Plus, direct flights to Beirut cleared for takeoff
Satellite image (c) 2026 Vantor
Vantor satellite image shows tunnel construction activity and road infrastructure near the Natanz nuclear facility in the mountainous area around Pickaxe Mountain.
Good Tuesday afternoon.
This P.M. briefing is reserved for our premium subscribers like you — offering a forward-focused read on what we’re tracking now and what’s coming next.
Today’s Daily Overtime was curated by JI U.S. Editor Danielle Cohen-Kanik.
📡On Our Radar
Notable developments and interesting tidbits we’re tracking
Meeting with Lebanese President Joseph Aoun in the Oval Office today, President Donald Trump warned that the U.S. would “pretty soon” strike Iran’s Pickaxe Mountain, the underground facility suspected of housing components of Tehran’s nuclear program, Jewish Insider’sEmily Jacobs reports.
“We’ll be hitting that area pretty soon, and very heavily,” he said, following a Wall Street Journal report that Israeli intelligence indicates Iran moved thousands of centrifuges into the site last fall…
Trump added in his comments that Iran “wants to meet desperately” with the U.S. to end the war, but “until they’re ready to meet in a meaningful way, we have no interest in meeting with them”…
Trump announced after his meeting with Aoun that he is directing his administration toallow all U.S. airlines to fly directly between the U.S. and Lebanon. The Reagan administration suspended direct flights in 1985 after Hezbollah-linked hijackers seized TWA Flight 847 and killed a U.S. service member aboard…
Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich said at a conference today that Israel has “no interest” in joining the renewed U.S. campaign against Iran. “The best way to bring about the regime’s downfall is to crush it economically,” he said, pointing to the U.S. blockade on Iranian ports…
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth told the Senate Appropriations Committee during a hearing this afternoon that the estimated cost of the Iran war thus far is $37.5 billion, up from $29 billion estimated by Pentagon Comptroller Jules Hurst in May.
Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA), the top Democrat on the committee, indicated that Democrats do not intend to support the Pentagon’s $88 billion supplemental funding request. The administration’s “expectation that Americans will just pay for [the war in Iran] without any explanation or transparency is disrespectful,” she said…
The IDF said its soldiers operating in southern Lebanon fired warning shots today as personnel from the Lebanese Armed Forces crossed into Israeli-controlled territory, an area the IDF said was not included in the pilot zones the LAF is meant to control. The LAF called the incident “an act of aggression” that could hinder the broader deployment plan…
A senior White House official told JI that a report that Vice President JD Vance was attempting to scuttle a potential White House meeting between Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is “completely false.”
“The idea that the vice president’s team, or any official in the administration for that matter, would try or even be able to interfere with a visit by a foreign leader with the president is laughable,” the official said…
A group of Jewish House Democrats asked Secretary of State Marco Rubio today to pressure Malaysia to walk back plans to deport Israeli citizens, JI’s Marc Rod reports, urging him to leverage U.S. military assistance to the Southeast Asian nation…
The Senate Intelligence Committee voted to advance the nomination of Jay Clayton to be director of national intelligence, Committee Chair Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) announced, sending his nomination to the full Senate for approval. Democrats who had previously wanted to see Clayton confirmed said they were disappointed by his refusal to affirm at his hearing that former President Joe Biden won the 2020 election…
The Jewish Caucus of the College Democrats of America condemned the CDA’s decision to host far-left streamer Hasan Piker at its convention over the weekend and claimed in a statement that attendees were prevented from conducting a walkout during Piker’s speech. The caucus called on CDA leadership to issue a formal apology and to publicly condemn Piker’s previous antisemitic comments, JI’s Haley Cohen reports…
Rep. Tom Tiffany (R-WI), the leading Republican candidate for governor in Wisconsin, appeared on a podcast hosted by an individual who defended Hitler and joked about the Holocaust, the Milwaukee Courier reports. Tiffany had previously criticized his likely Democratic opponent, Francesca Hong, for going on Piker’s podcast…
The now-former treasurer of the New York Young Republican Club, Nicholas T. Rafael Jr., appeared to operate an anonymous X account that posted Hitler images and antisemitic caricatures, according to New York Magazine, which also obtained a photo of Rafael making what appears to be a Nazi salute while wearing German military attire. It’s the latest scandal regarding far-right extremism for the once-influential club…
The University of New Hampshire released a new poll of the race for U.S. Senate in Maine showing former state Sen. Troy Jackson, the presumed replacement for former Democratic nominee Graham Platner, leading Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) 49-46% in the general election…
New York Assemblymember Micah Lasher, the presumed successor to retiring Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY), strongly defended his ongoing relationship with Morris Katz and said he’ll continue to work with the consultant who was behind Platner‘s failed Senate bid, a week after New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani said the same…
⏩ Tomorrow’s Agenda, Today
An early look at tomorrow’s storylines and schedule to keep you a step ahead
Keep an eye on Jewish Insider for a look at the Democratic primary in Michigan‘s battleground 7th Congressional District, where two Democrats with national security backgrounds are facing off against a far-left activist.
The House Foreign Affairs Committee will hold a hearing on U.N. accountability and reform with U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Mike Waltz and U.S. Representative to the U.N. for Management and Reform Jeff Bartos.
Later, the committee’s Middle East subcommittee will hold a hearing on the “next phase of the Abraham Accords” with former U.S. Ambassadors to Israel David Friedman and Dan Shapiro as well as Asher Fredman, executive director of the Misgav Institute for National Security.
The House Ways and Means Committee will mark up several bills including the Foreign Funding Transparency Act, which would make nonprofits disclose foreign donors; the Fiscal Sponsorship Transparency Act, which would require charities to report the groups they fund; and the Fair Treatment of Religious Organizations Act, which would shield religious groups’ tax-exempt status.
Stories You May Have Missed
FRIENDLY FIRE
Bernie Sanders’ 2020 Jewish liaison says his old boss is promoting antisemitism

Joel Rubin: Sanders has endorsed ‘the most categorically anti-Israel, antisemitic candidates that we’ve seen in a generation, if ever’
After 104 members of the House voted last week in favor of an amendment to eliminate military aid to Israel, pro-Israel activists who have spent years building ties with lawmakers are now wondering how to approach those relationships
(Yasin Ozturk/Anadolu via Getty Images)
A group of demonstrators hold a noise protest outside the Democratic National Committee Headquarters in Washington D.C., United States on October 31, 2024.
Before AIPAC began spending tens of millions of dollars per election cycle on campaigns, back when it was purely an advocacy organization that touted its relationships with many of the 535 members of Congress, the pro-Israel group used to describe its approach to Capitol Hill with a cheeky, upbeat motto: “You have friends, and you have potential friends.”
But when former Bay Area AIPAC leader Naomi Lauter used to invoke the slogan, she added a third category: “Friends who have a little less potential than others.” Lauter died in 2017, but the saying still resonates with her son, Sam, who is a major Democratic donor and pro-Israel activist in his own right — and who is now wondering whether that third category might be growing even larger.
After 104 members of the House voted last week in favor of an amendment to eliminate all $3.3 billion in annual military aid to Israel, pro-Israel activists across the country who have spent years building ties with lawmakers are now wondering how to approach those relationships following a vote that some see as a betrayal. Even many longtime Israel supporters — including Reps. Jack Auchincloss (D-MA), Glenn Ivey (D-MD), Laura Friedman (D-CA), Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Pat Ryan (D-NY) — voted for the amendment, which did not pass. Pro-Israel activists who spent years building trust and gaining access to these lawmakers are now grappling with whether whether those relationships are still worth their continued investment.
To borrow from AIPAC’s old slogan: Are the lawmakers who voted for the amendment still considered friends — or potential friends — of the U.S.-Israel relationship? Or was their vote against the annual aid package to Israel, and against a bill that was opposed by a wide swath of nonpartisan and Democratic Jewish groups, a crossing-the-Rubicon moment that cannot be undone?
Friends and backers of the members of Congress who voted for the amendment are struggling to answer those questions. Several who spoke to Jewish Insider said that a single vote on a measure that was sure to fail should not spell the end of years of friendship. But even as they acknowledged the seismic reverberations of the vote, many also spoke of the need to tread carefully at a politically uncertain moment.
“Our issues are too important to not hold onto the ability to have a conversation with the person, because the votes are not going to end. It’s not going to all of a sudden stop,” Sam Lauter said. He talked to several members of Congress in the days before the vote, including Pelosi, urging them to vote no.
“It’s not a good trend line, but also this idea that we’ve lost the Democrats — let’s not create self-fulfilling prophecies here. There’s an opportunity for us to turn some of this around,” Tyler Gregory, CEO of the Bay Area Jewish Community Relations Council, said. “I am optimistic that several of them could be flipped if the vote had actual consequences, and I think that’s the job ahead of us.”
“Now, if someone said to me, ‘You know what, I voted yes, and my reasoning was because actually I don’t think we should be allies with Israel anymore, and I have no interest in the friendship with the community or the country, I’m done.’ Well, OK, that friendship’s done,” said Lauter.
This vote was destined to fail, but Tyler Gregory, CEO of the Bay Area Jewish Community Relations Council, called it “a dress rehearsal.” It will not be the last time U.S. aid to Israel comes up for a vote, and Gregory said he will need to lean on those lawmaker relationships in the future when the vote is more consequential.
“It’s not a good trend line, but also this idea that we’ve lost the Democrats — let’s not create self-fulfilling prophecies here. There’s an opportunity for us to turn some of this around,” Gregory said. “I am optimistic that several of them could be flipped if the vote had actual consequences, and I think that’s the job ahead of us.”
Halie Soifer, who served as an advisor to then-Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA), now leads the Jewish Democratic Council of America, which urged members to vote against the amendment — as did Democratic Majority for Israel and the more liberal J Street. She called the vote “an inflection point,” but said the group is not considering removing its endorsements of lawmakers who supported the amendment.
“We’ve maintained a very consistent, principled position with regard to aid for Israel, and it’s not us that shifted,” Soifer said. “There is clearly a fast-moving shift within the Democratic Party itself, and we’re considering what that means.”
When asked whether she had ever seen so many candidates shift their positions on an issue within a single two-year election cycle, Soifer answered directly: “Absolutely not.”
AIPAC responded to the vote by no longer allowing donations, through its political action committee, to the 18 lawmakers it endorsed who voted for the measure.
“AIPAC members across the country watched this vote closely and are making sure their representatives in Congress who stood on principle hear that they’re appreciated,” AIPAC spokesperson Deryn Sousa told JI.
“The reality is these are our representatives. There is a relationship that we have with most of them, and they continue to be our representatives today, tomorrow, next week,” said Jeremy Burton, the CEO of the Greater Boston Jewish Community Relations Council. “The ones who say, ‘No, I’m still committed to Israel’s security and the Jewish community,’ things like that — and I’m not going to quote any one of them — but the ones who are saying that in these private conversations, it’s incumbent upon them now to show what that means.”
Many activists who have relationships with lawmakers are taking the long view, arguing that cutting ties now will not help in future battles. For a lot of them, Israel is not the only issue about which they are concerned.
Jeremy Burton, the CEO of the Greater Boston Jewish Community Relations Council, said he knows that some Jewish Bostonians have told Massachusetts’ congressional representatives, all of whom voted for the amendment, that this moment represents a “break point.” But as the leader of a nonpartisan organization, he cannot end relationships over a disagreement on one vote. He has other issues — such as nonprofit security funding and cooperation on fighting antisemitism — to consider.
“The reality is these are our representatives. There is a relationship that we have with most of them, and they continue to be our representatives today, tomorrow, next week,” said Burton. “The ones who say, ‘No, I’m still committed to Israel’s security and the Jewish community,’ things like that — and I’m not going to quote any one of them — but the ones who are saying that in these private conversations, it’s incumbent upon them now to show what that means.”
For one Jewish former Biden administration staffer, voting to cut off security aid to Israel must be the red line.
“They’re like, ‘Don’t worry about it. It’s just symbolic.’ Well, no, you’re telling us not to care about it, but clearly other people care about it, and that’s why you’re voting in that way,” said the staffer, who requested anonymity to speak about communal organizations they support. “I don’t think the Jewish community should be giving these people a pass right now, and I believe that’s actually creating an incentive for them to actually take these votes against us and against our interests, because there’s no political consequence or repercussions for them.”
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) said on Thursday that Democrats will adopt a new approach to Israel if the party regains control of the House in November. “The current status quo is unsustainable,” said Jeffries, who voted no on the amendment.
