillion to our national deficit. The fallacies of this bill show in how the legislature has moved to adopt it. Middle of the night debates and votes, and accelerated processes to move the bill through the House, are contrary to the transparency and sound decision necessary in a true representative democracy. Only through such tactics could legislation that would cut $700 billion from Medicaid and cause an estimated 15 million people to lose their health insurance coverage make it this far in the process. We as Americans must stand up for ourselves and say no. Impact of work requirements The addition of work requirements on top of federal spending cuts compound and confuse the issues of Medicaid program efficacy and efficiency. The vast majority of Kansans and Missourians covered through Medicaid are already working. Where states have enforced work requirements, it has resulted in many working Americans losing their coverage, not because they do not qualify, but because of administrative burden and error. For example, Arkansas removed 18,000 working people from Medicaid shortly after implementing work requirements a few years ago due to overly complicated online filing requirements, lack of awareness and lack of internet access. In Missouri, where Medicaid was expanded in 2020 by constitutional amendment, it is estimated that work requirements would cut off nearly 80,000 people from health insurance for similar reasons. This is an unjust consequence for people working in our communities and positively contributing to our economy. Cuts to food assistance and job losses Another cruel element of the bill is its sweeping, unprecedented cuts to food assistance (known as SNAP), totaling nearly $300 billion and projected to cut nutritional support for 28 million children, older adults, and people living with disabilities, impacting Congressional districts across Kansas and Missouri. In the bi-state Kansas City region, well over 30,000 working Missourians with children in school and 15,000 in Kansas would lose life-saving access to food. Research and history show that reducing or losing SNAP benefits altogether increases hunger and makes for worse health outcomes in working families with children. There is no discernible economic gain to these moves that would justify leaving families sick and hungry. Economists project that the 550,000 in job losses from the Medicaid cuts alone will put us at the brink of a recession. Cuts to SNAP are no better, leading to a loss of 143,000 jobs directly and indirectly associated with our food systems and reduced economic activity of $30 billion. Many of these workers who face lost opportunities and jobs would simultaneously be unable to access safety net benefits like SNAP because of the cuts. Harming our rural communities This bill is disastrous for rural communities — where good paying jobs, access to health care and healthy food are extraordinarily hard to come by. Cuts to Medicaid are projected to result in rural hospital closures, as they rely on Medicaid for revenue. Rural health care jobs would be cut by direct extension. An analysis by the National Rural Health Association shows that each rural hospital employee is associated with roughly $200,000 per year in economic activity. While many rural residents are reliant on the Medicaid program for coverage and SNAP for food assistance, even those who are not on Medicaid and Medicare will suffer when the hospital nearest to them closes or other services are cut because of lack of funding. Impact on workforce development The bill also changes the eligibility for Pell grants for students in households earning low incomes. Given the physician workforce shortage (and shortages in other health science professions) and that at least 5 percent of students in medical schools would have qualified for these grants, reduced access to funding for higher education will exacerbate work force shortages in rural and other parts of our country. Infringements on immigration Legal immigrants, refugees, and asylum seekers are also impacted. People who arrived legally in America would be denied access to Medicaid and Medicare even if they qualify or have satisfied the requirements to utilize these programs. There is too much at stake for too many people, as this budget bill sacrifices the quality of life for most Americans for the benefit of a small few. We cannot afford to gamble on hypothetical trickle-down economics when the economic benefits of these programs and the positive impact on people's life circumstances are proven. Senators must heed what is best for the American people with whom they are responsible for representing and vote this bill down. Health Forward Foundation is supporting and building inclusive, powerful, and healthy communities by prioritizing people who experience the greatest injustices in health outcomes. Through leadership, advocacy, and resources, we are championing an equitable future that will serve us all. Since we began grantmaking in 2005, Health Forward has awarded approximately $364 million to nonprofit organizations addressing community health needs.
The Hill
3 days ago
- Politics
- The Hill
Why did Republican senators abandon Alex Padilla?
