Friday, November 6, 2026

It's Time for New Democratic Leadership in the Senate

 


To say this election was a rebuke of Trump is, technically, accurate. But it massively understates the case. This was a hard reset. A grassroots-powered overturning of entrenched power unseen for decades. People took this country, turned it upside down, and shook corrupt politicians and spineless enablers of fascism out of every legislative body from the US Senate down to county councils and everywhere in between. 

Americans rejected officials who allowed communities to be brutalized by ICE. They jettisoned corporate-backed politicians who stuck data centers in their backyards. They wiped out Members of Congress who defunded healthcare and then used the money to launch illegal wars and enrich the wealthiest people on earth. 

And across the country, they backed candidates who rejected corporate money and promised to usher in a new era of people-centered politics -- candidates who showed they were ready to take the fight to the Trump regime and the rotting systems that propelled its rise. 

Now Democrats must choose a Senate leader who can meet this moment and lead that fight. It’s hard to fathom the Chuck Schumer of the past two years being the man for the job.

Indivisible has not been shy about voicing our concerns about Schumer’s leadership over these past two years. As millions of Americans were in the streets standing up to Trump, Schumer bent the knee, funding the authoritarian agenda voters just rejected in historic numbers. 

Whatever his intentions, Schumer repeatedly failed to rein in Trump or even marshal his own caucus against some of Trump’s most destructive cabinet members. Now, he is treating his leadership as pre-ordained, telling reporters, “I will be re-elected as majority leader.” 

We say: Not so fast. The people voted for a new kind of politics, not for old guard politicians to anoint themselves with titles just because they’ve held power for so long. With the stakes this high for our democracy -- and for the future of the Democratic Party -- Democrats need to read the room and hold an open, transparent election to determine who will lead the Senate. 

Email your Democratic senator(s) now and demand they oppose a Schumer coronation.

Join us in urging Senate Democrats to demand new leadership and refuse to go along with a Schumer coronation >>

In solidarity,
Indivisible Team

 

Now What?

 


Now comes the hard part. The damage Trump and his cronies, including those in Congress, have done to the country, its people, its institutions, its policies, and its values is staggering. It will not be corrected overnight, or even in the next two years. 

No doubt, Trump’s allies — including billionaires like Elon Musk, Peter Thiel, Bill Ackman, and Larry Ellison — will pour unconscionable amounts of money into campaigns that will blame everything that goes wrong on the Democratic majority, who now share governing responsibility with Trump. There will be confrontations over investigations, subpoenas, and funding of programs that could lead to government shutdowns, along with vetoes of initiatives passed by both the House and Senate.

There will be a slew of substantive, strategic, and political ambitions Democrats in Congress will face when they assume power. But before any of those are addressed, the top priority has to be a serious reconsideration and reconfiguration of how Congress does its business, how it communicates with the American people about its efforts, and why. 

The challenge of determining where to begin will be immense. Voters are expecting real change, whether it is alleviating the affordability crisis, taking on rank corruption, confronting the shattered domestic and foreign policies and processes followed by Trump and his administration, or reforming our broken governing institutions.

Business as usual won’t cut it. So, what to do? Democrats, soon to be running the House and Senate, have to completely restructure the way they operate and communicate. There is a throughline to lay out: corruption, billionaire and corporate privilege, big money flooding politics, blowing up essential government services, safety nets and protections, senseless tariffs, and a reckless war have all created a toxic mix that has benefited bigwigs and caused average Americans to struggle to keep their heads above water. Congress will need to highlight who the miscreants are, in and out of government, and make clear what will be done to deal with them.

Democrats need to tell powerful stories, lay out relevant facts, put forth a road map to improve people’s lives and hold the villains accountable — not retribution against perceived enemies, but real justice. It starts with reforming the hearing process in every committee. 

For decades and more, committees have followed the practice of having five-minute segments for each committee member, alternating for the parties, often starting with rambling opening statements by chairs and ranking members. 

The process generates far more heat than light. If the witness is a hostile one — which will be the case with every hearing involving a Trump appointee — that means five minutes of him or her stonewalling, followed by five minutes of respite granted from a partisan ally likely to waste time either lambasting colleagues across the aisle or extolling the witness. And, as a general matter, majority members don’t coordinate their questions. The result is a lot of disjointed yelling, with an occasional insight or meaningful confrontation to make a sound bite.