“On one hand, I am really disappointed to see some true friends of mine and Israel vote for the [amendment] or vote ‘present,’” said Jennifer Laszlo Mizrahi, a Jewish philanthropist and disability rights advocate in Maryland. “On the other hand, as an American and as a Jew, I am horrified by how Netanyahu and his administration treat Palestinians in the West Bank, give Haredim the ability to be draft-dodgers and don’t show empathy when legitimate security operations accidentally kill an innocent child.”
Many of the 103 Democrats who voted “yes” released statements saying that they still support America’s relationship with Israel, but that they viewed the amendment as a symbolic way to tell Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that they disagreed with his handling of the wars in Gaza and Iran.
In doing so, they tapped into a difficult reality for many of the Jewish activists who wanted to see the measure defeated. Many of those activists also wish Netanyahu would do more to take the concerns of Democrats and liberal Jews into account, even as they think Washington should continue supporting Jerusalem’s security needs.
“On one hand, I am really disappointed to see some true friends of mine and Israel vote for the [amendment] or vote ‘present,’” said Jennifer Laszlo Mizrahi, a Jewish philanthropist and disability rights advocate in Maryland. “On the other hand, as an American and as a Jew, I am horrified by how Netanyahu and his administration treat Palestinians in the West Bank, give Haredim the ability to be draft-dodgers and don’t show empathy when legitimate security operations accidentally kill an innocent child.”
In Los Angeles, Democratic donor and pro-Israel activist Howard Welinsky said many of the “yes” votes were a result of political “noise” — namely, concerns about current or future primary challengers from the left. “It’s the volume of the noise, and some members of Congress have more intellectual capacity to withstand it, and others have less,” said Welinsky.
So he is holding out hope that a change in Israel’s political leadership might help rectify Israel’s plummeting support among Democrats. “I just pray that Oct. 27” — the day Israel goes to elections — “gives Israel a new prime minister, and we can turn a page,” said Welinsky.
The pro-Israel advocacy group now allows its supporters to donate to 178 Republicans and 72 Democrats running for Congress
Alex Wong/Getty Images
A visitor holds an AIPAC folder in an elevator in Rayburn House Office Building on March 12, 2024 on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC.
Days after 104 members of Congress voted in favor of a measure that sought to end U.S. aid to Israel, AIPAC will no longer allow donations through its political action committee to 18 lawmakers it endorsed who voted in favor of the legislation.
The group did not announce the change. But the endorsement page on AIPAC’s political giving portal — where supporters can donate to candidates who have been endorsed by AIPAC — removed the option for individuals to route money to those lawmakers.
AIPAC now allows its supporters to donate to 72 Democratic candidates in the House and Senate, compared to 178 Republican candidates — meaning 71% of the candidates the group is now actively supporting are Republicans, and just 29% are Democrats.
Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY), an anti-Israel Republican who was defeated this year in a GOP primary, introduced the amendment to a State Department funding bill knowing it would fail, which it did: 314 members voted against it.
He was the only Republican to support it, along with 103 Democrats. Ten Democrats voted present on the amendment, which would have eliminated the $3.3 billion in annual foreign military financing provided by the U.S. to Israel, according to the terms of the 2016 memorandum of understanding between the two countries.
The 18 AIPAC endorsees who voted in favor of the measure were Reps. Gabe Amo (D-RI), Jake Auchincloss (D-MA), Julia Brownley (D-CA), Katherine Clark (D-MA), Laura Friedman (D-CA), Maggie Goodlander (D-NH), Josh Harder (D-CA), Steven Horsford (D-NV), Glenn Ivey (D-MD), Julie Johnson (D-TX), Bill Keating (D-MA), Seth Magaziner (D-RI), Richard Neal (D-MA), Joe Neguse (D-CO), Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), Brittany Pettersen (D-CO), Pat Ryan (D-NY) and Adam Smith (D-WA).
On its website, AIPAC delineates retiring lawmakers, who are no longer raising money, with a brief explanation thanking them for their “ongoing support for the U.S.-Israel relationship.” On the profiles of retiring Reps. Brownley, Pelosi and Johnson, AIPAC removed the line expressing thanks.
Three AIPAC-endorsed lawmakers — Reps. Shontel Brown (D-OH), Sarah Elfreth (D-MD) and Chris Pappas (D-NH) — voted “present” on the measure. AIPAC is still supporting them.
The group did not formally rescind its endorsement of any lawmakers after the vote, according to an AIPAC source, even though they are no longer going to receive financial support from the organization.
An AIPAC spokesperson declined to comment.
The AJC CEO told JI on the sidelines of the Aspen Security Forum that he was ‘glad to see’ that many of his colleagues acknowledged that the amendment to cut military aid to Israel was ‘bad policy’
Aryeh Schwartz/AJC
Ted Deutch
ASPEN, Colo. — American Jewish Committee CEO Ted Deutch, who served as a Democratic member of Congress from 2010-2022, expressed frustration and disappointment with the decision of half of his former caucus to vote this week for an amendment to cut off U.S. military aid to Israel.
The issue, Deutch argued, is too important and too sensitive for what some supporters characterized as a show vote on an amendment, led by Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY), that even many of its supporters saw as deeply flawed.
Deutch told Jewish Insider in an interview Thursday on the sidelines of the Aspen Security Forum that he was “glad to see” that many of his colleagues acknowledged that the amendment was “bad policy” and “indirectly acknowledg[ed] that it would damage American interests.”
“And yet [they] turned around to vote for it anyway. That was just a really disappointing reflection of the moment,” Deutch said.
He said that members of Congress have a “responsibility” to “lead” and to “stake out positions that help advance good policy,” not only to follow trends and pressure.
“If the reason that people voted for the Massie amendment was because they see the way some of these primaries have gone — the worst part is the refusal to stand up against what we’ve seen happening,” he said, asserting that the Massie amendment and the arguments over Israel policy that have pervaded this year’s Democratic primaries don’t advance American interests or true conversations about peace for Palestinians and Israelis.
He said that members appeared to feel obligated to vote for the amendment to signal support for an “absolutist” wing of the party that, Deutch said, wants to exclude anyone who supports Israel’s existence.
“I understand that … members of Congress make decisions, they want to make a statement with a vote. But the future of the Middle East, our support for Israel, our interest in advancing the prospects for peace between Israel and Palestinians, is far too important to fall prey to a meaningless and, I would argue, ridiculous show vote,” Deutch told JI.
He took aim at candidates who have made opposition to Israel a centerpiece of their campaigns, arguing that they’re not interested in real solutions but instead in “demonizing Israel” and “undermining the very existence of Israel.” Walking away from the U.S.-Israel relationship or advocating against Israel’s existence will not advance peace, he reiterated.
Those opposing Israel’s existence are not only hurting the Jewish community but also risk “undermining pluralism in America and the ability to actually have a functioning democratic society.”
But he also drew distinctions among those who supported the Massie amendment. Some, he said, are anti-Israel and want to push supporters of Israel out of the political mainstream. Others, he said, decided to “vote for terrible policy because they thought that maybe that would help them politically.”
He said that supporters of Israel need to find opportunities for “the majority of those people” who supported the amendment to understand that, even if they are frustrated with the Israeli government, taking an “absolutist approach” is not necessary or productive.
Deutch said that AJC and other supporters of Israel can’t write off the Democratic Party or the lawmakers who voted for the Massie amendment.
“We’re doubling down on the work that we do on the Hill and the conversations that we have on helping people understand … the future of the region, especially when the Iran war ends,” Deutch said. “When the war ends, the opportunities to help our elected officials take another look at the region and how to achieve regional peace and the critical role that Israel plays in that — that’s one of the things that we’re doing now.”
Deutch said during a panel discussion on Israel and U.S.-Israel relations that it’s also important to emphasize that Israel does not bear sole responsibility for the situation in the Middle East and that other actors bear agency and responsibility for the current state of affairs.
“This is not Israel’s burden to fix all of the problems in the Middle East on their own,” Deutch said. “There are responsibilities for the Palestinians, certainly disarming Hamas, the responsibility for the Arab countries, responsibility for the U.S.”
He told JI that discussions over Israel policy can’t be divorced from talking about antisemitism and the rising demonization of Israel and the Jewish community. Members who voted for the Massie amendment “have a really important role to play in fighting antisemitism, and we’re working doubly hard to make sure they understand what the connection is here, and how the anti-Zionism and hatred of Israel leads to real-world violence.”
On the panel, he likewise warned that characterizations of people who support Israel or AIPAC as “monster[s]” — invoking comments by New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani — could lead to real-world violence.
Regardless of his frustration over Democratic support for the Massie amendment, Deutch told JI he still wants to work with members who are serious about issues of Middle East peace and representing the Jewish community.
Deutch also said that there are many politicians outside of Washington with whom he has engaged who don’t want to be “defined by a group” of what he described as “DSA extremists” that “sets these absolutist positions that are contrary to the way that they view the world, and it’s important to know that that those leaders exist, and we’re doing as much as we can to help lift up their voices.”
In statements about the vote, even Democratic leaders who opposed the Massie amendment said that they believed that major changes to the U.S.-Israel relationship would be necessary going forward.
Asked what a responsible and reasonable approach to the future of the relationship should look like, Deutch said that it should start with “mutual respect” for each other and recognition of “the importance of the other” — things he said were lacking in the debate around the amendment.
“With that respect comes the ability to have frank discussions about what the future looks like and how to achieve it” on a range of subjects, Deutch said.
On the panel and in his conversation with JI, Deutch also criticized Vice President JD Vance’s comments earlier this week about Israel on Joe Rogan’s podcast.
While he praised Vance for pushing back against the “most extreme” conspiracy theories Rogan presented, he said he wished the vice president would have made a case for why the U.S.-Israel relationship is in the U.S.’ interests, instead of only saying that he acts in the U.S.’ best interests.
“When you put it the way that he did, it suggests that somehow it’s not the case [that the U.S.-Israel relationship serves the U.S.]. It plays into the memes of and the conspiracy theories of Israel and the Jews pulling strings,” Deutch said.
“I respect very much the vice president is working to do what he believes is in the best interest of America, and I want him to understand that for me, that that means engaging in these conversations about the future of Israel and the Middle East, without suggesting that somehow doing that work and standing up for Israel’s right to defend itself and pushing back against Iranian aggression is somehow contrary to the responsibilities that he has,” Deutch continued.
He didn’t impute ill-intent to the vice president, but said Vance’s comments could be weaponized by others who will interpret them to mean that supporting Israel is bad for the United States.
Throughout the panel, Deutch emphasized that discussion about the U.S.-Israel relationship must recognize that Israel and the U.S.-Israel relationship, and the state of affairs in the Middle East transcend and are much larger than Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his individual decisions.
“There’s much more at stake in the relationship between the United States and Israel than any one prime minister,” Deutch said.
Asked by JI about comments by a fellow panelist, former U.S. Ambassador to Israel Dan Shapiro, that the U.S.-Israel relationship would be difficult to repair on both sides of the aisle if Netanyahu remains in power after the upcoming Israeli elections, Deutch rejected that line of thinking.
“We have to reject this idea that somehow, whatever any individual may want to happen in the Israeli election, that there is only one outcome that can ensure the continued viability of the U.S.-Israel relationship,” Deutch said. “I reject that completely out of hand, and I think those of us who are committed to the relationship have to make sure that in the policy debates that are happening, that it doesn’t become a dominant narrative. There’s too much at risk.”
Three senior officials with the board are requesting $200 million from Congress to support the International Stabilization Force in Gaza
Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images
President Donald Trump holds up his signature on the founding charter during a signing ceremony for the “Board of Peace” at the World Economic Forum (WEF) on January 22, 2026 in Davos, Switzerland.
Three senior U.S. officials connected to the Board of Peace, the Trump-led body created to resolve the conflict in Gaza, have been meeting with congressional offices this week to request $200 million for a peacekeeping force, according to two people with knowledge of the meetings. The meetings mark the first time that Board of Peace representatives have approached Congress with a funding request.
Jasper Jeffers, an American military officer serving as commander of the International Stabilization Force, the United Nations-mandated peacekeeping force created in last year’s ceasefire deal between Israel and Hamas; Board of Peace senior advisor Josh Gruenbaum; and retired Gen. Mark Schwartz, a former U.S. security coordinator for Israel and the Palestinian Authority who is now the Board of Peace’s security lead, spoke at the Capitol Hill meetings.
The ISF, which was part of President Donald Trump’s 20-point peace plan announced last September, has struggled to find backers. Indonesia, Morocco, Kazakhstan, Kosovo and Albania pledged troops to the effort, but most have not yet done so. Indonesia paused its plans in March during the Iran war. What was billed as a 20,000-troop force has fewer than 20 initial members, according to a Wall Street Journal report this week. The ISF’s goal is to demilitarize Gaza and keep Hamas out of power, and countries have voiced concerns over whether their troops would be required to militarily confront Hamas.
