Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Celerity
Celerity's Journal
Celerity's Journal
June 24, 2026
Let’s remember what was revolutionary about the American Revolution.
https://prospect.org/2026/06/23/how-liberals-and-progressives-should-celebrate-americas-250th/
Credit: Francis Chung/POLITICO via AP Images
This is the worst year—and a perfect time—to commemorate the American Revolution. The 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence is arriving at a political moment wholly inconsistent with the Declaration itself. Our own leader is a would-be king, responsible for “a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object,” namely his own power and glory, which he confuses with the nation’s. “Neo-royalist” is an apt term for his conduct of the presidency and his posture toward the world. Donald Trump has so thoroughly appropriated and degraded the celebration of the 250th that liberals and progressives may want to have nothing to do with it. But that’s a mistake.
Precisely because America has strayed so far from its founding heritage, this is a perfect time to celebrate, reflect on our revolutionary beginning, and recognize what the Revolution achieved and what it didn’t. The idea that the American Revolution wasn’t all that revolutionary has long had its advocates on both sides of the ideological spectrum. Some conservatives have argued that the Revolution aimed only to restore traditional British liberties, while some on the left have claimed that it only changed the form of government but left slavery undisturbed and even reinforced social inequalities. Neither of those views gives the Revolution its due.
Although it fell short of abolishing slavery, the Revolution did far more to advance freedom and equality than just restoring traditional liberties. It set in motion radical changes in both social life and government. This is the revolutionary heritage we should be celebrating. The American colonies were societies of inherited rank, where a wide gulf separated the rich and well-born from commoners, and where colonists with connections to the Crown—future Loyalists—enjoyed patronage and privileges. Birth order remained a critical source of inequality: In much of colonial America, as in Britain, the eldest son in a wealthy family inherited the estate under rules of primogeniture and entail. That system of inheritance in Britain had for centuries locked up landed wealth and power in a small aristocracy.
Cherished stories about the Puritans and other early settlers have misled us about the social status of most of those who crossed the Atlantic to the colonies. Data on colonial migrants on British ships show that the great majority came in an unfree condition. Most of the unfree were enslaved Africans, but more than half the whites arriving in the colonies south of New England came as indentured servants or convicts. Like the enslaved, they were bound to forced labor, subject to harsh control by their masters, and liable to be bought and sold. Unlike the enslaved, they were bound for a fixed period, generally five to seven years for indentured servants. At any one moment, according to the late historian Gordon Wood, about half the colonial population was legally unfree.
snip
How Liberals and Progressives Should Celebrate America's 250th
Let’s remember what was revolutionary about the American Revolution.
https://prospect.org/2026/06/23/how-liberals-and-progressives-should-celebrate-americas-250th/
Credit: Francis Chung/POLITICO via AP Images
This is the worst year—and a perfect time—to commemorate the American Revolution. The 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence is arriving at a political moment wholly inconsistent with the Declaration itself. Our own leader is a would-be king, responsible for “a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object,” namely his own power and glory, which he confuses with the nation’s. “Neo-royalist” is an apt term for his conduct of the presidency and his posture toward the world. Donald Trump has so thoroughly appropriated and degraded the celebration of the 250th that liberals and progressives may want to have nothing to do with it. But that’s a mistake.
Precisely because America has strayed so far from its founding heritage, this is a perfect time to celebrate, reflect on our revolutionary beginning, and recognize what the Revolution achieved and what it didn’t. The idea that the American Revolution wasn’t all that revolutionary has long had its advocates on both sides of the ideological spectrum. Some conservatives have argued that the Revolution aimed only to restore traditional British liberties, while some on the left have claimed that it only changed the form of government but left slavery undisturbed and even reinforced social inequalities. Neither of those views gives the Revolution its due.
Although it fell short of abolishing slavery, the Revolution did far more to advance freedom and equality than just restoring traditional liberties. It set in motion radical changes in both social life and government. This is the revolutionary heritage we should be celebrating. The American colonies were societies of inherited rank, where a wide gulf separated the rich and well-born from commoners, and where colonists with connections to the Crown—future Loyalists—enjoyed patronage and privileges. Birth order remained a critical source of inequality: In much of colonial America, as in Britain, the eldest son in a wealthy family inherited the estate under rules of primogeniture and entail. That system of inheritance in Britain had for centuries locked up landed wealth and power in a small aristocracy.
Cherished stories about the Puritans and other early settlers have misled us about the social status of most of those who crossed the Atlantic to the colonies. Data on colonial migrants on British ships show that the great majority came in an unfree condition. Most of the unfree were enslaved Africans, but more than half the whites arriving in the colonies south of New England came as indentured servants or convicts. Like the enslaved, they were bound to forced labor, subject to harsh control by their masters, and liable to be bought and sold. Unlike the enslaved, they were bound for a fixed period, generally five to seven years for indentured servants. At any one moment, according to the late historian Gordon Wood, about half the colonial population was legally unfree.
snip
June 24, 2026
The former Fed chair, who died at the age of 100 this week, deliberately engineered financial markets to be faster and looser. Then they blew up.
https://prospect.org/2026/06/24/alan-greenspan-creator-of-his-own-disaster/
As Federal Reserve Board chairman, Alan Greenspan testifies on Capitol Hill, January 25, 1995, before the Senate Finance Committee. Credit: John Duricka/AP Photo
Alan Greenspan’s obituary writers want to credit him with a single, flattering flaw: that he trusted markets too much. That charge is too generous, because Greenspan never left markets to run themselves. He used the power of the Fed to cultivate and reward financial innovation, making the financial system more fragile for it. Often misunderstood as an Ayn Rand acolyte, Greenspan was not a true libertarian. His creed was not “leave the market alone” as much as it was to use the tools of the government to make the market faster and more inventive—and then stand by to catch it when it falls.
Those actions fueled the soaring inequality and the economic crash of 2008. Greenspan was no bystander watching markets obey some ineffable logic. His obsession with financial innovation set the stage for the crisis. Foundational to Greenspan’s outlook was the idea that financial innovation is the engine of the American economy: The easier it is to buy and sell an asset, the truer its price. Risk itself could be sliced up and sold off until, in theory, nobody was holding too much of it. “No market is ever truly unregulated,” he said. “The self-interest of market participants generates private market regulation.” Perhaps the clearest expression of the Greenspan belief that government must be mobilized to support financial innovation is the case of derivatives.
In the spring of 1998, the heaviest hitters in American economic policy crowded into a conference room at the Treasury to gang up on one woman. Brooksley Born ran the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, and she had committed the sin of noticing that the market in derivatives, custom bets whose value rides on the value of another asset, had swollen from roughly $4.5 trillion to $28 trillion within four years, with essentially no one watching. She didn’t want to ban them, but she did want basic rules to make the market more stable. Greenspan, Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, his deputy Larry Summers, and SEC chair Arthur Levitt shut her down.