Bottom of Form

There is a better model, one we saw demonstrated by the January 6 committee under Chairman Bennie Thompson. Start with a thirty-minute overview done by a professional staffer to lay out the premise of the hearing, followed by thirty-minute segments for each member. Make sure all the majority members are on the same coordinated page, prepared to deliver relentless follow-ups if witnesses evade, dissemble, or dance around their answers. Each hearing should have a goal — if it is a policy issue, include the panoply of those related to affordability. Inform people what the issue is, why it is important, and why Trump et al. are responsible for failures. Then articulate clearly what to do about it.

If it is about a lawless or corrupt act or set of acts, establish coherently why it was wrong, illegal, and unacceptable; who was responsible; what damage was done to the populace; and why it should result in those responsible being fired or impeached. It must become less about sound bites and dealing with Republican stonewalling, and more about what the witness did, how they did it, and what should follow.

The number of outrages and issues to cover is nearly endless, from corruption scandals — like pay-for-play pardons, crypto schemes, insider trading, and bribes from foreign governments — to tariffs, to slashing medical research while eviscerating Medicaid and health insurance protections, to cutting disaster relief, to undermining national defense and food safety. More broadly, there is the abuse of the Justice Department, the FCC, the CDC, the IRS, and the Postal Service — among other crucial institutions.

The Trump Administration has indeed flooded the zone with scandals and outrages. But the way for a Democratic Congress to combat this gross abundance is not to play Whack-a-Mole with a dozen or more misdeeds at a time; it is to have focus and discipline. One key focal point each week, starting with a press conference to lay out that week’s issue, with the relevant committees poised to take it on from their respective areas of expertise. Members should utilize every venue — the House and Senate floors, social and other media, podcasts, town halls, and prime-time debates — to communicate the key issues. 

That is the way to get through to a populace that is otherwise focused on their daily lives and a media that too often puts a thin veneer on most of these issues and scandals. That is also the way (if the result is not new policies forced by Trump’s vetoes or Senate filibusters) to highlight why the failure to act falls on Trump and Republicans, and what Democrats will do if they add the White House in 2028 to their majorities in Congress.

None of this is natural to members of Congress or their leaders. It is hard to change the way you have done things for decades, and hard to adapt if you are new to Congress. There will be powerful voices saying, “Hey, business as usual is what gave us these huge gains!” But no matter the inclination to revert to tried-and-true methods of deliberation, it is imperative to revise such practices. Otherwise, they will be perceived as just another group of politicians stuck in a system that most Americans now view with disdain and distrust. Unless our 120th Congress show an ability to bring palpable change to stalled, tired systems, their tenure in the majority will be short-lived.

Norman Ornstein is a renowned political scientist, co-host of the podcast “Words Matter,” and author of several books, including “It’s Even Worse Than It Looks: How the American Constitutional System Collided With the New Politics of Extremism.”


Join The Contrarian community to support bold journalism and help fund critical lawsuits to stop Trump’s corruption — Subscribe now.

 

Thursday, November 5, 2026

"Perhaps this is one of Zelenskyy’s greatest achievements"

 


We have witnessed a weary President Zelenskyy win a grueling three-week standoff against Trump’s White House, Hegseth’s Pentagon, and Bessent’s Treasury Department… 

He won without raising his voice, slamming any doors, or demeaning Trump. Following his high-profile "diesel deal," Zelenskyy launched a genuine diplomatic counteroffensive—active and persistent, yet without a single public jab at the American president. He didn't get drawn into an emotional game; instead, he simply seized the initiative.

And he didn't just seize the initiative—he brought Ukraine back to the center of the international agenda, compelling partners to once again take his position into account. Rather than playing the part of someone aggrieved by Trump, the Ukrainian president began setting the pace and the agenda himself. In diplomacy, that carries more weight than the loudest public statements. Do you think Erdoğan invited our president out of pity? Certainly not. Yet, remember all the uproar—claims that Zelenskyy was a pathetic madman, that he was putting Ukraine in jeopardy… remember all that whining and wailing? 

And today, Ukraine is striking Russian oil refineries once again—and Washington remains silent. Silent as the grave. And it’s not just silence: they have actually signed off on the transfer of missiles to us. Note that just a month ago, there was no talk of missiles whatsoever. The Pentagon was saying… We didn't have it...

But it exists—and in Washington, words of high regard for Zelenskyy and Ukraine are already being voiced. Washington has come to realize that Zelenskyy cannot simply be pushed away from the table where the fate of his country is being decided. It certainly seems that, this time, Trump has had to swallow a reality that is not particularly pleasant for him.