It was one of the most dramatic moments of the hotly-contested 2008 presidential campaign between Barack Obama and John McCain. Remember? A woman stood up at a McCain campaign rally and said, 'I can't trust Obama. I have read about him, and he's not, he's not — he's an Arab.' Before she could continue, McCain immediately reached out, took the microphone from her, shook his head, and said: 'No, ma'am. He's a decent family man, a citizen that I just happen to have disagreements with on fundamental issues, and that's what this campaign is all about.' It was a magic moment. Unfortunately, it's also a rare moment these days — when a politician demonstrates not only courage, but also decency, civility and respect for a fellow politician, regardless of party. And it's just that sense of decency, civility and respect that was so woefully lacking last week in the silence of Republican senators after the violent treatment of fellow Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) in a Los Angeles federal building. First, let's be clear about what happened and what did not. Watch the video. Padilla did not, as alleged, 'charge' Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem. Padilla did not 'lunge' at the secretary. Padilla did not resist arrest. Nor did he fail to identify himself. He did so verbally, and the polo shirt he wore said 'United States Senate.' In a meeting with federal agents, the senator was informed that Noem was holding a news conference, at that very hour, in the same building. He was escorted to the briefing by a National Guard officer and an FBI agent. For several minutes, Padilla stood silently in the back of the room. But when the secretary said she was in Los Angeles 'to liberate this city from the socialist and burdensome leadership that this governor and this mayor have placed on this country,' Padilla felt obliged to respond. He stepped forward, raised his voice, and said loudly and clearly: 'I am Sen. Alex Padilla, and I have questions for the secretary.' At which point, FBI agents tackled the senator even as he continued to identify himself, threw him to the ground, handcuffed him, and dragged him out of the room. You would think anyone with a sense of decency would agree, despite any differences over policy, that this was an ugly, appalling and unnecessarily violent way to treat any sitting U.S. senator. You know John McCain would have condemned such an abuse of force. But not Noem. And, worse yet, only one of Padilla's Republican colleagues had the courtesy to do so. Even after it was clear that the man handcuffed and dragged out of the room was a senator, Noem still defended the way he was roughed up and — wait for it — insisted she didn't even know who he was. That in itself is appalling: that a Cabinet secretary did not recognize a U.S. senator, especially when she is speaking in his state about immigration there and he is the ranking Democrat on the Senate Subcommittee on Immigration. Even more appalling was the response from Republicans in Congress. Democrats rushed to condemn the way Padilla was treated. But only two Republican senators had anything negative to say about it at all. Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) called the incident 'horrible' and 'shocking at every level.' She continued: 'It's not the America I know.' Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), although she did not go so far as to explicitly condemn the violent treatment of Padilla, called it 'very disturbing.' But other Republicans either refused to comment or even applauded Padilla's treatment. Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) accused Padilla of 'making a spectacle of himself.' House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) went so far as to say Padilla should be censured by the Senate. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) sniffed that Padilla 'got what he wanted, he's on TV.' And the response from the vast majority of Republican representatives and senators was: crickets. What a shameful lack of common courtesy and decency and courage. After all, how difficult would it be for members of Congress to stand together and say: 'We may disagree with our friends across the aisle on many issues, but on this we all agree: Every member of Congress, Republican, Democrat, and Independent, deserves to be treated with the utmost respect. Especially when he or she has committed no crime, and is only doing their job.' It wasn't so long ago when people used to make fun of senators for being so polite toward one another, using phrases like 'My good friend from Tennessee,' or 'the distinguished senator from Ohio,' but no longer. Where's John McCain when we need him? Bill Press is host of 'The Bill Press Pod.' He is the author of 'From the Left: A Life in the Crossfire.'
RTÉ News
3 days ago
- Politics
- RTÉ News
How has the approach to handling Iran's nuclear programme changed?
For decades, the international community has wrung its hands over Iran's nuclear programme, fretting over the Islamic dictatorship's potential to build a bomb. Strategies on what to do about it have largely bounced from sticks to carrots and back again with little agreement - to this day - on the best approach. Now Israel, with US support, has chosen the stick. So how did we get here? In testimony to the United States Senate in 1992, the then-director of the US Central Intelligence Agency Robert Gates said that Iran's attempts to acquire nuclear weapons could be a "serious problem" within five years or less. The US started pressurising and incentivising Iran's nuclear suppliers - Russia and China - to scale back cooperation with Tehran, which was largely successful. Iran insisted its nuclear development was for civilian purposes only. But, by the turn of the century, the International Atomic Energy Agency investigations into Iran's undeclared nuclear activities revealed traces of high uranium enrichment at a site in Natanz. And soon, the populist President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was threatening to "wipe Israel off the face of the earth". The US quickly imposed sanctions with the UN Security Council following suit in what would be the first of several rounds of punitive measures imposed by the UN, EU and individual countries. Israel called for the international community to keep the pressure on. Benjamin Netanyahu, then and now prime minister of Israel turned up at the UN General Assembly in 2012 with an illustration of a bomb depicting, he said, Iran's nuclear capability. "The relevant question is not when Iran will get the bomb," he told delegates. "The relevant question is at what stage can we no longer stop Iran from getting the bomb," he said. But then, in 2015, the mood changed. Then-US President Barack Obama oversaw a historic deal offering sanctions relief in exchange for Iran limiting its nuclear capabilities. Known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), it