Greenspan played the ideologue: Regulation would smother innovation. “You can’t put the cork back in the bottle,” he told the room. He had once informed Born over lunch that he saw no need even for laws against fraud, since a crook would lose his customers soon enough. Born left with nothing to show for her concern. Summers later phoned Born, by her account, with a warning: “I have 13 bankers in my office and they say if you go forward with [derivatives rules] you will cause the worst financial crisis since World War II.” She resigned the next year, and Congress promptly passed a law stripping her agency of any authority over the exact instruments that would detonate in 2008. Five months after the meeting, a hedge fund called Long-Term Capital Management blew up on those very derivatives and needed a Fed-brokered rescue.
snip
Greenspan Was the Creator of His Own Disaster
The former Fed chair, who died at the age of 100 this week, deliberately engineered financial markets to be faster and looser. Then they blew up.
https://prospect.org/2026/06/24/alan-greenspan-creator-of-his-own-disaster/
As Federal Reserve Board chairman, Alan Greenspan testifies on Capitol Hill, January 25, 1995, before the Senate Finance Committee. Credit: John Duricka/AP Photo
Alan Greenspan’s obituary writers want to credit him with a single, flattering flaw: that he trusted markets too much. That charge is too generous, because Greenspan never left markets to run themselves. He used the power of the Fed to cultivate and reward financial innovation, making the financial system more fragile for it. Often misunderstood as an Ayn Rand acolyte, Greenspan was not a true libertarian. His creed was not “leave the market alone” as much as it was to use the tools of the government to make the market faster and more inventive—and then stand by to catch it when it falls.
Those actions fueled the soaring inequality and the economic crash of 2008. Greenspan was no bystander watching markets obey some ineffable logic. His obsession with financial innovation set the stage for the crisis. Foundational to Greenspan’s outlook was the idea that financial innovation is the engine of the American economy: The easier it is to buy and sell an asset, the truer its price. Risk itself could be sliced up and sold off until, in theory, nobody was holding too much of it. “No market is ever truly unregulated,” he said. “The self-interest of market participants generates private market regulation.” Perhaps the clearest expression of the Greenspan belief that government must be mobilized to support financial innovation is the case of derivatives.
In the spring of 1998, the heaviest hitters in American economic policy crowded into a conference room at the Treasury to gang up on one woman. Brooksley Born ran the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, and she had committed the sin of noticing that the market in derivatives, custom bets whose value rides on the value of another asset, had swollen from roughly $4.5 trillion to $28 trillion within four years, with essentially no one watching. She didn’t want to ban them, but she did want basic rules to make the market more stable. Greenspan, Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, his deputy Larry Summers, and SEC chair Arthur Levitt shut her down.
Greenspan played the ideologue: Regulation would smother innovation. “You can’t put the cork back in the bottle,” he told the room. He had once informed Born over lunch that he saw no need even for laws against fraud, since a crook would lose his customers soon enough. Born left with nothing to show for her concern. Summers later phoned Born, by her account, with a warning: “I have 13 bankers in my office and they say if you go forward with [derivatives rules] you will cause the worst financial crisis since World War II.” She resigned the next year, and Congress promptly passed a law stripping her agency of any authority over the exact instruments that would detonate in 2008. Five months after the meeting, a hedge fund called Long-Term Capital Management blew up on those very derivatives and needed a Fed-brokered rescue.
snip
June 24, 2026
Flipping either one or both chambers of Congress could give Democrats enough leverage to force fair votes on privacy reform, but ending warrantless surveillance remains an uphill battle.
https://prospect.org/2026/06/24/reclaiming-majority-one-way-to-end-warrantless-surveillance/
From left, Sens. Mark Kelly (D-AZ), Mark Warner (D-VA), Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-NY), and Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) conduct a news conference in the U.S. Capitol, June 17, 2026. Credit: Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call via AP Images
When I reported out my first story on the fight over Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) in March, it was an open question whether Freedom Caucus Republicans would succeed in linking the reauthorization of the government’s warrantless spying program to the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act, a Jim Crow–coded disenfranchisement bill that would require voters to provide proof of citizenship before registering to vote in federal elections. That was three months ago. Earlier this month, Democrats seemed poised to withhold their support for a 702 extension in protest of President Trump’s decision to name Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) Director Bill Pulte as acting director of national intelligence (DNI). A procedural vote in the Senate to begin debate on Section 702 failed on June 5 amid the backlash over Pulte’s appointment, and the underlying statute lapsed at midnight on June 12.
But congressional Democrats didn’t end up taking FISA hostage; Donald Trump did. Last week, the president doubled down on his pledge to not sign any FISA-related legislation until Congress passes the SAVE Act. Trump’s comments came less than a week after he nominated U.S. Attorney Jay Clayton as permanent DNI, and on the same day as Clayton’s confirmation hearing, which the president instructed his nominee not to attend. Clayton, a longtime Wall Street lawyer who served as SEC chair during Trump’s first term, lacks the national security experience required of the role. He also recently appeared on CNBC’s Squawk Box alleging that there were major problems with recent elections in California after Trump baselessly suggested there had been fraud. But as my colleague Bob Kuttner observed, intelligence hawks still took the bait, welcoming Clayton’s nomination with open arms, until Trump put him on ice to get Pulte in there on an interim basis.
In an interview with the Prospect, longtime privacy advocate Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) said the only way to protect Americans’ rights is with “black letter law” that establishes a check on whoever is in power. “If Congress waits around for Trump now,” he said, “it is a recipe for bedlam.” Wyden’s view is that the appointment of Pulte, who has already begun firing intelligence officials deemed insufficiently loyal, is yet another reason why “every single Democrat ought to refuse to reauthorize Section 702 without new safeguards for Americans’ rights.” But in addition to his concerns over Pulte, whose potential for abuse is “almost unlimited,” Wyden believes many of the questions that have since been raised about Clayton are “appropriate.” “I’m the first United States senator in history to be elected by mail, so I’m very concerned about what Clayton has said publicly,” Wyden told the Prospect.