Gruenbaum, Jeffers and Schwartz have met or plan to meet with staff from the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, the House Foreign Affairs Committee and the national security-focused subcommittees on the House and Senate Appropriations committees. A Board of Peace official called the meetings “extensive and highly constructive.”
“The delegation shared the progress that the Board has made in recent weeks, including movement toward the establishment of a humanitarian pilot [program] in Gaza, ongoing efforts in negotiations to disarm Hamas, preparations for the Palestinian technocratic government to assume authority, the huge improvement in the humanitarian situation, the pending start of training for a civilian police and the recent and ongoing scale-up in manpower and logistics for the International Stabilization Force,” the official told Jewish Insider.
The requested $200 million for peacekeeping operations, or PKO — a specific category in the Foreign Assistance Act — is primarily intended to fund the International Stabilization Force, according to a source with knowledge of the Board of Peace’s activities.
The request is for discretionary funding, rather than a direct congressional appropriation for the Board of Peace. The Board of Peace source said conversations about congressional appropriations for the body may come later.
The Board of Peace official said the congressional meetings marked “the start of an extensive effort to work with Congress” in order to “transform Gaza into a place of peace, prosperity, economic development and reconstruction.”
Earlier in the week, Board of Peace officials met in Brussels with senior Palestinian Authority leaders, and the European Union committed to providing $1 billion toward Gaza recovery efforts.
The president implied that the renewed strikes reset the 60-day clock for operations without congressional authorization
Photo by Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images
U.S. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) speaks to reporters after the weekly Senate policy luncheons at the U.S. Capitol on June 23, 2026 in Washington. Schumer spoke out against President Trump's Iran deal and a the need for the Senate to pass a War Powers Resolution regarding Iran.
Democrats on Monday slammed President Donald Trump’s resumption of hostilities against Iran, as well as the notion, implicit in Trump’s notification, that the operations mark a new conflict and therefore reset the 60-day window for military operations launched by the executive branch without congressional approval.
In a letter to congressional leaders on Friday notifying them that the war had resumed, Trump said that Iran repeatedly violated the memorandum of understanding by attacking commercial vessels on July 6 and 7, and that the U.S. had, as of July 7, commenced “defensive strikes against targets within Iran including missile launch sites, air defenses, military maritime assets, military support infrastructure, and command and control capabilities.”
Trump said that ground forces are not involved in the operations and are focused on protecting the U.S., but American forces “remain postured to take further action.” He added that he was notifying Congress pursuant to his obligation under the War Powers Act, the statute that lays out the 60-day timeline.
Critics of the war have argued consistently that the operations that began in February never actually concluded during the since-terminated ceasefire, despite the administration’s assertions otherwise.
“Trump’s rinse and repeat approach to the Iran war isn’t a strategy, it’s a recipe for utter disaster,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said Monday. “It’s incredible what a fiasco this war is. Trump’s so-called understanding — lot of bull — with Iran fell apart faster than the ink could dry.”
Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA), who has led war powers efforts in the Senate to end the conflict, said the U.S. has been at war, and argued that the administration is obligated to withdraw U.S. forces in response to the war powers resolution that Congress passed last month.
“The notion that [the 60-day clock] was paused before, I think, was sort of laughed out of the room. This has been an ongoing conflict, even during the midst of a ceasefire,” Kaine said. “There were still hostilities underway. So this is not a war that paused and restarted.”
He said he will continue to support war powers efforts but believes that Congress has already definitively declared the war illegal. The resolution that Congress passed came in the form of a concurrent resolution, which is not presented to the president, and its legal force is disputed.
Sen. Adam Schiff (D-CA) filed a new war powers resolution on Monday to oppose the war, which likewise argues that combat operations never ceased.
“We were promised the war would be over for months. And now in a matter of days we’ve gone from a bad U.S.-Iran deal to more strikes, another blockade, and added turmoil that will only drive prices higher,” Schiff said in a statement. “Any assertion by the Trump administration that he gets 60 more days to act without Congress has no foundation in law.”
Kaine and Sens. Andy Kim (D-NJ), Jeff Merkley (D-OR) and Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) cosponsored the resolution.
Rep. Adam Smith (D-WA), the ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee, “wholeheartedly condemn[ed]” Trump’s plans to take control of the Strait of Hormuz, arguing that it is impossible without significant escalation and would be “frankly, just wrong.”
“Iran has gained greater leverage, continues to destabilize the region, and has a younger and more hardline leadership than when this war started,” Smith said. “It is past time for [Republicans] to work with us to ensure the president finds a diplomatic solution to ending a war he never should have started and that threatens our national security and defense as well as that of our partners.”
Even some Republicans have expressed skepticism of the administration’s strategy, including over Trump’s plan to impose a toll on the Strait of Hormuz.
“I recall Secretary [of State Marco] Rubio saying that would not be proper for any country. … Am I wrong?” Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) told reporters.
Additionally, given the recent sudden death of Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and the extended medical absence of Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY), Democrats may be able to more consistently pass war powers resolutions to oppose the war in Iran.
Many Democrats also say they plan to oppose a procedural vote this week to advance the 2027 National Defense Authorization Act in protest of the continued operations against Iran.
The California Democrat, one of the most vocal Israel critics in the House, last traveled to the Jewish state in October 2024
Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images
Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA) speaks at a rally near the U.S. Capitol on June 29, 2021, in Washington, D.C.
Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA) traveled to Israel and the West Bank this week while Congress is in recess, according to two individuals with knowledge of the trip.
Khanna has not posted publicly about his trip, which is scheduled to conclude Thursday night. His office did not respond to requests for comment from JI.
The California Democrat has become increasingly critical of Israel since the onset of the Israel-Hamas war following Hamas’ Oct. 7, 2023, terror attacks. In September 2025, he accused Israel of having committed genocide in Gaza.
His last known trip to the country was with a bipartisan delegation in October 2024 that also included stops in Jordan and Saudi Arabia. On that trip, the delegation met with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. In a statement about the trip, Khanna noted that the group had also met with Jordanian King Abdullah II earlier in the day.
A spokesperson for the Prime Minister’s Office said that Netanyahu did not meet with Khanna during this trip.
Members from both parties warned lifting penalties would reward Erdoğan's destabilizing actions, while senators at NATO summit said Turkey could rejoin F-35 program if concerns over Russian S-400 system are resolved
Burak Kara/Getty Images
Turkey's President Recep Tayyip Erdogan speaks to supporters at his party’s Istanbul mayoral candidate Murat Kurum's campaign rally on March 29, 2024 in Istanbul, Turkey.
Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle remain deeply skeptical of President Donald Trump’s plans to lift sanctions on Turkey and revive its participation in the F-35 fighter jet program, but members of a bipartisan Senate delegation attending the NATO summit said Wednesday they could support the move if Ankara resolves longstanding security concerns over its Russian-made S-400 missile defense system.
Trump said at the NATO summit on Tuesday that he’s preparing to remove sanctions under the Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act (CAATSA), explaining, “We don’t want to sanction friends.” The CAASTA sanctions block the administration from selling Turkey F-35s until it disposes of an S-400 missile defense system it purchased from Russia.
“Selling one of America’s most advanced fighter jets to Turkey is not in the best interest of the United States,” Rep. Mike Lawler (R-NY) told Jewish Insider. “It risks compromising critical technology and sends the wrong message to our allies in Europe and the Middle East. Restrictions on the sale of F-35s to Turkey should absolutely remain in place while Erdogan continues to operate Russian S-400s, in accordance with existing U.S. law.”
Rep. Nicole Malliotakis (R-NY) also called on the administration not to allow the F-35 sale to proceed.
“Erdogan has aligned himself with Iran and Russia, harbored Hamas, refused to sanction Russia, undermined American counter-ISIS operations, continues to illegally occupy part of Cyprus, has repeatedly directed illegal military jet overflights above the Greek Islands, and called for the destruction of Israel,” Malliotakis said in a statement to JI. “Additionally, he continues to jail his political opponents and has denied dozens of journalists access to the NATO Summit.”
“Providing Turkey with our most advanced fighter jet would jeopardize U.S. national security, risk sensitive technology falling into the wrong hands, and endanger our allies in the Eastern Mediterranean and Middle East,” she continued.
Rep. Brad Sherman (D-CA) said that lifting CAATSA sanctions or reopening the possibility of F-35 sales would be a “profound mistake” that “would reward Erdogan’s actions toward Israel as well as his domestic strongman behavior, and it would be tantamount to handing [Russian President Vladimir] Putin the blueprints to our technology.”
“Congress imposed these sanctions because Turkey’s acquisition of the S-400 posed an unacceptable threat to U.S. and NATO security, and those concerns remain every bit as valid today,” Sherman said. “Until Turkey permanently disposes of the S-400 system, we should not consider lifting sanctions or returning Turkey to the F-35 program.”
He emphasized Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s repeated hostile language toward Israel as well as the threat that operating the S-400 in proximity to the F-35 would pose to sensitive U.S. stealth technology.
“Trump cannot unilaterally authorize the sale of F-35s to Turkey,” Sherman added. The legal process by which the White House could lift the sanctions unilaterally remains unclear.
Rep. Brad Schneider (D-IL) emphasized that Turkey remains in breach of CAATSA and the sale should not proceed.
“Congress passed CAATSA in 2017, and the law is very clear: it’s illegal to bring Turkey back into the F-35 program so long as it has the Russian S-400 air defense system. This violates the law,” Schneider told JI. “We cannot let President Trump give Putin a backdoor to one of our most technologically advanced aircrafts, just because an authoritarian leader who hosts Hamas flatters him.”
Speaking on the sidelines of the NATO summit at a press conference on Wednesday morning, members of a bipartisan delegation sounded a more positive note toward Trump’s effort.
Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and co-chair of the NATO observer group, noted that “[Sen.] Thom Tillis [R-NC] and I wrote the legislation that prohibited, that kicked Turkey out of the F-35 program because of their acquisition of the S-400.”
“If there is an acceptable way to deal with the S-400 and the threat that that poses to the technology and the F-35 and there is satisfactory agreement on the part of all parties about that, then I think having Türkiye back in the F-35 program would be a positive development, both for Türkiye and for the United States,” Shaheen added. “But we still have questions to answer with respect to what’s being proposed, and we haven’t gotten those answers, so we will wait to see what happens.”
Sen. Mike Rounds (R-SD), also participating in the press conference, agreed with Shaheen on the matter, saying, “Hopefully it can be resolved. Türkiye is a major NATO contributor, and anything that we can do to provide them with the resources to be an even stronger adversary with regard to incurrences by Russia in Europe, the better off we all are, and one of those is to have that tool of the F-35.”
Asked about the U.S.-Turkey relationship, Shaheen said, “I think Congress views the relationship with Türkiye as positive, and particularly with respect to Türkiye’s role in NATO, there are some concerns about the commitment to democracy and how that is playing out in Türkiye with respect to elections, but I think that there is an appreciation for the importance of the defense industrial base in Türkiye, and how that contributes to NATO, and that that will continue in Congress.”
Rounds added, “we really need to re-energize” the industrial base “among all of the NATO countries.”
“We need what each of our NATO allies can offer with regard to that industrial base, and Türkiye does not stand alone, they stand with everyone else, but they have some real opportunities here for advancements,” Rounds continued. “They were one of the countries selected to participate originally in the manufacturing of the F-35 fighters and that shows a strong competency in technological areas that provided that award to them in the first place, and so we want Türkiye, along with all of our NATO allies, to be able to participate in this growth of an industrial base that makes it easier for us to respond to areas of aggression by Mr. [Russian President Vladimir] Putin.…”
Rep. Mike Turner (R-OH) said during the press conference that “the details that have been shared with us do appear to be promising,” with regard to the F-35 and S-400 issues.
Sen. Chris Coons (D-DE) added that “the legitimate national security concerns that drove the actions led by Sen. Shaheen … would continue if the S-400 were to be deployed somewhere else, so concerns about the possibility of critical American technology related to the F-35 being misappropriated or sent to Russia would also pertain if there were some resolution.”
Rep. George Latimer (D-NY), however, said that Congress should push to block the sale of F-35s if Trump insists on moving ahead with it.
“President Trump’s inclination for deal-making with dictators like President Erdoğan is grossly neglectful of our national security interests at home and abroad,” Latimer told JI. “This Congress — both houses and both sides of the aisle — needs to speak out against this situation and remain adamant for a Joint Resolution of Disapproval should this administration move to readmit Turkey back into the United States F-35 program.”
Rep. Dina Titus (D-NV) and 17 other House Democrats sent a letter to House leaders on Monday urging them to “stand ready to exercise your authority under statute to prevent” the administration from allowing Turkey back into the F-35 program by introducing a joint resolution of disapproval to block the move.