And it appears that Europe, too, has finally let out a sigh of relief. It has been quietly applauding Zelenskyy’s intense diplomatic maneuvering—recognizing that, in this diplomatic game, Ukraine possesses not only its own will, strength, strategy, and moves, but is actively sharing that very strength and resolve with Europe. Europe is becoming stronger.

Perhaps this is one of Zelenskyy’s greatest achievements: he has not only defended Ukraine’s standing as an independent actor, but has also helped Europe rediscover its own strength, regain political weight, and engage with Washington as a partner. Ukraine—which for so long relied on Europe for support—has now become a pillar of support for Europe itself. 

And now, that is no less vital for Europe. Furthermore, I have been struck by the incredible distance Zelenskyy has traveled over these years—a journey that many other politicians fail to complete in an entire lifetime. 

We, as Ukrainians, should place greater trust in him, offer our support, and remember this: at the table of international politics, he now stands as a major political leader—one who commands deep respect and whose opinions are taken seriously. 

He represents not his own personal ambitions, but Ukraine—all of us. I often recall the words of a well-known journalist, spoken on the first day of the war: there are clowns who become great national leaders. And there are leaders who become clowns…

- Ladislav Scharbo


Wednesday, November 4, 2026

Hear, Hear, Canada!

 


Last Night’s “Blue Wave” Means Nothing if We Don’t Stop the National Defense Authorization Act

 


Last night’s election results proved that a majority of people in this country do not want war and genocide. Polling overwhelmingly showed that the war on Iran was one of the biggest motivating factors in voting. 

So why are we about to give the very people voters rejected an unprecedented $1.5 trillion budget to continue their reign of death and destruction? Why are we going to allow Congress to hand over the largest war budget in human history to weapons manufacturers and AI tech billionaires who work at the behest of known war criminals?

In the next few weeks, Congress is set to pass what should be viewed as the deadliest piece of legislation of our time – the 2027 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) – or the country’s defense budget, as it is more commonly known. 

Its potential passage is setting U.S. taxpayers up to be the funders of their own demise by giving carte blanche to a department of war criminals and their humanity-destroying tech-fascist friends with an obscene 1.5 trillion-dollar treasure chest to control, murder, oppress, and destroy the planet as we know it. Sounds a bit hyperbolic? Not if you look at their past and what they are openly saying now, as a prologue.

To understand why this war budget is a catastrophic time bomb, you first have to understand what it actually funds. Under the guise of providing national “security” and protecting “democracy,” the annual Pentagon budget does little of both. Instead, the budget, which consistently fails its financial audits, is a mechanism to funnel billions of dollars into the pockets of weapons manufacturers, who make the very weapons that murder men, women, and children and destroy the planet. Well over half of the discretionary budget each year goes directly to private contractors.

Between 2020 and 2024, the Pentagon designated roughly $2.4 trillion out of $4.4 trillion in discretionary spending to private industry. But hey, at least those private companies are providing much-needed jobs for America’s workforce, right? Well, not so fast.

According to the Climate and Community Institute, employment at military contractors has plummeted over the past three decades: from an estimated 3.2 million workers during the Reagan military-spending peak in the mid-1980s to 1.1 million workers in 2020. The drop occurred even as Pentagon budgets rose 22 percent over the same period. 

Meanwhile, the industry’s top recipients of military contracts, Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, General Dynamics, and Boeing, pay their CEOs a combined salary of almost $100 million a year. They are literally making a killing off the killing of others.

And now, not only are we draining our pocketbooks for weapon company CEOs, but we are also subsidizing tech-overlords whose recent main objective is to move jobs and agency away from the working class to robots, as well as use that very technology to mass-surveil those who oppose it. 

The Pentagon is requesting an unprecedented $58.5 billion this year for an artificial intelligence program. This program is already responsible for the February 28 Minab School massacre that murdered at least 156 schoolchildren and staff.

Even more frightening, the money for that deadly program is set to go to the most insane lineup of anti-worker villains, including Sam “bad things should happen to benefit AI” Altman; Peter “if you’re evil, you’re not bad” Thiel; and Elon “AI will make jobs irrelevant” Musk. They’re openly telling us they don’t need humans anymore. Meanwhile, they are building their bunkers so that when the United States military finally plunders away all the resources around the world, they can survive.

Why are we handing the military $1.5 trillion to do all this? As it stands, U.S. taxpayers are already paying $116.43 million every hour for war and terror. 

That’s more than $4,000 in weapons and war costs for the average taxpayer last year alone. Both figures will likely double, since the Trump administration’s request is Biden’s already bloated $1 trillion. Meanwhile, nearly 30% of people have to finance groceries, and 45,000 people will likely die because they lack health insurance or access to affordable healthcare.