Negotiations over Section 702 reauthorization have stalled. Those hawkish Democrats are desperate to fold, but not until Pulte goes and 702 is separated from SAVE. The statutory lapse, which is unprecedented but does not end Section 702 wiretap authority by itself, could have been avoided if Republican leadership allowed fair votes on privacy reform. Instead, they attempted to ram through multiple 702 extension proposals, all notably lacking in meaningful Fourth Amendment protections, and struggled to navigate the chaos Trump has sowed with his DNI nominees and SAVE Act antics. The surveillance authority has been legally extended to next April, after the 2026 midterm elections. If Republican leadership will not relent in its efforts to pass a (mostly) clean extension of Section 702, what sense is there in Democrats ceding so much as an inch of ground in the fight over warrantless surveillance before they regain control of Congress?
snip
Reclaiming the Majority Is One Way to End Warrantless Surveillance
Flipping either one or both chambers of Congress could give Democrats enough leverage to force fair votes on privacy reform, but ending warrantless surveillance remains an uphill battle.
https://prospect.org/2026/06/24/reclaiming-majority-one-way-to-end-warrantless-surveillance/
From left, Sens. Mark Kelly (D-AZ), Mark Warner (D-VA), Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-NY), and Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) conduct a news conference in the U.S. Capitol, June 17, 2026. Credit: Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call via AP Images
When I reported out my first story on the fight over Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) in March, it was an open question whether Freedom Caucus Republicans would succeed in linking the reauthorization of the government’s warrantless spying program to the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act, a Jim Crow–coded disenfranchisement bill that would require voters to provide proof of citizenship before registering to vote in federal elections. That was three months ago. Earlier this month, Democrats seemed poised to withhold their support for a 702 extension in protest of President Trump’s decision to name Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) Director Bill Pulte as acting director of national intelligence (DNI). A procedural vote in the Senate to begin debate on Section 702 failed on June 5 amid the backlash over Pulte’s appointment, and the underlying statute lapsed at midnight on June 12.
But congressional Democrats didn’t end up taking FISA hostage; Donald Trump did. Last week, the president doubled down on his pledge to not sign any FISA-related legislation until Congress passes the SAVE Act. Trump’s comments came less than a week after he nominated U.S. Attorney Jay Clayton as permanent DNI, and on the same day as Clayton’s confirmation hearing, which the president instructed his nominee not to attend. Clayton, a longtime Wall Street lawyer who served as SEC chair during Trump’s first term, lacks the national security experience required of the role. He also recently appeared on CNBC’s Squawk Box alleging that there were major problems with recent elections in California after Trump baselessly suggested there had been fraud. But as my colleague Bob Kuttner observed, intelligence hawks still took the bait, welcoming Clayton’s nomination with open arms, until Trump put him on ice to get Pulte in there on an interim basis.
In an interview with the Prospect, longtime privacy advocate Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) said the only way to protect Americans’ rights is with “black letter law” that establishes a check on whoever is in power. “If Congress waits around for Trump now,” he said, “it is a recipe for bedlam.” Wyden’s view is that the appointment of Pulte, who has already begun firing intelligence officials deemed insufficiently loyal, is yet another reason why “every single Democrat ought to refuse to reauthorize Section 702 without new safeguards for Americans’ rights.” But in addition to his concerns over Pulte, whose potential for abuse is “almost unlimited,” Wyden believes many of the questions that have since been raised about Clayton are “appropriate.” “I’m the first United States senator in history to be elected by mail, so I’m very concerned about what Clayton has said publicly,” Wyden told the Prospect.
Negotiations over Section 702 reauthorization have stalled. Those hawkish Democrats are desperate to fold, but not until Pulte goes and 702 is separated from SAVE. The statutory lapse, which is unprecedented but does not end Section 702 wiretap authority by itself, could have been avoided if Republican leadership allowed fair votes on privacy reform. Instead, they attempted to ram through multiple 702 extension proposals, all notably lacking in meaningful Fourth Amendment protections, and struggled to navigate the chaos Trump has sowed with his DNI nominees and SAVE Act antics. The surveillance authority has been legally extended to next April, after the 2026 midterm elections. If Republican leadership will not relent in its efforts to pass a (mostly) clean extension of Section 702, what sense is there in Democrats ceding so much as an inch of ground in the fight over warrantless surveillance before they regain control of Congress?
snip
June 24, 2026
The primary federal regulators of stablecoins are finalizing their rules for GENIUS Act implementation and, much to the chagrin of the banking industry, crypto firms are getting everything they want.
https://prospect.org/2026/06/24/crypto-industry-gets-its-way-on-genius-act-rulemaking/
Credit: Hammad Khan/iStock
It has been almost one year since the passage of the crypto industry’s crowning legislative achievement thus far, the Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for U.S. Stablecoins (GENIUS) Act, which means that the deadline set by Congress for federal regulators to submit their rules for implementation is rapidly approaching. Proponents of the GENIUS Act argue that it will provide a comprehensive regulatory framework for stablecoins, protecting consumers and investors. But criticism continues to pour in from a group of unlikely bedfellows, namely, several prominent progressive lawmakers and banking industry groups worried about the dangers shaky stablecoin regulation poses to the traditional financial system. The pushback from the banking sector on crypto-friendly GENIUS implementation is just one battle in a larger war the two industries are currently waging in the halls of the federal government. Wall Street may be holding its own in Congress—the Clarity Act, another industry-backed crypto bill drawing major ire from the banks, is currently stalled in the Senate ahead of a potentially fatal August recess—but the GENIUS Act proposals suggest crypto may be pulling ahead in the fight to control major financial regulatory agencies.
Unlike other cryptocurrencies, stablecoins are pegged to a traditional marker of value, almost always the U.S. dollar, and supposedly backed by real assets like cash, stocks, real estate, etc. The promise to customers is that they will get their money back if they want to get rid of their stablecoin. Much like a pre–New Deal bank, stablecoins are inherently vulnerable to a run. If the underlying asset suffers some bad news, customers are liable to panic and try to cash in their stablecoins all at the same time, forcing a fire sale at discount prices. But stablecoins also come with risks those banks did not. Since they act as a sort of middleman between crypto and the rest of the world, if there’s a panic in the crypto markets—which happens all the time—customers may want out of their stablecoin accounts too, and more panic ensues. Either way—if there’s worry in the underlying assets or in the crypto world—nothing can stop a run and prevent customers from losing money.
Sure enough, virtually every major stablecoin has lost its peg on multiple occasions. In 2022, TerraUSD, then the third-largest stablecoin, collapsed entirely when its “algorithmic” peg system, designed to get around the need for real assets with computer trickery, turned out to be a recipe for hyperinflation at the first sign of trouble. The GENIUS Act does at least exclude similar algorithmic coins from the definition of a “payment stablecoin,” but even bona fide fiat-backed stablecoins are often stumbled. The largest stablecoin, Tether, saw its value fall after the Terra crash and has further wobbled over questions around its books, which turned out to include a lot of risky bets on Chinese real estate. The FDIC had to step in to save Circle after the 2023 collapse of Silicon Valley Bank, where the stablecoin held $3.3 billion in reserve assets. “Stablecoin, despite their name, haven’t proven to be all that stable,” explains Mark Hays, the associate director for cryptocurrency and financial technology at Americans for Financial Reform. Even so—thanks in large part to the passage of the GENIUS Act and President Trump’s crusade to legitimize crypto—stablecoin’s presence in the financial world exploded over the past year, bringing all of its volatility along with it.
