Secretary of State Tony Blinken speaks during a meeting with Philippine President Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos Jr. at Malacanang Palace on August 6, 2022, in Manila, Philippines.

Not long after Joe Biden clinched the Democratic nomination in 2020, he and his team of foreign policy advisors began to use a new phrase to describe their vision for a renewed nuclear deal with Iran. “I’ll work with our allies to make it longer and stronger,” Biden said at a 2020 fundraiser, one of dozens of public instances in which top administration officials — on the campaign trail and then in the White House — would call for a “longer and stronger” deal to last longer the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action and curb not just Iran’s nuclear program but also its malign regional activities. Now, as Washington awaits a response from Iran on America’s comments on a draft nuclear agreement negotiated by the European Union, top U.S. officials are no longer calling for a “longer and stronger” deal, Jewish Insider’s Gabby Deutch reports. 

Official outlook: In the early months of the Biden administration, everyone from the president to Secretary of State Tony Blinken to Jen Psaki, the former White House press secretary, had used the phrase. And for a presidential administration that strictly sticks to fine-tuned, top-down language on controversial policy issues, it was clear that “longer and stronger” was administration policy for a time. When those same officials ceased using the term, it suggested something had shifted.

What changed: A review of statements from the White House and the State Department shows that Biden administration officials stopped using the phrase in June 2021, amid an Iranian election campaign that would result in the election of a president whose foreign minister said in September that the country would not sign onto a “longer and stronger” agreement. But the Biden administration never explained publicly what changed for them. JI did not receive a response to an inquiry sent to the State Department seeking an explanation about the policy change. 

Messy reality: “Campaigning is about telling people what they want to hear. Governing is usually a much messier process, determining what exactly you’re going to get,” said Aaron David Miller, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace who has served in Democratic and Republican administrations and who supports reentering the JCPOA. “I think that when ‘longer and stronger’ was enunciated, I think there wasn’t much conviction that in fact it could be achieved.”

Read the full story here.

Rep. Jamaal Bowman (D-NY) speaks at a press conference on H.R. 40 legislation as Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX) looks on on Capitol Hill on November 16, 2021, in Washington, D.C.

Two summers ago, Rep. Jamaal Bowman (D-NY) scored a major victory for the progressive left when he prevailed over a Democratic incumbent who had been safely ensconced in his Bronx and Westchester County district for more than three decades, writes Jewish Insider’s Matthew Kassel. In his upset against former Rep. Eliot Engel (D-NY), an outspoken supporter of Israel who chaired the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Bowman also delivered a blow to the pro-Israel establishment, which invested heavily in the race. Democratic Majority for Israel spent nearly $2 million on Engel’s behalf alone, to no avail. He lost by 15 points. 

Bellwether battle: The bitter primary helped set the stage for an emerging Democratic conflict between the party’s mainstream and activist wings, which has shaped a growing number of races where opposing approaches to Israel have figured prominently. This cycle, however, Bowman’s campaign for a second term in New York’s redrawn 16th Congressional District was largely devoid of such tensions, at least at the national level. Even if his Middle East policy positions have shifted leftward since he entered the House, pro-Israel groups determined that Bowman was likely unbeatable and stayed out of the race, resisting invocations from local Jewish leaders who believed otherwise. 

DMFI declines: Far from it, as last Tuesday’s results showed. Bowman won decisively with 57% of the vote, trouncing his moderate challengers, Vedat Gashi and Catherine Parker. With a total of 41% between the two Westchester County legislators, the outcome suggested that Bowman would likely have clinched the nomination even if he had faced only one opponent. For DMFI, the result was proof that pursuing a rematch with Bowman would almost certainly have been ill-advised. It was “clear that this was not a race in which” DMFI was “going to make a difference,” a pro-Israel strategist familiar with the group’s thinking told JI. “Obviously, other people disagreed with that assessment.”

Behind the scenes: Meanwhile, AIPAC conducted polling in the district and came to a similar conclusion, several sources told JI. The polling broadly indicated that Bowman would win unless one of his opponents dropped out. But as both candidates remained in the race, Jewish leaders concluded that their second best course of action was to unite behind one of them, according to an email chain where local activists discussed their options — and ultimately failed to arrive at an agreement. “There is still time to rid ourselves of our anti-Israel representative, if we can get out of our own way,” wrote one frustrated Jewish leader.

‘Harder to dislodge’: Jake Dilemani, a Democratic strategist who worked on Parker’s campaign, said Bowman will no doubt be even more firmly established when he defends his seat next cycle. But he acknowledged that there is always an element of unpredictability, as Bowman’s first campaign demonstrated. “Each successive term it becomes harder to dislodge an incumbent,” Dilemani told JI. “That said, he dislodged an incumbent.”

Read the 3,500-word report here.

Police vehicles remain posted in front of the Tree of Life Synagogue on Monday, October 29, 2018, where 11 people were killed in a mass shooting on Saturday morning.

Just over half of the applications submitted for Nonprofit Security Grant Program funding in 2022 were approved, according to new data for the 2022 application cycle — a slight improvement from the prior year, even as funding shortfalls for the program continued, Jewish Insider’s Marc Rod reports.

By the numbers: The program, which provides federal funding for nonprofits and houses of worship to improve their security, received 3,470 applications and granted 1,821, according to a source familiar with the data, for an overall acceptance rate of 52%. The applications totaled slightly over $447 million in funding requests, well outstripping the $250 million available for the program; 5% of that $250 million was also set aside for the states that play a role in distributing the funding.

Year over year: Funding was increased to $250 million in 2022 from $180 million in 2021, leading to a slight increase in the proportion of applications accepted, even as the volume of applications and the total funding requested also increased. In 2021, 46% of the 3,361 applications submitted — totalling nearly $400 million — were funded.

Up next: Congressional leaders and Jewish community groups are pursuing $360 million in funding for the program in 2023 — which has been the Jewish community’s funding target for multiple years. But the $360 million target would likely still leave many applications unfunded — even if application volume does not continue to increase. Lawmakers and advocates for the program emphasized that this year’s data highlights the need for the 2022 funding increase and the importance of efforts to increase funding to $360 million for 2023. But some also signaled openness to upping their funding goals in future years.

Quotable: “While I’m proud of our work to raise the Nonprofit Security Grant Program funding to a historic level last year, I also understand that it still isn’t enough to meet the growing need for this program,” Sen. Jacky Rosen (D-NV) told JI. “I will continue working to increase our investment in this program for the next fiscal year so we can help save lives and keep communities safe.”

Looking ahead: Nathan Diament, the Orthodox Union’s executive director for public policy, noted that even with record-high funding, “demand outstripped” supply, which “points the need for increasing the funding at least to the $360 million level that we’ve been advocating for.” Diament said that he’s prioritizing hitting the $360 million mark for 2023, which has been “in the range” of the necessary funding in past years. “It’s the kind of thing that could potentially go up and down depending on circumstances so I think if we get to $360 [million], we’ll be much closer to meeting demand on a consistent basis,” he said.

Read the full story here.