The letter emphasizes that the administration is required to maintain the CAATSA sanctions until such time as Turkey disposes of the S-400 — which Turkey has not. “Beyond the legal question, we are also concerned about the strategic message this decision would send to U.S. partners in the Eastern Mediterranean and beyond,” the letter continues, noting Turkey’s aggression against Greece, Cyprus, Armenia and Israel.
“CAATSA was passed by overwhelming bipartisan margins in both chambers precisely to ensure that Congress, not any individual president, retains a meaningful check on decisions to reward adversary-aligned conduct with American military technology,” the lawmakers wrote. “The integrity of that framework and the signal it sends to every country weighing whether to purchase Russian arms depend on Congress being willing to enforce it.”
Actually waiving or lifting the CAATSA sanctions is likely easier said than done, and could spark conflict with Congress. The original legislation provides little wiggle-room, requiring sanctions on anyone or any country that engages in business with the Russian defense or intelligence sectors.
Congress added a modified waiver provision in 2018 that requires the administration to certify that the waiver would not endanger U.S. alliances or adversely affect U.S. operations and that the waiver recipient is actively working to decrease its use of Russian military equipment or is otherwise cooperating with the U.S. on critical matters.
Updated certifications and reports to Congress are required every 90 days.
Under CAATSA, Congress can advance a joint resolution of disapproval to overturn the administration’s decisions on sanctions relief or arms sales, though it’s unlikely that the Republican-controlled Congress would publicly buck Trump on the issue.
Matt Zweig, the managing director for policy at FDD Action and a former congressional staffer who helped craft the original CAATSA bill, told JI, “Lifting these sanctions is generally easy to announce but will likely be hard to execute. The sanctions and the congressional review mechanism are embedded in the law, unwinding them runs straight through the Hill,”
Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) said on X that he hoped that a report about Trump’s move was “wrong,” following up by sharing information about CAATSA sanctions.
Rep. Chris Pappas (D-NH) said in a separate statement, “It’s outrageous for Trump to even consider readmitting Turkey to the F-35 program while Erdogan’s government continues to violate U.S. law and threaten our allies. We cannot reward Erdogan’s aggressive and destabilizing activity across the region.”
Reached for comment, a spokesperson for Rep. Gus Bilirakis (R-FL) referred JI to a statement that Bilirakis and other Greek-American Republican House members previously released opposing the sale of military jet engines and F-35s to Turkey.
“As Greek American Members of Congress, we are deeply concerned about reports of a proposed military sale of jet engines to Turkey. Turkey continues to be a destabilizing force in the region through its expansive and disputed maritime claims, continued illegal occupation of Cyprus, and rhetorical demonization of Israel,” the lawmakers said, also raising concerns about Ankara’s decision to harbor Hamas leaders and refusal to sanction Russia.
“We are actively engaging with the Administration and House leadership to obtain additional information regarding this reported sale and to express our strong opposition to any prospect of Turkey’s reintegration into the F-35 program without complete compliance with CAATSA requirements,” the statement continued.
Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC), one of the most vocal supporters of Turkey in the House, offered the most unqualified support for Trump’s effort to roll back sanctions.
“President Trump and [U.S.] Ambassador [to Turkey] Tom Barrack have displayed visionary leadership and pragmatism alongside valued NATO ally Türkiye,” Wilson said. “Türkiye has played an instrumental role in assisting Syria’s stabilization after over a decade of mass murder under butcher [Bashar al-]Assad, who correctly fled to Moscow. We don’t sanction friends. We work together for a better future.”
Trump told reporters in Ankara that ‘Turkey has been in many ways much more loyal than other countries’
Win McNamee/Getty Images
President Donald Trump speaks to Turkish President, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, after arriving at Etimesgut Air Base for the annual NATO Summit on July 7, 2026 in Ankara, Turkey.
President Donald Trump announced on Tuesday that his administration was preparing to lift congressionally mandated sanctions on Turkey as he weighs moving forward with the sale of coveted F-35 fighter jets to Ankara.
“We’re going to be taking the sanctions off,” Trump said alongside Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan on the sidelines of the NATO summit in Ankara, referring to lifting the Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act (CAATSA).
“It’s time to do that. We don’t want to sanction friends. It’s very simple,” he continued. “We’re working very closely with [Secretary of State] Marco Rubio and with [Treasury Secretary] Scott Bessent and with [Defense Secretary] Pete [Hegseth] and everybody else.”
"We don't wanna sanction friends," Trump said at the NATO summit as he announced he was preparing to lift sanctions on Turkey.
— Jewish Insider (@jewishinsider) July 7, 2026
"It's very simple."
Read more: https://t.co/FM9Me9HQQk pic.twitter.com/HjwESQs5M6
The CAATSA sanctions were imposed by Congress in December 2020 during the final weeks of Trump’s first administration due to Turkey’s acquisition of Russian S-400 missile-defense systems. The Trump administration had, the year before, announced it would be banning Turkey from the F-35 fighter jet program over the same issue, which Congress codified. Defense experts and lawmakers have previously told Jewish Insider that Turkey still maintains the Russian hardware, which makes lifting the sanctions legally complicated.
The Trump administration noted last month that it planned to review Ankara’s eligibility to receive the F-35s, a move that has already drawn bipartisan pushback in Congress. Asked whether he is still considering the deal despite these remaining legal restrictions, Trump said it was “something, certainly, we would consider.”
“It’s a decision we’re going to make,” Trump said. “We have a very good relationship. I can tell you, many people, including the people sitting right here, think, ‘Why wouldn’t we do that?’ We have a better relationship with Turkey and Turkey has been in many ways much more loyal than other countries.”
Throughout the exchange, Trump repeatedly emphasized his close ties with Erdoğan, describing the two as “great friends” and crediting the Turkish leader with playing an instrumental part in neighboring Syria.
“Because of [Erdoğan], we have a very good relationship with the new leader of Syria,” Trump said. “I approved [Syrian President Ahmad al-Sharaa] along with [Erdoğan]. We were the two that really wanted him, and he’s done a great job.”
Trump also lauded Turkey for playing an “extraordinary” role in helping wind down the military conflict between the U.S. and Iran, downplaying criticism over Ankara’s increasingly hostile relationship with Israel.
“They could have gotten into the fight on the other side,” Trump said of Turkey’s role in the Iran war.
“They are a nation that’s been very good, they’ve been extraordinary in many ways with respect to our relationship, including trying to end the war with Iran — or whatever you call it, it’s not even a war, it’s a military operation, it’s a denuclearization,” he added.
The California lawmaker was forced to leave a transgender community march amid harassment from anti-Israel activists shouting antisemitic slurs at him
Gabrielle Lurie/San Francisco Chronicle via Getty Images
California state Sen. Scott Wiener's election party at his congressional campaign headquarters on election night in San Francisco, Calif. on June 2, 2026.
California state Sen. Scott Wiener, the front-runner to succeed retiring Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) in Congress, has become the target of antisemitic harassment twice in the last week in his San Francisco district, marking the latest example of a high-profile progressive Jewish politician being singled out and facing threats for his background.
The latest episode occurred Friday when Wiener, who was on his way to participate in a Pride Shabbat service at a transgender community march in San Francisco, was chased out of the event by anti-Israel activists following the state lawmaker and shouting antisemitic slurs at him.
In a video posted by one local anti-Israel activist, the activist follows Wiener around, attacking him for “being terrible on Gaza,” adding, “You do not belong here anymore, Scott. And it breaks my f—ing heart.” Soon after the initial engagement, other even-more hostile activists start cursing at Wiener, with one calling him a “genocidal piece of sh—” and another saying, “F— you and your Zionist handlers.”
Wiener is a longtime supporter of the transgender community, noting in a statement on Saturday about the incidents that he’s attended the march he was harassed out of every year since it began in 2004.
Two days earlier, Wiener, while watching a World Cup game with staffers at a local bar, was berated over his support for Israel by another anti-Israel activist who demanded he say the words “Free Palestine” on camera. The same individual, Wiener said, had stalked him on a plane several years earlier, shouting obscenities about his “tainted bloodline.”
”I have no objection whatsoever to anyone disagreeing with me, opposing me, or protesting me. All of that is core to democracy,” Weiner said, as videos of the confrontations went viral on Saturday.
“But when opposition and disagreement transition to harassment, including cornering me, touching me, or trying to physically bully me out of a public event, that crosses a line. We’re living in a time when violence is all too often threatened or used against people in public life. In San Francisco, we’re better than that.”
Wiener, a progressive stalwart in the California state legislature who has worked closely with the Jewish community the Bay Area, called Israel’s war against Hamas a “genocide” earlier this year after facing intense pressure from left-wing activists to do so. At the time, Wiener was facing primary opposition from a candidate who was attacking him over his support for Israel.
He stepped down as co-chair of the California Legislative Jewish Caucus, after his decision to placate progressives drew opposition from the state’s sizable Jewish community.
Activists have continued to harass the lawmaker even as he finished in first place in the state’s June Democratic primary. (He is facing San Francisco supervisor Connie Chan, who has Pelosi’s endorsement.)
The antisemitic threats against Wiener come after Rep. Dan Goldman (D-NY), who lost a primary last week amid relentless attacks over his support for Israel, faced online harassment from a Brooklyn coffee shop owner after he bought a drink in the store.
“We see that you stopped by our shop today for a coffee. Do you see how it doesn’t taste like genocide juice?” Poetica Coffee wrote in an Instagram post with an image of Goldman standing at the register. “We don’t need your money (it’s probably coming from AIPAC anyways). Don’t ever come to Poetica.”
The Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division is investigating Poetica Coffee for possible discrimination.
Is the rise of socialism primarily a product of urban angst and college-age naivete, or does it have staying power beyond the most-progressive precincts in the country?
Spencer Platt/Getty Images
Members of the Democratic Socialists of America May 01, 2019 in New York City.
There’s little doubt that socialism is on the march within the Democratic Party after the latest primaries, with extreme candidates who would have been dismissed as nonviable prevailing in numerous congressional primaries and mayoral contests from coast to coast.
Factor in the political resilience of far-left Maine Senate nominee Graham Platner despite numerous scandals and the momentum of anti-Israel Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed in a contested Michigan primary despite facing well-funded opposition, and there’s the potential of radicals toppling mainstream candidates well outside the deep-blue confines of major urban centers.
Ultimately, that’s a major question looming for the Democratic Party’s future — and the health of our democracy. Is the rise of socialism primarily a product of urban angst and college-age naivete, or does it have staying power beyond the most-progressive precincts in the country? Can left-wing candidates prevail in swing districts, far away from the urban progressive centers that make up its base? Or will they end up being more of a noisy but powerless faction in Congress?
Either way, socialist candidates have gone from a curiosity that rarely won any congressional seats to riding a Democratic Socialists of America-organized grassroots wave that now has to be reckoned with. You could count the number of Squad members on one hand when Rep. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez (D-NY) and her like-minded allies were first elected in 2018 and 2020. Now their representation is poised to double from its previous peak — and AOC now counts as downright pragmatic, compared to several of her soon-to-be-colleagues.
So far, nearly all of the major victories from the far-left candidates are in the most left-wing constituencies in the country — in big cities and college towns. We first saw the socialist stirrings last year in three prominent mayoral races: New York City, Seattle and St. Paul, Minn., and flagged the three contests as an early bellwether of socialism’s standing in the party. The socialist candidates won two out of three contests, led by New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s shocking success against far more established and mainstream Democratic Party leaders.
Mamdani’s out-of-nowhere victory fueled the rise of like-minded anti-Israel, DSA-aligned candidates, proving that radical records weren’t necessarily an obstacle to success in Democratic primaries. The DSA-endorsed Chris Rabb’s primary victory in a Philadelphia congressional district in May was at the leading edge of how far-left candidates were making inroads with Black voters who have typically been skeptical of ideologically driven campaigns.
Even more shocking was the nomination of Adam Hamawy in a largely urban New Jersey district with a large Jewish population. Hamawy was a former associate of the Blind Sheikh, Omar Abdel-Rahman, and previously held ties with Islamist extremist groups. Not only did he prevail with a plurality in the crowded race, but many of his Democratic opponents didn’t bring up his obvious vulnerabilities.
The commanding victory of Janeese Lewis George, a socialist candidate in the D.C. mayoral primary, and Mamdani’s ouster of two well-respected New York City Democratic leaders in Congress (Reps. Dan Goldman and Adriano Espaillat) — in no small part over their support for Israel — was the capstone to the tidal wave occurring in Democratic Party, at least in the urban centers that make up its geographical base.