Now, as the Clarity Act, another industry-backed crypto bill, bobs and weaves its way through the Senate, federal agencies have a chance to address some of the risks associated with the weak regulatory scheme in the GENIUS Act. “Those rulemakings in a normal world would be an opportunity to fix or strengthen those measures or maybe close some gaps,” explains Hays. But rules proposed by regulators like the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) would do the opposite. “We’re seeing an enabling of the industry’s wish list when it comes to how they want to balance these scales,” Hays told the Prospect. Leading the charge is Jonathan Gould, Trump’s comptroller of the currency, whose office will be one of the main regulators of stablecoins and who worked as the chief legal officer at a blockchain firm during the Biden administration. Gould has already ushered through a number of preliminary trust bank charters for stablecoin issuers like Crypto.com, Ripple, and Circle after passage of the GENIUS Act, which establishes trust banks chartering as one of several pathways to become a permitted payment stablecoin issuer (PPSI). The Trump family’s crypto firm, World Liberty Financial, also applied for a trust bank charter in January. Gould is expected to announce his decision soon, which two anonymous OCC staffers told NOTUS last week is all but guaranteed to go in the president’s favor.
snip
Fri Jul 18, 2025, 10:36 PM
https://www.democraticunderground.com/100220495075
The 18 Dem Senate Yeas are below as well
https://clerk.house.gov/Votes/2025200
Aguilar Democratic California Yea
Amo Democratic Rhode Island Yea
Bell Democratic Missouri Yea
Bera Democratic California Yea
Boyle (PA) Democratic Pennsylvania Yea
Brownley Democratic California Yea
Budzinski Democratic Illinois Yea
Bynum Democratic Oregon Yea
Carbajal Democratic California Yea
Cherfilus-McCormick Democratic Florida Yea
Clark (MA) Democratic Massachusetts Yea
Conaway Democratic New Jersey Yea
Correa Democratic California Yea
Costa Democratic California Yea
Craig Democratic Minnesota Yea
Crockett Democratic Texas Yea
Cuellar Democratic Texas Yea
Davis (NC) Democratic North Carolina Yea
DelBene Democratic Washington Yea
Espaillat Democratic New York Yea
Fields Democratic Louisiana Yea
Figures Democratic Alabama Yea
Frankel, Lois Democratic Florida Yea
Garcia (CA) Democratic California Yea
Gillen Democratic New York Yea
Golden (ME) Democratic Maine Yea
Goldman (NY) Democratic New York Yea
Gomez Democratic California Yea
Gonzalez, V. Democratic Texas Yea
Goodlander Democratic New Hampshire Yea
Gottheimer Democratic New Jersey Yea
Gray Democratic California Yea
Harder (CA) Democratic California Yea
Himes Democratic Connecticut Yea
Horsford Democratic Nevada Yea
Houlahan Democratic Pennsylvania Yea
Jackson (IL) Democratic Illinois Yea
Jeffries Democratic New York Yea
Johnson (TX) Democratic Texas Yea
Kamlager-Dove Democratic California Yea
Kelly (IL) Democratic Illinois Yea
Kennedy (NY) Democratic New York Yea
Khanna Democratic California Yea
Krishnamoorthi Democratic Illinois Yea
Landsman Democratic Ohio Yea
Larsen (WA) Democratic Washington Yea
Latimer Democratic New York Yea
Lee (NV) Democratic Nevada Yea
Levin Democratic California Yea
Liccardo Democratic California Yea
Lieu Democratic California Yea
Lofgren Democratic California Yea
Magaziner Democratic Rhode Island Yea
Mannion Democratic New York Yea
Matsui Democratic California Yea
McBath Democratic Georgia Yea
McClain Delaney Democratic Maryland Yea
McDonald Rivet Democratic Michigan Yea
McGarvey Democratic Kentucky Yea
Meeks Democratic New York Yea
Menendez Democratic New Jersey Yea
Meng Democratic New York Yea
Min Democratic California Yea
Moskowitz Democratic Florida Yea
Moulton Democratic Massachusetts Yea
Olszewski Democratic Maryland Yea
Panetta Democratic California Yea
Pappas Democratic New Hampshire Yea
Pelosi Democratic California Yea
Perez Democratic Washington Yea
Peters Democratic California Yea
Pettersen Democratic Colorado Yea
Pou Democratic New Jersey Yea
Quigley Democratic Illinois Yea
Riley (NY) Democratic New York Yea
Ruiz Democratic California Yea
Ryan Democratic New York Yea
Schneider Democratic Illinois Yea
Scholten Democratic Michigan Yea
Schrier Democratic Washington Yea
Sewell Democratic Alabama Yea
Sherrill Democratic New Jersey Yea
Sorensen Democratic Illinois Yea
Soto Democratic Florida Yea
Stanton Democratic Arizona Yea
Stevens Democratic Michigan Yea
Strickland Democratic Washington Yea
Subramanyam Democratic Virginia Yea
Suozzi Democratic New York Yea
Swalwell Democratic California Yea
Sykes Democratic Ohio Yea
Thanedar Democratic Michigan Yea
Thompson (CA) Democratic California Yea
Titus Democratic Nevada Yea
Torres (NY) Democratic New York Yea
Trahan Democratic Massachusetts Yea
Tran Democratic California Yea
Vasquez Democratic New Mexico Yea
Veasey Democratic Texas Yea
Vindman Democratic Virginia Yea
Wasserman Schultz Democratic Florida Yea
Whitesides Democratic California Yea
the 18 Dem Senator Yeas
https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_votes/vote1191/vote_119_1_00318.htm#position
YEAs
Alsobrooks (D-MD)
Booker (D-NJ)
Cortez Masto (D-NV)
Fetterman (D-PA)
Gallego (D-AZ)
Gillibrand (D-NY)
Hassan (D-NH)
Heinrich (D-NM)
Hickenlooper (D-CO)
Kim (D-NJ)
Lujan (D-NM)
Ossoff (D-GA)
Padilla (D-CA)
Rosen (D-NV)
Schiff (D-CA)
Slotkin (D-MI)
Warner (D-VA)
Warnock (D-GA)
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-signs-genius-act-crypto-bill/
Crypto Industry Gets Its Way on GENIUS Act Rulemaking
The primary federal regulators of stablecoins are finalizing their rules for GENIUS Act implementation and, much to the chagrin of the banking industry, crypto firms are getting everything they want.
https://prospect.org/2026/06/24/crypto-industry-gets-its-way-on-genius-act-rulemaking/
Credit: Hammad Khan/iStock
It has been almost one year since the passage of the crypto industry’s crowning legislative achievement thus far, the Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for U.S. Stablecoins (GENIUS) Act, which means that the deadline set by Congress for federal regulators to submit their rules for implementation is rapidly approaching. Proponents of the GENIUS Act argue that it will provide a comprehensive regulatory framework for stablecoins, protecting consumers and investors. But criticism continues to pour in from a group of unlikely bedfellows, namely, several prominent progressive lawmakers and banking industry groups worried about the dangers shaky stablecoin regulation poses to the traditional financial system. The pushback from the banking sector on crypto-friendly GENIUS implementation is just one battle in a larger war the two industries are currently waging in the halls of the federal government. Wall Street may be holding its own in Congress—the Clarity Act, another industry-backed crypto bill drawing major ire from the banks, is currently stalled in the Senate ahead of a potentially fatal August recess—but the GENIUS Act proposals suggest crypto may be pulling ahead in the fight to control major financial regulatory agencies.