won the support of major powers including all five permanent members of the UN Security Council – the US, UK, France, Russia and China, as well as Germany. Mr Netanyahu remained staunchly opposed. He said the deal "could well threaten the survival of my country and the future of my people". Far from blocking Iran from getting a nuclear bomb, he said, the deal paved the path to a bomb. Donald Trump agreed, and as president in 2018, he pulled out of the deal. Some analysts saw that as a costly move that prompted Tehran to redouble its efforts to acquire a nuclear weapon, away from the prying eyes of international inspectors. But others believed that Iran would have pursued nuclear capability regardless and agreed with Mr Trump that it was a "horrible one-sided deal". Nevertheless, by the time he came to power a second time, his intelligence chiefs appeared to have concluded that Iran was not, in fact, close to developing a nuclear warhead. In March, the Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard told a Senate hearing that the intelligence community assessed that Iran was "not building a nuclear weapon and Supreme leader Khomeini has not authorised the nuclear weapons program that he suspended in 2003". "We continue to monitor closely if Tehran decides to re-authorise its nuclear weapons program," she said. But last week as Israel began its assault on Iran's nuclear and military sites, Israeli officials framed it as a pre-emptive act of self-defence. "If not stopped, Iran could produce a nuclear weapon in a very short time. It could be a year. It would be within a few months, less than a year". "This is a clear and present danger to Israel's survival," he added. In his remarks, Mr Netanyahu appeared to reference a report by the International Atomic Energy Agency that found Iran had enough uranium enriched to 60% purity – a significant step towards the 90% needed – to potentially make nine nuclear bombs. The body also declared Iran to be in breach of its non-proliferation agreements. But that should not be a pretext for military action, said Susi Snyder of the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons. "If every country that was in noncompliance with its non-proliferation agreements - as cited by the IAEA - were bombed, we would have seen bombs blow up all over the planet," she told RTÉ News. "The reason that the IAEA reports is in order to alert the international community to enable a diplomatic solution not to be used as an excuse for attack," she said. But now that Israel has bombed Iran's nuclear sites, what happens next? Trita Parsi, Iran expert at the Quincy Institute, a think tank, expects that the Iranian leadership will be reluctant to engage in further negotiations to limit its nuclear capability. "Support for acquiring a nuclear weapon has surged among Iran's elite and broader society in response to the Israeli bombings," he said "This has raised the political cost for Tehran to agree to limit enrichment to civilian levels, making a deal more difficult," he added. The question now is whether Israel's strikes have dealt a decisive blow to Iran's nuclear ambitions. "Despite inflicting significant damage on the Natanz nuclear site, Israel has failed to penetrate the far more critical and heavily fortified Fordow facility," Mr Parsi said. Rafael Mariano Grossi, the head of the IAEA, said the Friday attack destroyed the above-ground part of the Pilot Fuel Enrichment Plant at Natanz, one of the plants at which Iran was producing uranium enriched up to 60%. However, he said there was no indication of a physical attack on the "underground cascade hall containing part of the Pilot Fuel Enrichment Plant and the main Fuel Enrichment Plant". Much of Iran's secretive programme remains underground. But this conflict is not over yet. World leaders are increasingly anxious to see a return to the negotiating table. President Trump said he wanted Israel and Iran to do a deal. And last night, European ministers reportedly held a call with their Iranian counterpart, urging Tehran to resume talks and refrain from escalating the conflict with Israel, according to Reuters. The international community may once again find itself having to choose between carrots and sticks.
Yahoo
7 days ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
‘Morning Joe': Chris Murphy Says Alex Padilla Incident Is Proof Trump Is Trying to ‘Intimidate This Country'
During his Friday appearance on MSNBC's 'Morning Joe,' Connecticut Senator Chris Murphy warned that America has reached 'a point of no return,' following California Senator Alex Padilla's forceful removal from a Thursday press conference with Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem. Padilla's brutal treatment made waves the moment footage of the incident began circulating online Thursday afternoon, prompting incredulous, incendiary responses from other Democratic politicians. Murphy, for his part, echoed the sentiment of his fellow public officials. 'What a world we live in today, if simply because you raise a voice in service of your constituents, you are going to be met with violence,' Murphy lamented. 'That's what happens in dictatorships, in authoritarian regimes,' the Democratic senator noted. 'We are in a really perilous moment in this country. We're at a point of no return.' You can watch Murphy's full 'Morning Joe' interview yourself in the video below. Murphy also refuted the Trump administration's claims that Padilla was detained because he did not identify himself. 'Senator Padilla identified himself. You can hear it clearly on that video. He apparently was wearing a pullover that said United States Senate on it. And, maybe most importantly, he didn't burst into that room,' Murphy observed. 'He was there with an FBI agent and a member of the National Guard, so members of the administration brought him into that room.' The Connecticut senator conceded that Padilla may have spoken at the press conference without being called upon by Noem, but quickly explained, 'That's not illegal. That is not an excuse for that kind of brutal treatment.' Murphy then took a moment to slam Trump and his administration for their treatment of Padilla. 'What the president is trying to do is to intimidate this country, to try to intimidate members of Congress,' he said. 'I don't think it's going to work.' The Connecticut official concluded his statement moments later by calling out his Republican counterparts who have defended the Trump administration's treatment of Padilla, warning, 'Republicans shouldn't think that they will be protected from violence in the future if they excuse it when Donald Trump uses it on his behalf.' You can watch the full 'Morning Joe' clip in the video above. The post 'Morning Joe': Chris Murphy Says Alex Padilla Incident Is Proof Trump Is Trying to 'Intimidate This Country' | Video appeared first on TheWrap.