It’s also worth noting that while more-competitive districts have tended to nominate traditional center-left Democratic candidates, there have been some notable outliers that underscore the rising tide of radicals within the party. Democratic Party leaders had to furiously organize to stop an outright antisemitic candidate, Maureen Galindo, who broadcast deeply disturbing conspiracy theories about Jews, to prevail in a battleground Texas district.
And in New Jersey, partly as an unintended result of AIPAC spending against a more-traditional front-runner, a Bernie Sanders acolyte and left-wing activist (Rep. Analilia Mejia) prevailed in the heart of the state’s wealthy suburbs. Hamawy’s New Jersey district, too, contained many affluent suburban pockets that nonetheless swung in his direction.
These are the signals that raise the possibility that far-left Democratic candidates, like Platner and El-Sayed, can prevail in larger, more ideologically diverse battlegrounds. If neo-Nazi tattoos, anti-American sloganeering and antisemitic signaling doesn’t move the needle for a critical mass of Democratic voters, it’s fair to wonder how much damage they will cause in a general election.
In all too many of these races featuring extreme anti-Israel candidates, Jewish voters — left without any moderate allies — were the only Democratic constituency who swung away from backing the radical Democratic nominee. Mamdani got record-low support from Jewish voters, but it didn’t matter. Mejia badly underperformed her moderate Republican challenger in Jewish communities, but it barely made a dent in a Democratic-friendly district.
So, the Michigan Democratic Senate primary in August — featuring Israel-bashing Democrat El-Sayed and Rep. Haley Stevens (D-MI), a long-standing ally to the Jewish community — is ultimately the more consequential test of whether this unapologetic brand of socialism can find political purchase outside its home turf.
If it does — and if Platner prevails in Maine despite his significant baggage — it will serve as a five-alarm fire for American Jews and their place in American society.
Democrats, and some Republicans skeptical of the war effort, have indicated that they’re hesitant if not outright opposed to voting for additional funding for the war
ATTA KENARE / AFP via Getty Images
Explosions erupt following strikes at Tehran Oil Refinery in Tehran on March 7, 2026.
The Trump administration on Wednesday formally sent an $87.6 billion supplemental funding request to replenish stockpiles and otherwise cover the costs of the war with Iran to Congress.
The official notification came in a letter from Office of Management and Budget Director Russell Vought on behalf of President Donald Trump to House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA), which was subsequently forwarded to Senate GOP leadership offices.
The defense supplemental request includes $67 billion for the Department of Defense to resupply munitions stocks and prevent the cost of the U.S. troop deployment to the Middle East during Operation Epic Fury, the operation conducted last summer against Iran, from cutting into the Pentagon’s budget.
The bill also requests some additional funding for the State Department and Coast Guard related to the operations.
Administration estimates for the cost of the war have fluctuated significantly: initial reports indicated the Pentagon wanted to ask Congress for $200 billion for the war alone, while officials testified that the munitions costs of the war were between $20 billion and $30 billion. Reconstruction costs for the U.S. bases damaged or destroyed during the war have not yet been accounted for.
Democrats, and some Republicans skeptical of the war effort, have indicated that they’re hesitant if not outright opposed to voting for additional funding for the war, meaning that the legislation might struggle to clear the 60-vote threshold necessary for passage in the Senate.
In addition to the Iran war funding, the supplemental includes a variety of other requests relating to a smorgasbord of other subjects from the Ebola outbreak to supporting farmers, construction projects in Washington, D.C., and New York’s Penn Station and others.
Sen. Roger Wicker (R-MS), the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, released a statement expressing his full support for the supplemental request.
“I fully support the defense supplemental request submitted to Congress today and look forward to working with my colleagues to move it forward legislatively as soon as possible. We must ensure our service members have everything they need to face an increasingly dangerous world,” Wicker said in a statement. “This supplemental funding is essential in the near term to maintain readiness through training and military pay.”
He added that the “request would also accelerate immediate production of key capabilities, from exquisite munitions to low-cost hypersonics, strike weapons, and drones.”
Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-ND) told reporters that he supports the supplemental.
“I think there should be a lot of support for it — you don’t have to agree with the president’s decisions in Iran to understand we need to modernize, we need more munitions, we have some catching up to do in terms of our weapons systems,” Cramer said. “I, frankly, thought it was pretty modest.”
Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME), the chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, told Jewish Insider that she hasn’t had a chance to review the request yet, but that the committee plans to hold a public hearing about it.
Collins said “I have no idea, I really don’t” as to whether Republicans will be able to secure the Democratic support that will be necessary to pass the bill, but she was skeptical.
“I haven’t looked at it, and it also depends on whether they’re going to play politics,” Collins added. “I was also not encouraged by Vice Chair [Patty] Murray’s comments.”
Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-LA), who lost the Republican primary contest for his reelection bid to a Trump-backed challenger last month and has since become one of the Senate’s leading swing votes, told JI that he will need to review the supplemental before deciding whether to support it.
Sen. Chris Coons (D-DE), the top Democrat on the Senate Appropriations Defense subcommittee, told JI he was skeptical of the request.
“I’m still reviewing it. My initial reaction is I’m opposed to the supplemental as it is,” Coons said. “I’m open to finding ways to provide the resources that our war fighters need and that will defend our country, but I’m not open to billions of dollars for things like the Golden Fleet or the Golden Dome.”
Coons said that “it’s hard for me to get too excited about a supplemental when we don’t yet have clarity about if reconciliation 3.0 is the only supplemental and, frankly most importantly, what’s the status of the war. I’m not going to vote for a backdoor authorization for the war in Iran.”
The Delaware senator told JI that he has “pressed in every conversation” with the Trump administration “the importance of funding for Ukraine and securing cutting-edge drone interceptor capability to defend the United States.”
Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA), the top Democrat on the Appropriations Committee, released a statement late Wednesday criticizing the president for launching “a reckless and costly war with Iran — without authorization from Congress or the support of the American people — that he should never have started, and now, instead of doing anything to help families get by, he is asking taxpayers to pick up the tab and give him billions more to wage wars overseas.”
Murray noted that the president “is making this request for more funding as the Pentagon already has a historic annual budget and sits on over $100 billion in unspent funding Republicans provided in their Big Ugly Bill.”
She also argued that the Trump administration “has failed to answer basic questions about its aims and justification for the Iran war and failed to provide the most basic information about its costs.”
And the Washington senator said that the bill is “an attempt to secure tens of billions of additional dollars for unrelated Pentagon priorities that should rightly be considered through the annual appropriations process.”
Murray did not explicitly commit to voting against the supplemental request. She instead vowed to “closely review” it and said she would “ensure we take care of our servicemembers,” though she warned that, “I will not rubber-stamp tens of billions more for this disastrous war of choice.”
Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth briefed some House Republicans in a classified setting on the supplemental, and the White House’s request for a $350 billion reconciliation bill to provide additional Pentagon funding, at the Capitol on Wednesday. Some Senate Republicans have said the reconciliation bill is a nonstarter.
The meeting took place a few hours before Vought’s letter to Johnson, which was sent earlier in the day, was made public and came ahead of an expected fight over the funding request to replenish stockpiles and otherwise pay for the war in Iran.
Rep. Don Bacon (R-NE) emphasized after the meeting that the supplemental is necessary to restock the munitions the U.S. needs to counter its adversaries, and to take care of servicemembers.
He also offered support for the larger $350 billion request, which he said is just a first step toward bringing the U.S.’ defense budget in line with where it needs to be to ensure the country’s global status and take care of troops.
He also praised Hegseth’s discussion of the U.S. memorandum of understanding with Iran. Bacon said he has not always been impressed by Hegseth, but found that he was “more prepared” and had a “good grasp” of the details.
Rep. August Pfluger (R-TX), the chair of the Republican Study Committee, the GOP caucus that organized the briefing, also made the case for the reconciliation bill, arguing that we “have a once in a lifetime opportunity to have a generational impact on our military,” and argued that it’s going to be up to Republicans “to make sure the future generations have the resources, have the weapons systems, are trained and are outfitted to make sure that they defend this country.”
Rep. Rich McCormick (R-GA) said that Hegseth argued to lawmakers that, before the Iran war, the Iranians were not negotiating in good faith, and “now they are,” which is a sign of progress.
“So you could say they accomplished that mission. I think it wasn’t good enough at all. I think we could have had an unconditional surrender,” McCormick said, arguing that the U.S. should have struck Iran’s oil facilities and set back Iran’s economy by decades, and could have ended the war by now on its own terms.
“I just don’t see how they had any negotiation power at all,” McCormick said. He said that if Iran doesn’t make a deal, he expects a return to war.
He also argued that, even prior to the supplemental, the U.S. has sufficient munitions to “obliterate all of Iran, easily, and then some.”
The mayor flexed his political muscle as Brad Lander, Claire Valdez and Darializa Avila Chevalier triumphed in their congressional primaries
Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images
New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani speaks during a primary night watch party for congressional candidate Claire Valdez on June 23, 2026.
It’s New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s party now — even if not everybody in the Big Apple feels invited.
The mayor’s candidates for Congress jumped out to early leads Tuesday night, with former City Comptroller Brad Lander comfortably defeating Rep. Dan Goldman (D-NY), a stalwart opponent of President Donald Trump who nonetheless lost support from his party’s base over his lukewarm support for the new mayor and longstanding pro-Israel record. Lander won 66% of the vote to Goldman’s 34%, with 90% of the vote counted as of Wednesday morning.
The shocks to the party establishment continued throughout the night, as Democratic Socialists of America-endorsed state Assemblywoman Claire Valdez jumped to a commanding advantage over party favorite, Brooklyn Borough President Antonio Reynoso. Valdez easily defeated Reynoso, 56%-36%, with 92% of the vote counted.
And the capstone on the night for Mamdani’s Israel-critical congressional trifecta came when networks announced the ouster of Rep. Adriano Espaillat (D-NY), the chairman of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, against radical doctoral student and Columbia encampment leader Darializa Avila Chevalier, whose inflammatory X feed — and attendance at an anti-Israel rally the day after the Oct. 7 Hamas attacks — did little to derail her candidacy. In a much tighter race, Avila Chevalier beat the incumbent, 49%-46%, with 88% of the vote counted.
Signs of the ascendance of the far left within overwhelmingly Democratic big cities have been visible for months. Mamdani’s astounding mayoral victory in 2025 mobilized a slew of like-minded candidates to run for office — in New York City and beyond. In Philadelphia, DSA-endorsed candidate Chris Rabb won a Philadelphia-based congressional seat last month. Last week, DSA-backed Janeese Lewis George romped to victory in the race for mayor in the nation’s capital, and is on track to become the city’s next top executive.
In many ways, Lander was the most conventional of the Mamdani-backed candidates.
The former mayoral candidate was a heavy favorite from the moment it became clear he would not receive a job in Mamdani’s administration and instead took aim at the Brooklyn-Manhattan House seat, parts of which he had represented in local government since 2010.
Nonetheless, the self-described “progressive Zionist” bear-hugged the democratic socialist mayor and courted his left-wing base with escalating criticism of Israel. This at times created embarrassing moments for Lander, as when Jewish Insider discovered that his top consultant recruited from the independent “Hot Girls for Zohran” social media campaign had pushed pro-Hamas content and anti-Israel conspiracy theories online — and on the day of the vote, when New York City First Lady Rama Duwaji snubbed him by leaving him off her own list of endorsements.
The race also put Lander in the awkward spot of appearing in an ad that aired during the NBA finals with Mamdani and his two other endorsed House candidates, even as Lander insisted he was backing neither of them.
But in the end, it mattered little to Democratic voters, and the mayor and the new Democratic congressional nominee embraced in front of cameras at his campaign celebration in Brooklyn.
Nor did Lander’s non-endorsement seem to damage Mamdani’s other candidates. A registration and turnout operation among the Satmar Hasidim proved insufficient to lift Reynoso over Valdez in the race to replace Rep. Nydia Velazquez (D-NY).
Reynoso and Valdez largely echoed each other in their condemnation of the Jewish state, but Valdez made it a centerpiece of her campaign, even going so far as to falsely suggest AIPAC was financing a PAC backing her opponent. The real money behind the last-minute spending campaign was Randi Weingarten’s American Federation of Teachers, in alliance with former City Comptroller Scott Stringer, one of Mamdani’s unsuccessful opponents last year.
Stringer and the AFT also sought to block Mamdani’s boldest play of all: dislodging Espaillat, a reliable pro-Israel Democrat, and replacing him with Columbia encampment leader and doctoral student Avila Chevalier. Mamdani declined to denounce Avila Chevalier’s history of attacking interracial relationships, promoting COVID-19 disinformation and parroting Russian government talking points online — or her denunciations of Democratic stalwarts such as former President Joe Biden and former Vice President Kamala Harris.