Unlike other cryptocurrencies, stablecoins are pegged to a traditional marker of value, almost always the U.S. dollar, and supposedly backed by real assets like cash, stocks, real estate, etc. The promise to customers is that they will get their money back if they want to get rid of their stablecoin. Much like a pre–New Deal bank, stablecoins are inherently vulnerable to a run. If the underlying asset suffers some bad news, customers are liable to panic and try to cash in their stablecoins all at the same time, forcing a fire sale at discount prices. But stablecoins also come with risks those banks did not. Since they act as a sort of middleman between crypto and the rest of the world, if there’s a panic in the crypto markets—which happens all the time—customers may want out of their stablecoin accounts too, and more panic ensues. Either way—if there’s worry in the underlying assets or in the crypto world—nothing can stop a run and prevent customers from losing money.
Sure enough, virtually every major stablecoin has lost its peg on multiple occasions. In 2022, TerraUSD, then the third-largest stablecoin, collapsed entirely when its “algorithmic” peg system, designed to get around the need for real assets with computer trickery, turned out to be a recipe for hyperinflation at the first sign of trouble. The GENIUS Act does at least exclude similar algorithmic coins from the definition of a “payment stablecoin,” but even bona fide fiat-backed stablecoins are often stumbled. The largest stablecoin, Tether, saw its value fall after the Terra crash and has further wobbled over questions around its books, which turned out to include a lot of risky bets on Chinese real estate. The FDIC had to step in to save Circle after the 2023 collapse of Silicon Valley Bank, where the stablecoin held $3.3 billion in reserve assets. “Stablecoin, despite their name, haven’t proven to be all that stable,” explains Mark Hays, the associate director for cryptocurrency and financial technology at Americans for Financial Reform. Even so—thanks in large part to the passage of the GENIUS Act and President Trump’s crusade to legitimize crypto—stablecoin’s presence in the financial world exploded over the past year, bringing all of its volatility along with it.
Now, as the Clarity Act, another industry-backed crypto bill, bobs and weaves its way through the Senate, federal agencies have a chance to address some of the risks associated with the weak regulatory scheme in the GENIUS Act. “Those rulemakings in a normal world would be an opportunity to fix or strengthen those measures or maybe close some gaps,” explains Hays. But rules proposed by regulators like the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) would do the opposite. “We’re seeing an enabling of the industry’s wish list when it comes to how they want to balance these scales,” Hays told the Prospect. Leading the charge is Jonathan Gould, Trump’s comptroller of the currency, whose office will be one of the main regulators of stablecoins and who worked as the chief legal officer at a blockchain firm during the Biden administration. Gould has already ushered through a number of preliminary trust bank charters for stablecoin issuers like Crypto.com, Ripple, and Circle after passage of the GENIUS Act, which establishes trust banks chartering as one of several pathways to become a permitted payment stablecoin issuer (PPSI). The Trump family’s crypto firm, World Liberty Financial, also applied for a trust bank charter in January. Gould is expected to announce his decision soon, which two anonymous OCC staffers told NOTUS last week is all but guaranteed to go in the president’s favor.
snip
Fri Jul 18, 2025, 10:36 PM
https://www.democraticunderground.com/100220495075
The 18 Dem Senate Yeas are below as well
https://clerk.house.gov/Votes/2025200
Aguilar Democratic California Yea
Amo Democratic Rhode Island Yea
Bell Democratic Missouri Yea
Bera Democratic California Yea
Boyle (PA) Democratic Pennsylvania Yea
Brownley Democratic California Yea
Budzinski Democratic Illinois Yea
Bynum Democratic Oregon Yea
Carbajal Democratic California Yea
Cherfilus-McCormick Democratic Florida Yea
Clark (MA) Democratic Massachusetts Yea
Conaway Democratic New Jersey Yea
Correa Democratic California Yea
Costa Democratic California Yea
Craig Democratic Minnesota Yea
Crockett Democratic Texas Yea
Cuellar Democratic Texas Yea
Davis (NC) Democratic North Carolina Yea
DelBene Democratic Washington Yea
Espaillat Democratic New York Yea
Fields Democratic Louisiana Yea
Figures Democratic Alabama Yea
Frankel, Lois Democratic Florida Yea
Garcia (CA) Democratic California Yea
Gillen Democratic New York Yea
Golden (ME) Democratic Maine Yea
Goldman (NY) Democratic New York Yea
Gomez Democratic California Yea
Gonzalez, V. Democratic Texas Yea
Goodlander Democratic New Hampshire Yea
Gottheimer Democratic New Jersey Yea
Gray Democratic California Yea
Harder (CA) Democratic California Yea
Himes Democratic Connecticut Yea
Horsford Democratic Nevada Yea
Houlahan Democratic Pennsylvania Yea
Jackson (IL) Democratic Illinois Yea
Jeffries Democratic New York Yea
Johnson (TX) Democratic Texas Yea
Kamlager-Dove Democratic California Yea
Kelly (IL) Democratic Illinois Yea
Kennedy (NY) Democratic New York Yea
Khanna Democratic California Yea
Krishnamoorthi Democratic Illinois Yea
Landsman Democratic Ohio Yea
Larsen (WA) Democratic Washington Yea
Latimer Democratic New York Yea
Lee (NV) Democratic Nevada Yea
Levin Democratic California Yea
Liccardo Democratic California Yea
Lieu Democratic California Yea
Lofgren Democratic California Yea
Magaziner Democratic Rhode Island Yea
Mannion Democratic New York Yea
Matsui Democratic California Yea
McBath Democratic Georgia Yea
McClain Delaney Democratic Maryland Yea
McDonald Rivet Democratic Michigan Yea
McGarvey Democratic Kentucky Yea
Meeks Democratic New York Yea
Menendez Democratic New Jersey Yea
Meng Democratic New York Yea
Min Democratic California Yea
Moskowitz Democratic Florida Yea
Moulton Democratic Massachusetts Yea
Olszewski Democratic Maryland Yea
Panetta Democratic California Yea
Pappas Democratic New Hampshire Yea
Pelosi Democratic California Yea
Perez Democratic Washington Yea
Peters Democratic California Yea
Pettersen Democratic Colorado Yea
Pou Democratic New Jersey Yea
Quigley Democratic Illinois Yea
Riley (NY) Democratic New York Yea
Ruiz Democratic California Yea
Ryan Democratic New York Yea
Schneider Democratic Illinois Yea
Scholten Democratic Michigan Yea
Schrier Democratic Washington Yea
Sewell Democratic Alabama Yea
Sherrill Democratic New Jersey Yea
Sorensen Democratic Illinois Yea
Soto Democratic Florida Yea
Stanton Democratic Arizona Yea
Stevens Democratic Michigan Yea
Strickland Democratic Washington Yea
Subramanyam Democratic Virginia Yea
Suozzi Democratic New York Yea
Swalwell Democratic California Yea
Sykes Democratic Ohio Yea
Thanedar Democratic Michigan Yea
Thompson (CA) Democratic California Yea
Titus Democratic Nevada Yea