If you were watching a summer Blockbuster and the main characters were handing over their hard-earned money and essentially their trust to the person you know is going to assassinate them in the final act, you would be screaming at the screen, “Don’t do it!” But that is exactly what is happening right now, and in fact, many are screaming.

Polls consistently show that Americans are moving away from a war-centric approach to foreign affairs. Almost two-thirds of people in the United States disapprove of Trump’s war on Iran, and 60% disapprove of the U.S. supported genocide in Gaza. 

Similarly, 59% of voters believe the proposed $1.5 trillion Department of Defense budget is too high, and 3 in 5 voters (58%) prefer directing government funds toward domestic priorities like healthcare rather than military or war spending.

The voices are there, but most of those with the power to stop it aren’t listening or are too invested in the war-industrial complex to care. Which begs the question: How can we even call ourselves a democracy, much less its defender, when we, the people, seem to have no agency outside of voting and the majority’s demands are ignored?

This administration, as did previous ones, proudly ignores what the majority is begging for: an end to the genocide in Gaza and the occupation of Palestine; an end to the war on Iran that was started for no reason and is currently sustained through the administration’s pompous arrogance; an end to ICE’s reign of terror across the United States; an end to the AI/data center boom that is chipping away at our humanity and livelihoods; and reinvestment into the things that will actually keep us safe, such as healthcare, housing, and climate justice.

Make no mistake, the 1.5 trillion dollars set to go to Pete Hegseth’s war department is not funding our security; it is funding our endgame and stealing from our lifelines. If passed, it will be nearly impossible to undo the damage that will come. We all must unite around this – healthcare workers, environmentalists, teachers, journalists, students, veterans- and make democracy actually work for the people before it’s too late. We have to let those we elected to work for us know that this is a red line that humanity cannot afford to cross.

History shows that public pressure can influence policies. Our collective voice can change this country’s trajectory – if we mobilize now. We don’t have to fund our endgame; we can say no. Join us in DC Nov. 10- 13 as we demand our country stop funding war and start funding life.

Melissa Garriga is the communications and media analysis manager for CODEPINK. She writes about the intersection of militarism and the human cost of war.

 

It's about Time!

 


"...This was a personal repudiation of Donald Trump and his reign of corruption, but also of fascist, brutal, reactionary, and xenophobic MAGA rule and policies. An entire generation of dynamic, diverse Democrats rose to power in one dramatic night…"



Tuesday, November 3, 2026

Scotus Tells Trump NO


Late [yesterday] afternoon, the Supreme Court told Trump no. There is no opinion, so we don’t know what the Court’s reasoning was. We don’t know whether the decision was unanimous or split, and if it was split, who voted which way. 

But we do know that the Supreme Court declined to let Trump interfere in the election in California at this late date. It rejected DOJ’s request, which would have forced the state to deal with the junk list of voters the administration thinks might not be citizens.

In its emergency request to the Court, DOJ told the people on the list “appear to be registered to vote in California based on publicly available information at the time the information was received,” but that they “in the United States’ view, are likely not U.S. Citizens.”

Adam Klasfeld tweeted: “Count the number of weasel words packed into a single sentence in the Trump DOJ’s emergency request for SCOTUS to bless attempted election interference.” It was hardly the kind of definitive statement you would expect the Justice Department to make before trying to interfere with votes while an election is already underway. “Likely not.” “In the United States’ view.” “Appear to be registered.”

The Yiddish word “shanda” comes to mind. It means a shame, a disgrace, a scandal, and an embarrassment—all rolled into one. Scandalously bad behavior. Shanda aptly captures Donald Trump’s efforts to interfere with the election, and I’m relieved that the Supreme Court didn’t let Trump get away with the stunt he tried to pull in California.

District Judge David Carter’s decision last week, which we discussed in detail here, explains why this was the right result. I’ll sleep better knowing the Supreme Court let his decision stand.

And one more thing before we call it a night. If you’ve been reading Civil Discourse without subscribing, this is a good time to join us. We have an election tomorrow. Courts are making consequential decisions, sometimes in the dead of night. We have a Justice Department whose arguments deserve close scrutiny. There is a lot of work ahead of us, whatever happens at the polls.

Democracy isn’t a spectator sport. Neither is Civil Discourse. I’m grateful for the company of people who refuse to give up on democracy. We’re the cavalry—the ones we’ve been waiting for. Tomorrow will come soon enough. For tonight, get some rest

We’re in this together,

Joyce Vance