Mamdani also refused to condemn her participation in an anti-Israel rally one day after the Oct. 7 attacks, a gathering he had denounced at the time, even as Avila Chevalier defended her decision to attend the event.
Strong turnout in gentrifying Manhattan sections of Espaillat’s district, and weak participation in the working-class Bronx areas, gave Avila Chevalier a decided advantage over the incumbent.
Even downballot, Mamdani-aligned candidates romped, with public defender and Jews for Racial and Economic Justice member Eli Northrup easily defeating Rabbi Stephanie Ruskay in a Manhattan state Assembly district with a large Jewish population. Both contenders for the seat emphasized their Jewish identity in the closely watched primary, but Ruskay — related by marriage to former UJA-Federation CEO John Ruskay, and an associate dean of The Rabbinical School at the Jewish Theological Seminary — was the favored candidate of longtime Upper West Side political establishment.
Northrup, who has expressed ambivalence about Zionism, represented an insurgent politics in the Mamdani mold, even though he is not a member of the Democratic Socialists of America.
In Queens, Palestinian-American activist Aber Kawas rode the mayor’s endorsement to an effortless victory. Mamdani’s candidate to take over Valdez’s seat in the state legislature, Samantha Kattan, rolled over her opposition. Another Mamdani contender in Queens, Brian Romero, similarly romped. In Lower Manhattan, his candidate for Assembly Illapa Sairitupac —like the others, a member of the DSA — won with a plurality.
Three additional DSA candidates tossed out incumbents without the mayor’s endorsement, bringing the organization’s total wins on the evening to six. This means the mayor and DSA can now count on a growing bloc of loyalists in Albany, which has power over many aspects of city policy. It also means a shift in the makeup of a body long dominated by lawmakers supportive of Israel.
In assembling his slate, the mayor spurned and burned allies: rejecting his old ally Velazquez’s favored successor for his own DSA loyalist in Valdez, breaking a reported pledge not to back a challenger to Espaillat and even — as sources told JI — shrugging off a request from one of his most prominent Jewish supporters, former Manhattan Borough President Ruth Messinger.
But on Tuesday night, Mamdani towered triumphant over friends and enemies alike, building a bloc in Congress to squeeze House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY).
Even in the one contentious House race where he declined to weigh in, to replace Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY), a candidate working with his political advisor Morris Katz prevailed: Assemblymember Micah Lasher beat out a crowded and costly field to victory.
The package would face steep hurdles in the Senate, where lawmakers have already balked at the Pentagon's initial $1.5 trillion funding request
SAUL LOEB / AFP via Getty Images
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Dan Caine speaks as a map of the Strait of Hormuz is displayed during a press briefing at the Pentagon in Washington, DC, on April 16, 2026.
The Trump administration is planning to ask Congress to approve an $80 billion request for additional funding to replenish stockpiles and otherwise pay for the war in Iran, according to several reports.
That request comes on top of a push for a $1.15 trillion regular defense budget for 2027 as well as another $350 billion for the Pentagon that the administration wants Congress to pass through a partisan reconciliation process — a $1.5 trillion request in total that Republican lawmakers have criticized and some key Senate Republicans have described as unrealistic.
The supplemental request, too, could prove difficult to pass, requiring 60 votes in the Senate. Many Democrats declared at the outset of the war that they would refuse to pass any supplemental funding for the effort, and have further balked at the initial $1.5 trillion defense budget request.
Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth is set to brief some House Republicans on Wednesday about the administration’s defense funding requests and the war in Iran.
Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC) indicated he’s generally supportive of the anticipated $80 billion request, and argued that many of his colleagues could be convinced to support it if it’s primarily focused on restocking expended U.S. munitions supplies.
“It doesn’t surprise me. I think a part of what we need to do is figure out how much of that is for replenishment, that’s basically to get us the base load pre-conflict,” Tillis told Jewish Insider. “So I think the more that people spend on describing at that level, the more likely it is you’ll get support for it, and particularly if they only focus on what’s critical to get back to pre-conflict baselines. I think most members would say we got to do that.”
Sen. Mark Kelly (D-AZ), a military veteran who has generally been more moderate on defense issues than some of his more progressive colleagues, indicated he’s more skeptical of the proposal.
“I always want to make sure that the troops have what they need to do a really hard job and defend themselves especially,” Kelly said.
But, he continued, when he joined the Senate in 2022, the total defense budget was $650 billion, and the $1.5 trillion the administration is now seeking is higher than much of the rest of the world’s defense budgets combined.
He said that some of the systems the administration is asking for, such as space-based missile defense, are impractical or unneeded, “so I want to see the munitions be replaced, but let’s do it within a responsible top line of the defense bill, not this crazy, overly inflated number.”
Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO), who had called for a prompt end to the war and has been supportive of talks with the Iranian regime, said he was withholding judgement on the supplemental request until the administration actually submits it.
Initial reports indicated the Pentagon intended to request as much as $200 billion for the war, but Pentagon officials testified last month that the costs of the war — excluding anticipated rebuilding costs of U.S. facilities in the region, came in between $20 and $30 billion.
“I don’t want to get out ahead of what the Pentagon will propose here,” Hawley said. “There’s been multiple iterations, so next week it may be something different. Let’s let them come up with something.”
The resolution passed 50-48 with GOP Sens. Paul, Murkowski, Collins and Cassidy voting with Democrats in favor
Photo by Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images
U.S. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) speaks to reporters after the weekly Senate policy luncheons at the U.S. Capitol on June 23, 2026 in Washington. Schumer spoke out against President Trump's Iran deal and a the need for the Senate to pass a War Powers Resolution regarding Iran.
The Senate voted on Tuesday to pass a House-passed war powers resolution directing the administration to withdraw U.S. forces from Iran — a congressional rebuke of the administration over the war in Iran — though legally its effects are likely to be largely symbolic.
The resolution passed by a 50-48 vote, with Republican Sens. Rand Paul (R-KY), Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), Susan Collins (R-ME) and Bill Cassidy (R-LA) again voting in favor and Sen. John Fetterman (D-PA) voting against it. Ultimately, GOP absences enabled the resolution to go forward.
But the resolution, now passed by both chambers, came in the form of a concurrent resolution, which is not submitted to the president and, based on past court precedent, is not seen as carrying the force of law — though a House Democratic aide argued to CNN that the measure would be binding.
Rep. Greg Meeks (D-NY), the ranking member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee and lead Democratic sponsor of the war powers resolution, insisted in a statement, “Regardless of what President Trump says, this measure is binding under the War Powers Resolution, and I will explore all legal avenues to ensure the Executive complies with the will of Congress.”
Unlike previous efforts, however, the concurrent resolution did not require other procedural votes by the Senate, allowing Democrats to take advantage of the Republican absences and move directly toward final passage to deliver a message of rebuke to the administration.
The Senate still has other war powers resolutions pending, including one which passed an initial procedural hurdle, but currently lacks the support to pass through an additional procedural vote and final passage with full attendance. That legislation, which comes in a different form as joint resolutions, would be presented to the president if passed and set up a potential veto or other legal fight.
Republicans warned that adopting the resolution would send a further signal to Iran that it does not need to negotiate or make any compromises with the U.S. as part of ongoing talks.
Multiple sources identified Scott Stringer as a driving force behind two PACs spending to beat Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s House candidates
Michael Brochstein/Sipa USA via AP Images
Former New York City Comptroller Scott Stringer at the Green New Deal Accountability Forum held at the Society for Ethical Culture in New York City, NY on March 20, 2019.
Abetting two recently established PACs spending millions to defeat two of New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s candidates for Congress is a veteran politician who sought Gracie Mansion last year — former City Comptroller Scott Stringer, according to multiple sources with knowledge of the committees and their activities.
Stringer declined to comment on the record for this story. But Jewish Insider first reported in March that the Upper West Side Democrat was a key force behind a political committee, Next NYC PAC, committed to defeating the Democratic Socialists of America’s candidates for Assembly and state Senate.
According to several individuals who spoke on the condition of anonymity to protect their relationships, the team behind the Progressive Unity Fund and Real Fight NYC PACs — which have released a wave of ads attacking activist Darializa Avila Chevalier and Assemblymember Claire Valdez, Mamdani’s candidates to defeat Rep. Adriano Espaillat (D-NY) and replace retiring Rep. Nydia Velazquez (D-NY), respectively — overlaps considerably with the personnel behind Next NYC PAC. This includes consultant David Keith, as well as the firm of longtime Rahm Emanuel operative Greg Goldner, who ran former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s campaign for mayor in the last weeks of the 2025 race.
However, sources said Goldner was not personally involved in either PAC, which have each made only a few minimal disclosures to date, although an employee of his Next Public Affairs appears in the source code of Progressive Unity Fund’s webpage. Goldner and Next Public Affairs did not respond to a request for comment from JI.
Stringer has no formal position or title with either group, sources said, but has been deeply involved in their organization and operations. His former comptroller campaign and inaugural committee treasurer, Peter Frank, holds the same role with Progressive Unity Fund. Frank told JI he had “nothing to offer” for this story.
Stringer recently shared an ad from Progressive Unity Fund attacking Avila Chevalier on his X account.
Stringer also provides a key link to the primary funder of both PACs, the American Federation of Teachers. AFT President Randi Weingarten — who formerly led the New York City’s United Federation of Teachers, which has deep ties to Stringer and the Upper West Side Democratic establishment — confirmed to City & State on Tuesday that her union was underwriting the ads attacking Valdez and Avila Chevalier.
In the interview, Weingarten rejected baseless suggestions from Valdez that AIPAC had a role in Real Fight NYC. The AFT did not respond to repeated requests for comment for this article.
According to the latest FEC filings, Progressive Unity Fund and Next NYC PAC together have spent more than $2.1 million to date.
Jennifer Bayer-Michaels, a longtime Cuomo fundraiser and prominent pro-Israel Democrat, as well as a key figure in Next NYC PAC, is not involved in these two federal committees, she and several other sources attested. She is, however, working with an unrelated pro-Espaillat committee.
For most of his political career — which included stints in the state Legislature and the Manhattan borough presidency — Stringer counted among the city’s most liberal political figures, reflecting the deep-blue proclivities of his Manhattan voter base. But by the time he made his second bid for mayor in 2025, he cut a lonely figure on the debate stage by declaring himself a Zionist. He ultimately placed fifth in the competition.
Senators on both sides of the aisle say they’re eager to see the text of the agreement, but the administration has not yet made plans to brief Congress
Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images
Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) attends the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing titled "Arms Control and Transforming International Security Functions at the State Department," in Dirksen building on Tuesday, March 24, 2026.
Republican senators said on Tuesday that they’re skeptical that Iran will hold to any commitments it has made or may make in negotiations with the U.S., and urged the administration to release the terms of the memorandum of understanding announced on Sunday.
The administration has not yet communicated any specific plans to brief Congress on the deal.
“Rather than an end to the activities in Iran, I think it’s more of an intermission,” Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) told reporters. “We still haven’t seen what the documents look like, and regardless of what they look like, I don’t think you can trust the Iranian regime.”
Cornyn added, “I need to see the writing — I need to see the print. But I don’t believe that the regime will abide by it.”
Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC) emphasized that the U.S. has been in similar positions with Iran before, and that they have not resulted in a viable long-term agreement. He told Jewish Insider that he thinks it’s “generous to call it a deal, it sounds like it’s a deal in progress … and if we’re making progress, that’s good.”
But he said that it’s hard for him to assess an agreement “that we only get described in broad strokes.”
He said he would also be uncomfortable with any arrangement that provided Iran with a financial windfall. Multiple outlets reported Tuesday afternoon that the MOU includes financial incentives for Iran, including lifting various sanctions.
“I’m worried only because at least some of our decisions seem to be affected by the short-term economic impact [of the war], and that’s not a good decision,” Tillis said. “Talking about some of the money that Iran’s going to start receiving. … If all of the sudden we’re pulling back some of the things that were in place even before the operation, I’ve got a real concern because they’re a totalitarian regime.”
He told JI that the U.S.’s current posture and negotiations with Iran make it appear that “we’re willing to accept a totalitarian regime, and so the question is, how does this agreement match up against the original objectives of this initiative” as laid out by the administration at the beginning of the war.
Tillis added that Trump should explain to the country the national security interests and necessities of the U.S. operations against Iran, and that some short-term economic harm might be a consequence of that.
“That should be the case to the American people, and then you stay strong, versus have a sub-optimal or bad deal that actually enriches the very people that you were focused on trying to take out,” Tillis said. “Now that we’re here, you can’t all of a sudden say that because people are really frustrated with gas prices, that the nuclear threat in Iran is a manageable risk, because that is 180 degrees away from the predicate for going in there to begin with.”