Torres (NY) Democratic New York Yea
Trahan Democratic Massachusetts Yea
Tran Democratic California Yea
Vasquez Democratic New Mexico Yea
Veasey Democratic Texas Yea
Vindman Democratic Virginia Yea
Wasserman Schultz Democratic Florida Yea
Whitesides Democratic California Yea
the 18 Dem Senator Yeas
https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_votes/vote1191/vote_119_1_00318.htm#position
YEAs
Alsobrooks (D-MD)
Booker (D-NJ)
Cortez Masto (D-NV)
Fetterman (D-PA)
Gallego (D-AZ)
Gillibrand (D-NY)
Hassan (D-NH)
Heinrich (D-NM)
Hickenlooper (D-CO)
Kim (D-NJ)
Lujan (D-NM)
Ossoff (D-GA)
Padilla (D-CA)
Rosen (D-NV)
Schiff (D-CA)
Slotkin (D-MI)
Warner (D-VA)
Warnock (D-GA)
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-signs-genius-act-crypto-bill/
June 24, 2026
https://www.cbsnews.com/newyork/news/nyc-congressional-primary-zohran-mamdani-endorsements/
New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani, in an effort to get more like-minded political allies in Washington, endorsed three left-of-center candidates in the congressional Democratic primaries covering the city, including two who were running against sitting congressmen. CBS News projected all three — Brad Lander, Claire Valdez and Darializa Avila Chevalier — will win their primaries.
Warning sign for establishment politicians
It was a major victory for Mamdani, a democratic socialist. When campaigning Tuesday, Mamdani said it was not a question of electing more Democrats, it was a question of electing "better Democrats." CBS News New York political reporter Marcia Kramer says that in effect, he was tapping into recent a poll finding that New York voters were fed up with politics as usual and were ready to clean house.
Half of the respondents in a poll by the Honan Strategy Group said they favored electing a new generation of younger, more progressive candidates willing to challenge the party establishment. Kramer says these victories are blaring warning sign for establishment politicians like Gov. Kathy Hochul and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries. It means voters are tired of the dysfunction in Washington and the inability of Democrats to stand up to what some see as the excesses of the Trump administration.
It also means that some long-serving politicians — like Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, who has been in the Senate for 27 years — will have a target on his back when he is up for reelection in 2028. It could provide the impetus for Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who is projected to win her primary, to challenge Schumer if he decides to seek reelection.
snip
I am over the moon: All 3 Mamdani-backed candidates projected to win NY primaries.
https://www.cbsnews.com/newyork/news/nyc-congressional-primary-zohran-mamdani-endorsements/
New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani, in an effort to get more like-minded political allies in Washington, endorsed three left-of-center candidates in the congressional Democratic primaries covering the city, including two who were running against sitting congressmen. CBS News projected all three — Brad Lander, Claire Valdez and Darializa Avila Chevalier — will win their primaries.
Warning sign for establishment politicians
It was a major victory for Mamdani, a democratic socialist. When campaigning Tuesday, Mamdani said it was not a question of electing more Democrats, it was a question of electing "better Democrats." CBS News New York political reporter Marcia Kramer says that in effect, he was tapping into recent a poll finding that New York voters were fed up with politics as usual and were ready to clean house.
Half of the respondents in a poll by the Honan Strategy Group said they favored electing a new generation of younger, more progressive candidates willing to challenge the party establishment. Kramer says these victories are blaring warning sign for establishment politicians like Gov. Kathy Hochul and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries. It means voters are tired of the dysfunction in Washington and the inability of Democrats to stand up to what some see as the excesses of the Trump administration.
It also means that some long-serving politicians — like Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, who has been in the Senate for 27 years — will have a target on his back when he is up for reelection in 2028. It could provide the impetus for Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who is projected to win her primary, to challenge Schumer if he decides to seek reelection.
snip
June 24, 2026
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/clyedgnyn4mo
Eight people who US prosecutors say have ties to Antifa have collectively been sentenced to 450 years in prison for their roles in a riot outside an immigration detention centre in Texas. A former US Marine Corps reservist, who was convicted of attempted murder of a law enforcement officer, was sentenced to 100 years in prison. The others' sentences range between 30 to 70 years, according to the justice department.
Last year President Donald Trump designated Antifa - short for anti-fascist - a "domestic terrorist organisation" . A US judge called their actions on 4 July "an assault on democracy", while their families condemned the length of their sentences. "The sentences handed down today make clear that Antifa terrorists who attack law enforcement and federal facilities will face swift and uncompromising justice," Acting US Attorney General Todd Blanche said in a statement, condemning violent extremism.
The US Department of Justice (DOJ) said the North Texas Antifa Cell operatives began shooting off and throwing fireworks at the facility in Prairieland, just south of Dallas, on the Independence Day holiday last summer, as well as vandalising vehicles and a guard kiosk on the property. The eight were convicted on an array of charges, including rioting, using weapons and explosives, providing material support to terrorists, and obstruction.
Benjamin Hanil Song, the purported leader of the group, was sentenced to 100 years in prison. According to the justice department, he had faced a minimum penalty of 20 years. Song said in a written statement on Tuesday that he fired his gun because he believed the police officer was preparing to shoot a protester, according to multiple media outlets and an advocacy group for the defendants.
snip
https://theintercept.com/2026/05/15/podcast-trump-counterterrorism-strategy/
IN 16 pages, the Trump administration’s new official counterterrorism strategy outlines in broad terms who it views as terrorist threats and priority targets, ranging from anti-fascist activists to ISIS and so-called narco-terrorists. The line “We will find you, and we will kill you” appears in the memo. “[The] strategy brings together Trump’s war on the wider world, which stretches from interventions and wars in Yemen and Somalia to Venezuela and the Caribbean Sea,” says Intercept senior reporter Nick Turse.