Tillis said that the final deal should be made public, or at least shown to members in a classified setting — though he said he was skeptical there was much substance in the page-and-a-half document described by Vice President JD Vance, given its length.
He also reiterated comments from Monday that any final agreement should be subject to ratification by Congress, as the only way to ensure that such a deal would last.
“Trump could have a real foreign policy legacy but he’s been poorly influenced because he’s just so insecure. I’ve never seen anything like it. His conviction is his own popularity, his own attention, his own credit. It hurts my heart a little,” another Republican senator told JI. “I just was hoping that the second term he wouldn’t do what he’s done, and that is to make it all about himself like his first term.”
“I don’t know what’s in [the MOU],” the senator added. “Don’t trust any senator who says they know what’s in the deal. They don’t know. I mean, none of us know, not really.”
Sen. John Kennedy (R-LA) told JI the agreement “looks to me like it’s a deal to make a deal.”
“The only facts I know today are that the blockades on both sides have been lifted. We’re supposed to negotiate more over [60] days,” Kennedy continued. “The Iranian government Iran lies like fish swim. I have no idea, and neither does anyone else, whether they will make concessions. The other thing I know is that Iran is immeasurably weaker today than it was a year ago.”
He added that he does not expect that the “religious zealots” in Iran have “had an epiphany” and will give up their nuclear program.
Kennedy said he’s “sure” the text of the deal will be released this week. In the interim, “If you don’t know [what’s in it], you should shut up, and none of us … know what’s in it. I think we ought to wait and see what’s in it first,” Kennedy continued.
Asked about reports that Iran would be receiving up-front sanctions relief as part of the MOU, Sen. Rick Scott (R-FL) said, “I’d be surprised, I haven’t seen that. I think we’re all in the position we’d like to see the MOU. Unless there’s something in there that they’ve already changed their ways, I don’t know how you’d be entitled to sanctions relief.”
“I think we’d all like to see it,” Scott reiterated, when asked whether he was concerned the administration hasn’t released the text yet. “Then we’d be able to answer questions on specifics.”
Though some Senate Republicans are eager to see the agreement, there do not yet appear to be any specific plans to brief them on it. Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) told JI on Tuesday that he was not yet aware of any plans for the administration to brief Congress on the contents of the MOU between the U.S. and Iran, as lawmakers continue to call for transparency on the agreement.
“Not that I’m aware of yet. [I’m] going to find that out,” Thune told JI, when asked whether the administration had notified him of plans to brief lawmakers.
On the other hand, Sen. Pete Ricketts (R-NE), said, “The administration probably has a reason for doing what they’re doing. I don’t know what it is, have not been briefed. We’ll all find out on Friday, and then I expect a briefing after that.”
Sen. Eric Schmitt (R-MO) likewise said his understanding is that the text of the agreement will be released after the formal signing ceremony on Friday.
Democrats have also been critical of the administration for failing to release the text of the MOU, and described it as a bad deal — though many say they support an end to the conflict anyway.
“He has not released text, but we know one thing about this president: if he had a great deal, he’d be jumping up and down, and doing a press event with the text. The fact that he announced the deal, got on a plane, left the country, and is now letting JD Vance explain it tells you everything you need to know,” Sen. Chris Coons (D-DE) told JI.
He said he doesn’t expect the administration to come to “consult, brief or include us” in any capacity, including under the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act.
“They should have come to us, consulted us, briefed us and explained to the American people what their objectives were at the outset, but I don’t expect their conduct to be any different at the conclusion, if there is one. This is such an internally flawed arrangement that it seems to be inevitable that it will fall apart in a matter of weeks,” Coons continued.
“Trump must hold a classified meeting on his so-called ‘understanding’ with Iran. He must brief all of Congress,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said. “He must inform the American people and make the ‘understanding’ public. … Americans need to know how and when this war will truly end.”
Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA) said that if the deal touches on Iran’s nuclear program, the administration legally has to submit the agreement to Congress, but if the current deal does not include specific commitments on the nuclear program, it may not need to be submitted.
“We’ll know on Friday, and at that point, when it’s all out on the table, I probably have more to say,” Kaine said, declining to comment on potential concessions in the deal until it has been publicized.
A source told JI that Republican leadership and the administration may seek to sidestep INARA review, at least for the current 60-day agreement with Iran
Kayla Bartkowski/Getty Images
Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) speaks to the press on June 2, 2025 in Washington.
Some Republican senators said that the administration does not need to submit the recently signed 60-day memorandum of understanding with Iran to Congress for review and a potential vote under the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act, potentially sidestepping the first major opportunity for Congress to weigh in on the agreement.
Under INARA, the administration is required to promptly submit any deal with Iran relating to its nuclear program to Congress for review, with an opportunity for Congress to vote to reject the deal. But the administration may attempt to avoid that step, at least until a broader agreement is reached during the 60-day negotiating period — if one comes about.
A source familiar with the situation said Republican leadership is in discussions with the administration about what is included in the MOU — senior Republicans have said publicly they have not yet been informed — but they are collectively moving toward a view that the MOU is an agreement for further negotiations, not a deal on Iran’s nuclear program in itself, thereby sidestepping INARA for the time being.
The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Some senators offered a similar view on Monday evening.
Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) said that he’s “not aware of any precedent” for Congress to vote on an MOU.
“This is like a template for further negotiations,” Hawley said. “I don’t even know constitutionally if we have a role on that.”
Sen. Eric Schmitt (R-MO) said that he does not believe that a congressional vote on the MOU is necessary. He also went further, emphasizing that even under INARA, there is no requirement for Congress to vote on any Iran agreement.
“People may have different points of view of whether or not we should or we shouldn’t, but there’s certainly nothing required,” Schmitt said.
Pressed on why lawmakers wouldn’t want an opportunity to vote on the deal, Schmitt responded, “on whether or not a president can cease conflict in that way?”
“I don’t think it’s necessary,” he continued. “I’m just stating the law. … I will say that I do think that there are certain people in this building that want to undermine this, there’s no doubt about that. … You have the camp that wants us to lose, and then you have a camp that wants a forever war. President Trump’s not in either one of those camps.”
Sen. John Kennedy (R-LA) said that “if there’s a final” deal with Iran, he believes Congress should have the opportunity to review and vote on it, but that he does not believe that such a vote is necessary for the current MOU.
“When there’s a final agreement — if there’s a final agreement — just like the JCPOA Congress should be able to weigh in,” Kennedy said.
Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA), who said he was involved in crafting INARA during the Obama administration, said that whether the MOU needs to be submitted is a question of what it includes.
“If the details are opening the ports, opening the straits and ceasefire, but let’s talk about the nuclear program — I don’t know that that would have to be submitted,” Kaine said. “If the details that we hear Friday include some nuclear elements, and maybe we’ll talk about some other ones down the road — well then it might have to come to us. You just have to see whether the deal that is announced Friday includes an agreement on any of the elements of [their nuclear program].”
He emphasized, however, that meeting the 60-vote threshold in the Senate to pass a joint resolution of disapproval under INARA to block a deal would be difficult given current political dynamics around the war.
Others, however, are more eager for congressional scrutiny and even Senate ratification of the deal as a treaty.
Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC) said that he hopes the U.S. doesn’t “make the mistake Obama made [with the original nuclear deal]. We had an agreement that never really got ratified by Congress, didn’t have a lot of visibility, and I think that’s a mistake.”
Sen. James Lankford (R-OK) emphasized that any lasting agreement would need to be submitted to Congress.
“If it’s going to be long lasting, you’ve got to pass law, and that was what President Obama figured out: he could make an executive agreement, but the next president just turns it off,” Lankford said. “The president has the power to be able to negotiate foreign policy. He is the person who speaks for the country on foreign policy issues, but lasting agreements that last beyond that president have to be put in statute.”
Sen. Mike Rounds (R-SD) also said that if the deal is strong, it should be submitted to Congress for ratification as a treaty. “The JCPOA was torn apart, taken apart, because it could not meet that standard,” Rounds said.
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), asked if the Senate should vote on the MOU or only the subsequent negotiated agreement said, “It’s the law. Any nuclear deal with Iran has to be voted on. There is no way that we will not review a deal.”
The Senate majority leader also said the deal triggers requirements for the administration to provide Congress with the opportunity to review the agreement under INARA
Kayla Bartkowski/Getty Images
Sen. Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) calls on reporters following the weekly Senate Republican caucus policy luncheon at the U.S. Capitol on January 14, 2025 in Washington, DC. Senators spoke about the Laken Riley Act which was named after a nursing student who was murdered in February 2024 by Jose Ibarra, a migrant from Venezuela who crossed the border in September 2022, that could give state attorney generals far-reaching veto power over federal immigration policy.
With scant details provided by the Trump administration about the contours of the peace deal with Iran, Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) said on Monday afternoon that he doesn’t yet know enough about the administration’s deal with Iran to determine whether it is a good deal that will prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon.
“I don’t know enough about it to say,” Thune told reporters. “I think the issues are going to be compliance, and how you can enforce that, and what are the financial incentives that the Iranians have from our country, and what are they conditioned upon.”
The South Dakota Republican said that a positive deal would include financial incentives that are conditioned upon Iran winding down its nuclear program, the disposal of Iran’s enriched uranium and Tehran giving up its capacity to have a nuclear program in the future.
Thune also indicated that he believes the deal should be submitted to Congress for review under the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act.
“There are some requirements that are triggered because of the nuclear components of the deal, in terms of notification or informing Congress,” Thune said. “I know there is probably some expectation that there may be a vote at some point, whether that’s on a resolution of disapproval or something. We’ll see. I just don’t know enough about it yet. And I don’t think even the people who follow this stuff closely up here know that much.”
The administration hasn’t publicly commented on the issue of INARA yet, and has offered varying timelines for when it might release the text of the agreement. In media appearances, Vice President JD Vance has been framing specific nuclear issues as part of the next round of talks, rather than the current MOU, which could give the administration an avenue to attempt to dodge INARA review.
Thune said that “somebody” from the administration, whether that be Vance or other officials, “will need to” come to the Hill to brief members.
“For sure, our members are going to have a lot of questions about it,” Thune said.
Sen. John Barrasso (R-WY), the No. 2 Senate Republican, indicated he was similarly in the dark about the agreement.
“I haven’t seen anything from the president in terms of what’s in it. I’ve seen some press reports,” Barrasso told reporters. “I want to see what’s actually in it and I congratulate the president for his continued efforts.”
But asked whether he was concerned that the deal would be an effective surrender to Iran in providing sanctions relief, Barrasso rejected the idea out of hand.
“President Trump is never, ever going to do what you just suggested,” Barrasso said. “He’s not going to accept a deal that doesn’t eliminate nuclear weapons, isn’t enforceable, isn’t verifiable and doesn’t take Iran completely out of what they’ve been doing to try to undermine and attack us for the last 47 years.”
The Orthodox Jewish community has long opposed the change over its impact on morning prayer and schoolchildren
Graeme Sloan/Bloomberg via Getty Images
The U.S. Capitol in Washington, DC, US, on Wednesday, April 1, 2026.
Efforts to eliminate annual time changes and make daylight saving time permanent are picking up momentum in Congress with strong backing from President Donald Trump — a proposal long opposed by the Orthodox Jewish community.
Orthodox groups say that changing to permanent daylight saving time would have a significant impact on daily Jewish morning prayers, which must be conducted during daylight and would happen well into the workday in certain times of the year, and also raise safety concerns for children commuting to school in the dark.
They have lobbied for years against making daylight saving time permanent, and past movement toward making the change has repeatedly fizzled out. But the House Energy and Commerce Committee in May voted 48-1 to insert an amendment codifying the change into a high-priority surface transportation package, a must-pass bill that could carry the measure through into law.
Trump and the White House have been directly involved in the effort, Politico reported, urging lawmakers to include the amendment in the package, and making direct calls to lawmakers on the provision.
“We are doing what we always do, which is, first, educate,” A.D. Motzen, the Washington director of Agudath Israel of America, said. “Many members of Congress are not aware of our religious practices, may not be thinking at all about daylight saving time, so it’s going to key members and talking about it.”
“Thankfully many members, after we speak to them, are fascinated,” Motzen continued. “It’s something they were not thinking about, not aware of, plus the safety issues for children, and are definitely thinking, thinking twice — even those who had maybe expressed support or did not have an opinion are thinking now.”
Motzen said that many lawmakers who support the legislation, known as the Sunshine Protection Act, don’t have strong feelings about whether daylight saving or standard time should be permanent — they just don’t want to change the clocks.
“So then we have an avenue to say, ‘OK, but if you do it this way, this affects us.’ So now they have … to balance between other arguments to do it the other way,” Motzen said.