“It combines it with the administration’s war on dissent at home which has also been lethal, as we saw on the streets of Minneapolis. … We can consider this strategy a new declaration of war by the Trump administration on its enemies both foreign and domestic, both real and imagined.” This week on The Intercept Briefing, host Jessica Washington and colleagues Turse and Noah Hurowitz, who covers federal law enforcement, dissect how the Trump administration is painting anyone it wants to go after — state and non-state actors — as terrorists. “Fundamentally, this document is a list of the administration’s enemies and a promise of what they’re going to do to them,” says Hurowitz. “This anti-terror imperative makes for a very flexible and useful means of tamping down on dissent.”
“We’re not just talking about rhetoric here,” says Washington. “We’ve seen the administration actually use these terms in action when it comes to the boat strikes in the Caribbean and Pacific that killed nearly 200 people as of early May.” “The actual legal justification for the strikes is, like so much else, secret,” says Turse, who has been covering the attacks on so-called narco-terrorists. “We’re talking about a fake war in which the enemies aren’t even read into the fact that they’re in an armed conflict with the United States.” He adds, “It’s really built on a quarter-century of executive overreach and targeted killings around the world.
It’s the price of Congress allowing Presidents Bush, Obama, Biden, and Trump to hunt and kill people by drone from Afghanistan and Pakistan to Yemen and Somalia. It took this legally dubious, at best, post-9/11 drone war and laid the groundwork for a completely illegal one in the Caribbean and the Pacific Ocean.” “Say what you will about the people around President Trump,” Hurowitz notes, “but they have proved very adept at finding levers of power and levers of pain to go after their enemies.”
snip
8 sentenced to 450 years in prison over anti-ICE riot where officer was shot + "We Will Find You and We Will Kill You"
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/clyedgnyn4mo
Eight people who US prosecutors say have ties to Antifa have collectively been sentenced to 450 years in prison for their roles in a riot outside an immigration detention centre in Texas. A former US Marine Corps reservist, who was convicted of attempted murder of a law enforcement officer, was sentenced to 100 years in prison. The others' sentences range between 30 to 70 years, according to the justice department.
Last year President Donald Trump designated Antifa - short for anti-fascist - a "domestic terrorist organisation" . A US judge called their actions on 4 July "an assault on democracy", while their families condemned the length of their sentences. "The sentences handed down today make clear that Antifa terrorists who attack law enforcement and federal facilities will face swift and uncompromising justice," Acting US Attorney General Todd Blanche said in a statement, condemning violent extremism.
The US Department of Justice (DOJ) said the North Texas Antifa Cell operatives began shooting off and throwing fireworks at the facility in Prairieland, just south of Dallas, on the Independence Day holiday last summer, as well as vandalising vehicles and a guard kiosk on the property. The eight were convicted on an array of charges, including rioting, using weapons and explosives, providing material support to terrorists, and obstruction.
Benjamin Hanil Song, the purported leader of the group, was sentenced to 100 years in prison. According to the justice department, he had faced a minimum penalty of 20 years. Song said in a written statement on Tuesday that he fired his gun because he believed the police officer was preparing to shoot a protester, according to multiple media outlets and an advocacy group for the defendants.
snip
https://theintercept.com/2026/05/15/podcast-trump-counterterrorism-strategy/
IN 16 pages, the Trump administration’s new official counterterrorism strategy outlines in broad terms who it views as terrorist threats and priority targets, ranging from anti-fascist activists to ISIS and so-called narco-terrorists. The line “We will find you, and we will kill you” appears in the memo. “[The] strategy brings together Trump’s war on the wider world, which stretches from interventions and wars in Yemen and Somalia to Venezuela and the Caribbean Sea,” says Intercept senior reporter Nick Turse.
“It combines it with the administration’s war on dissent at home which has also been lethal, as we saw on the streets of Minneapolis. … We can consider this strategy a new declaration of war by the Trump administration on its enemies both foreign and domestic, both real and imagined.” This week on The Intercept Briefing, host Jessica Washington and colleagues Turse and Noah Hurowitz, who covers federal law enforcement, dissect how the Trump administration is painting anyone it wants to go after — state and non-state actors — as terrorists. “Fundamentally, this document is a list of the administration’s enemies and a promise of what they’re going to do to them,” says Hurowitz. “This anti-terror imperative makes for a very flexible and useful means of tamping down on dissent.”
“We’re not just talking about rhetoric here,” says Washington. “We’ve seen the administration actually use these terms in action when it comes to the boat strikes in the Caribbean and Pacific that killed nearly 200 people as of early May.” “The actual legal justification for the strikes is, like so much else, secret,” says Turse, who has been covering the attacks on so-called narco-terrorists. “We’re talking about a fake war in which the enemies aren’t even read into the fact that they’re in an armed conflict with the United States.” He adds, “It’s really built on a quarter-century of executive overreach and targeted killings around the world.
It’s the price of Congress allowing Presidents Bush, Obama, Biden, and Trump to hunt and kill people by drone from Afghanistan and Pakistan to Yemen and Somalia. It took this legally dubious, at best, post-9/11 drone war and laid the groundwork for a completely illegal one in the Caribbean and the Pacific Ocean.” “Say what you will about the people around President Trump,” Hurowitz notes, “but they have proved very adept at finding levers of power and levers of pain to go after their enemies.”
snip
June 23, 2026
https://prospect.org/2026/06/23/has-netanyahu-destroyed-us-israel-alliance/
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu holds a news conference in Jerusalem, June 15, 2026. Credit: Ronen Zvulun, Pool Photo via AP
Donald Trump’s Iran deal—or perhaps we should say “capitulation”—is a fiasco for the United States and Trump’s presidency, but it is widely viewed as a catastrophe for Israel. The more Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu tries to undermine the deal by mounting attacks on southern Lebanon, the more he enrages Trump, who keeps pointing out that the U.S. is Israel’s only ally in the world. Israel is now more isolated than ever. Israel was deliberately excluded from negotiations with Iran, because Israel was known to oppose any deal that would shorten the war. Nonetheless, in the deal the U.S. bound Israel to cease attacks on Hezbollah in Lebanon.
Recent polls conducted in Israel show that some 92 percent of Israelis believe that Iran won the war. Comparable majorities say Netanyahu’s launching of the war was a calamitous mistake and achieved none of its objectives. Another poll, by Israel’s Channel 12, shows that just 13 percent of Israelis now trust the once-popular Trump to safeguard Israeli interests. Netanyahu contended that the war would topple the Iranian regime, end its support for Hezbollah, wipe out Iran’s long-range missiles, eliminate its nuclear threat, and leave Israel more influential in the region and more secure. Instead, the war left the Iranian regime stronger than ever, and the settlement allowed Iran to keep its ballistic missiles, plus $300 billion in reconstruction funding. Iran gets to keep financing Hezbollah, while Israel is not supposed to attack them.
The Financial Times quotes Dan Shapiro, former U.S. ambassador to Israel, referring to Trump and Netanyahu: “Both of them were high on their own supply, misjudged what they could achieve … and squandered the most favourable strategic position.” The deal also creates something that all Israeli leaders have hitherto worked assiduously to avoid: serious “daylight” between Washington and Jerusalem. While Netanyahu’s freelancing has enraged Trump and JD Vance, collateral damage from Netanyahu’s brutal actions in Gaza and the West Bank has increasingly alienated U.S. public opinion. AIPAC and affiliated political action committees have gone from the interest group that elected officials dare not cross to being so unpopular that, as my colleague David Dayen recently reported, they have been systematically hiding much of their political spending.
What’s not clear is how all this will affect Netanyahu’s chances to stay in office in this fall’s elections, and hence delay yet further a looming corruption trial that has been hanging over his head for years, or the long-term U.S.-Israel relationship once Trump and Netanyahu are gone. Israelis of all political stripes, including supporters and opponents of Netanyahu, as well as supporters and opponents of a two-state solution to Palestine, view the war and the terms of its settlement as a disaster. Polls have consistently shown that Netanyahu is likely to lose this fall’s election, but his opposition is divided. Virtually all Israeli politicians, like the broad Israeli public, are uneasy about the turn of events in Iran and mistrusting of Trump. The joint Trump-Netanyahu misadventure and miscalculation in Iran leaves Israel further away from regional security.
snip
Has Netanyahu Destroyed the U.S.-Israel Alliance? Netanyahu talked Trump into a war on Iran. The world paid the price.
https://prospect.org/2026/06/23/has-netanyahu-destroyed-us-israel-alliance/
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu holds a news conference in Jerusalem, June 15, 2026. Credit: Ronen Zvulun, Pool Photo via AP
Donald Trump’s Iran deal—or perhaps we should say “capitulation”—is a fiasco for the United States and Trump’s presidency, but it is widely viewed as a catastrophe for Israel. The more Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu tries to undermine the deal by mounting attacks on southern Lebanon, the more he enrages Trump, who keeps pointing out that the U.S. is Israel’s only ally in the world. Israel is now more isolated than ever. Israel was deliberately excluded from negotiations with Iran, because Israel was known to oppose any deal that would shorten the war. Nonetheless, in the deal the U.S. bound Israel to cease attacks on Hezbollah in Lebanon.
Recent polls conducted in Israel show that some 92 percent of Israelis believe that Iran won the war. Comparable majorities say Netanyahu’s launching of the war was a calamitous mistake and achieved none of its objectives. Another poll, by Israel’s Channel 12, shows that just 13 percent of Israelis now trust the once-popular Trump to safeguard Israeli interests. Netanyahu contended that the war would topple the Iranian regime, end its support for Hezbollah, wipe out Iran’s long-range missiles, eliminate its nuclear threat, and leave Israel more influential in the region and more secure. Instead, the war left the Iranian regime stronger than ever, and the settlement allowed Iran to keep its ballistic missiles, plus $300 billion in reconstruction funding. Iran gets to keep financing Hezbollah, while Israel is not supposed to attack them.
The Financial Times quotes Dan Shapiro, former U.S. ambassador to Israel, referring to Trump and Netanyahu: “Both of them were high on their own supply, misjudged what they could achieve … and squandered the most favourable strategic position.” The deal also creates something that all Israeli leaders have hitherto worked assiduously to avoid: serious “daylight” between Washington and Jerusalem. While Netanyahu’s freelancing has enraged Trump and JD Vance, collateral damage from Netanyahu’s brutal actions in Gaza and the West Bank has increasingly alienated U.S. public opinion. AIPAC and affiliated political action committees have gone from the interest group that elected officials dare not cross to being so unpopular that, as my colleague David Dayen recently reported, they have been systematically hiding much of their political spending.
What’s not clear is how all this will affect Netanyahu’s chances to stay in office in this fall’s elections, and hence delay yet further a looming corruption trial that has been hanging over his head for years, or the long-term U.S.-Israel relationship once Trump and Netanyahu are gone. Israelis of all political stripes, including supporters and opponents of Netanyahu, as well as supporters and opponents of a two-state solution to Palestine, view the war and the terms of its settlement as a disaster. Polls have consistently shown that Netanyahu is likely to lose this fall’s election, but his opposition is divided. Virtually all Israeli politicians, like the broad Israeli public, are uneasy about the turn of events in Iran and mistrusting of Trump. The joint Trump-Netanyahu misadventure and miscalculation in Iran leaves Israel further away from regional security.
snip
June 23, 2026
Label: CLR (2) – CLR20
Format: Vinyl, 12", 33 ⅓ RPM
Country: Germany
Released: Dec 2007
Genre: Electronic
Style: Techno, Minimal
Chris Liebing - Puckelbop (2007) German Peak Time / Driving Techno
Label: CLR (2) – CLR20
Format: Vinyl, 12", 33 ⅓ RPM
Country: Germany
Released: Dec 2007
Genre: Electronic
Style: Techno, Minimal
June 23, 2026
Label: Not On Label – ÄTSCH 06
Series: ÄTSCH – 6
Format: Vinyl, 12", 45 RPM, Unofficial Release, White Label, stamped
Country: Germany
Released: 2004
Genre: Electronic
Style: House, Tribal House, Tech House
Joachim Deutschland - Marie (Tom Novy WhiteLabel Mashup) 2004 German Vocal Tribal/Tech House
Label: Not On Label – ÄTSCH 06
Series: ÄTSCH – 6
Format: Vinyl, 12", 45 RPM, Unofficial Release, White Label, stamped
Country: Germany
Released: 2004
Genre: Electronic
Style: House, Tribal House, Tech House
June 23, 2026
Label: Audio Therapy – AT004
Format: Vinyl, 12", 33 ⅓ RPM
Country: UK
Released: 2004
Genre: Electronic
Style: Progressive House, Breaks
Infusion - Girls Can Be Cruel (Infusion sQ'ed Mix) 2004 Progressive House
Label: Audio Therapy – AT004
Format: Vinyl, 12", 33 ⅓ RPM
Country: UK
Released: 2004
Genre: Electronic
Style: Progressive House, Breaks
Profile Information
Gender: FemaleHometown: London
Home country: US/UK/Sweden
Current location: Stockholm, Sweden
Member since: Sun Jul 1, 2018, 07:25 PM
Number of posts: 55,325