Motzen said that the Orthodox community prefers the status quo of twice-annual time changes, a pattern to which they have adjusted, but that permanent standard time would raise fewer concerns than permanent daylight saving time.
The traditional proponents of permanent daylight saving time have been entertainment and recreation industries like golf, and many in Florida. Health advocates and physicians have been pushing for permanent standard time. The agriculture and airline industries have traditionally been advocates for the status quo, alongside parents’ groups and the Jewish community.
Motzen said that some of the opponents of the time changes have been less vocal recently, in part because “most people just assumed this issue was dead” — there’s periodic attention to it around the biannual clock changes, but it usually “goes away.”
“So I think that this is more of a surprise, because until now the president has not weighed in” in favor of making daylight saving time permanent, Motzen said, adding that Congress and Washington are tackling a range of other priority issues. “I don’t think that people had permanent daylight saving time on their bingo card of a must pass bill for this session.”
That the bill was attached to a must-pass package has made its passage more likely, he said, and he largely credited Trump with that development. He said, however, there are still opportunities to remove the provision or have it modified as it moves to the full House or especially the Senate.
“You have states that are going to … push back on its conclusion,” he said, noting that it is far from a cleanly partisan issue. “The Senate might be a little more deliberate, as they are fond of doing. … That part of the bill [might be] looked at more carefully.”
Motzen also noted that permanent daylight saving time was tried in the mid-1970s, and it quickly became a widely unpopular move that was repealed. At the time, he said, the change also had clear effects on the Orthodox Jewish community, which has grown significantly and has a larger presence across the country today.
In the ’70s, he said, there were examples of synagogues that had daily morning minyans for a century which then struggled to find 10 men who could attend daylight services before work. Some Jews had to find time to pray during their shifts, which was not an option for others.
“It has a permanent effect on the synagogue structure — [taking a break at work] would take care of his personal obligation to pray every day. It does not solve the problem that you have synagogue services that cannot get a quorum,” Motzen said. “It won’t solve the problem of a school that has safety issues for their [start times].”
Experts told JI that the agreement in its current form would not require Riyadh to adhere to the nonproliferation ‘gold standard’ – a commitment to forgo domestic uranium enrichment and fuel reprocessing
Win McNamee/Getty Images
President Donald Trump meets with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman during a “coffee ceremony” at the Saudi Royal Court on May 13, 2025, in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
As the Trump administration prepares to submit a proposed civil nuclear pact with Saudi Arabia to Congress, U.S. lawmakers are raising concerns about the potential agreement while nonproliferation experts and former Trump administration officials are sounding the alarm, warning that the pact abandons traditional safeguards and could ignite a nuclear arms race in the Middle East.
Last month, the Trump administration proposed the pact to assist Saudi Arabia with its development of civilian nuclear power, following indications last year that it would pursue such an agreement to strengthen bilateral diplomatic ties. Experts say the White House is looking to construct and operate a uranium enrichment plant within Saudi Arabia, safeguarding the facility through a bilateral framework.
The pact is currently undergoing final review before President Donald Trump can formally submit it to Congress. Once the president signs the agreement and transmits it to Capitol Hill, both chambers will have 90 days to pass resolutions of disapproval to block the deal. Otherwise, the pact will automatically go into effect, permitting the U.S. to share civilian nuclear power technology with the kingdom.
Experts told Jewish Insider that the agreement in its current form would not require Riyadh to adhere to the nonproliferation “gold standard” – a commitment to forgo domestic uranium enrichment and fuel reprocessing. Other regional partners, such as the United Arab Emirates, accepted this stringent safeguard in past U.S. deals specifically to prevent military or illicit nuclear activity.
The proposed pact would also exempt Riyadh from accepting the International Atomic Energy Agency’s (IAEA) “additional protocol.” This accord helps rule out clandestine military activities by granting international inspectors the authority to conduct sudden, unannounced visits to nuclear facilities. While the U.S. maintains numerous nuclear cooperation agreements globally, it rarely establishes them with nations that reject these baseline oversight protocols.
Democrats across the ideological spectrum have previously indicated concern over the potential civil nuclear pact, reflecting a historical trend in which Congress has typically supported a stringent nonproliferation policy toward Saudi Arabia that includes robust safeguards.
In May, a dozen Democratic lawmakers sent a letter to Secretary of State Marco Rubio asking that the administration follow strict U.N.-backed protocol, including IAEA inspection. However, in a letter from the State Department to Sen. Edward Markey (D-MA), the administration only indicated that the agreement would require the two sides to commit to a “bilateral safeguards agreement,” and did not make a mention of the “gold standard,” according to Reuters.
Rep. Brad Sherman (D-CA) told JI he was concerned about the administration pushing forward the agreement without safeguards, saying that “there’s only one reason not to have non-militarization safeguards and that’s militarization.”
“The idea that allowing Saudi Arabia to move toward a nuclear weapon defies history,” Sherman said. “A Saudi nuclear weapon leads to worldwide proliferation. Egypt and Turkey would feel that they need to match that, and then where’s Argentina and Brazil going to be?”
Sherman emphasized that Saudi Arabia should follow an agreement that mimics a 2009 nuclear agreement between the U.S. and UAE, in which the vital safeguard standard was followed.
“The UAE signed the good agreement. Why the hell can’t the Saudis sign the same agreement?” he said, noting that UAE would likely follow and “get out of the gold standard too,” in the event the pact goes through.
In February, Sherman, a longtime opponent of nuclear cooperation between the U.S. and Riyadh, announced that he would be introducing legislation to require an affirmative congressional vote prior to the administration finalizing any nuclear deal with Saudi Arabia.
Rep. Jared Moskowitz (D-FL) said he had heard about the discussions, but declined to comment on whether he would support the agreement in its current format. The Florida lawmaker, however, expressed little concern over the U.S. sharing civilian nuclear power with Riyadh or other regional players, calling the subject “fair to discuss.” Though he noted that such a deal should ultimately be tied to the “Abraham Accords framework.”
“I think it’s something that is fair to discuss, but also that’s why Iran not getting a nuclear weapon is such a big deal, because that will start a nuclear arms race,” Moskowitz said.
Rep. Tim Burchett (R-TN) declined to comment on whether he had reviewed or would support the potential pact, but expressed a firm desire to limit the expansion of nuclear weapons in the region.
“We can’t have anybody else over there [in the Middle East] with nuclear weapons,” Burchett said.
When asked about the potential deal by JI, several Senate Republicans indicated they were unfamiliar with the plan. Other lawmakers, including Rep. Dan Goldman (D-NY) and Rep. Marlin Stutzman (R-IN), also noted they had not yet heard much regarding the potential agreement, stating they would need to look into the matter further.
Sen. James Lankford (R-OK), however, said he was not concerned about the agreement breaking the “gold standard.”
“I don’t necessarily assume that would break the gold standard on it,” Lankford said. “The biggest issue is where is the uranium coming from and who’s actually producing it, and where are they stored?”
While it was previously thought that a civil nuclear agreement would be linked to Saudi normalization with Israel, the Trump administration has notably uncoupled the two initiatives. In May 2025, a group of nine Jewish House Democrats wrote to Trump to voice their displeasure over the separation of the two objectives.
Meanwhile, analysts continue to express deep concern over the arrangement in its current format, citing that the lack of safeguards could create severe risks to national security and set a poor precedent for current and future U.S. nuclear cooperation frameworks.
“The U.S. should be helping other countries with nuclear power but should strongly avoid helping them learn the fuel cycle and move closer to being able to build a nuclear weapon,” Elliott Abrams, an Iran envoy under the first Trump administration, said. “The gold standard remains our agreement with the UAE, where they agree not to enrich uranium. There is no reason the Saudis have to enrich uranium and the U.S. should not agree to it.”
Abrams called it “ironic” that the U.S. would remain locked in a confrontation with Iran over the threat of its nuclear weapons program while simultaneously considering “helping one of its neighbors enrich uranium.” He noted that the fallout from such a deal would inevitably compromise existing agreements and future negotiations with other Arab partners.
Experts also worry the concessions could undermine Washington’s strategic partnership with Abu Dhabi and incentivize other nations to pursue similar proliferation pathways.
“If we agree to this in the Saudi case, we will be abandoning a longstanding position and every deal we do after that will have to allow enrichment,” Abrams said. “In fact, we will have to renegotiate the UAE agreement as well.”
Jonathan Ruhe, a fellow at the Jewish Institute for National Security of America (JINSA), similarly expressed that the format of the deal could “undermine cooperation” with the UAE even as the Gulf state emerges as “America’s most valuable partner in the Gulf.”
He also cautioned that the pact could “threaten the global nonproliferation regime and raise the risks of a regional proliferation cascade.” Other experts joined in warning that bending established rules for Saudi Arabia could shift the calculus of neighboring states, prompting a rush to acquire enrichment and reprocessing capabilities.
“The fear is that other countries – Egypt, Turkey and the UAE – would use enrichment technology to develop the potential to make a nuclear weapon,” Simon Henderson, a senior fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, said. Additionally, while the UAE has already agreed to the “gold standard,” Henderson said that commitment could “change if other regional countries obtain the technology.”
Critics have also argued that Saudi Arabia could eventually seek to manufacture a nuclear weapon of its own. While Riyadh is a party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) — which legally obligates the kingdom not to manufacture or acquire nuclear arms — several Saudi officials have explicitly stated in recent years that if Iran acquires a nuclear weapon, the kingdom would follow suit.
Andrea Stricker, director of the nonproliferation program at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD), said that the current U.S. approach “undermines decades of U.S. nonproliferation policy” and could allow Saudi Arabia with “the option to make fuel for nuclear weapons.”
“If the Saudis have access to the technology, and combined with weak IAEA inspections, they could build parallel covert capabilities. There is also little to stop Riyadh from ejecting U.S. officials from a plant and taking over,” Stricker said. “President Trump should stop this historic mistake before it is finalized, and if not, Congress should block the agreement.”
Ruhe shared similar concerns about Saudi Arabia’s potential long-term intentions.
“Such a deal raises real concerns that the kingdom would one day decide to slip free of the U.S. deal and enrich uranium on its own, either openly or secretly,” Ruhe said. “Given its past ties, this could include covert cooperation with Pakistan or China.”
Saudi Arabia has previously entered into several bilateral civil nuclear arrangements with foreign nations, including Argentina, France, Hungary, Kazakhstan, and South Korea. Of greater concern to Washington, however, are Riyadh’s active agreements with Russia and China. In recent years, Saudi Arabia has steadily expanded its nuclear cooperation with Beijing. The two U.S. adversaries are capable of providing similar nuclear products to Riyadh without the same strict demands and nonproliferation commitments.
“Washington appears to want to sell civil nuclear reactors to Saudi Arabia rather than allow a country like Russia or China to do so,” Henderson said. “The fear is that Saudi Arabia already has enrichment technology obtained from Pakistan and doesn’t want to give it up. Since Iran already has enrichment technology, Saudi Arabia thinks it deserves the same.”
U.S.–Saudi nuclear cooperation has historically remained limited. The two nations entered into a memorandum of understanding in 2008 that provided for low-level nuclear energy cooperation and later signed a nuclear safety cooperation memorandum of understanding in 2022.
“With Iran’s enrichment program degraded due to U.S. and Israeli strikes, it would be far sounder policy to continue rolling back Tehran’s efforts and insist the Saudis rule out enrichment and reprocessing and maintain control of the spread of this sensitive technology in a proliferation-sensitive region,” Stricker said. “The United States should also remind the Saudis of extensive economic, military, and defensive support that Washington provides, assistance which should not be available if Riyadh tilts toward China.”
The secretary of state largely defended Israel’s strikes in response; ‘Israel has a right to act in its defense’
Bill Clark/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images
Secretary of State Marco Rubio appears before the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs hearing on the State Department budget request on Wednesday, June 3, 2026.
Despite President Donald Trump’s public acknowledgement of a confrontational phone call with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu regarding Israeli operations in Lebanon, Secretary of State Marco Rubio on Wednesday largely defended Israel’s attacks against the Lebanese terrorist group.
He said that Hezbollah reached out to the U.S. government through the Lebanese authorities approximately two weeks ago and said that it would stop launching missiles into Israeli territory if Israel did not attack Beirut. But Rubio said that Hezbollah went back on that agreement and launched rockets at Israel within hours.
“Israel has not conducted massive operations in Beirut for some time,” Rubio said at a House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing. “Israel has a right to act in its defense.”
Israeli strikes have taken place largely to prevent imminent attacks by Hezbollah forces preparing to attack Israel, Rubio said. He said that Israel’s seizure of territory in southern Lebanon has been intended to deny Hezbollah freedom to operate and launch missiles, and that Israel has not been conducting large-scale operations in Beirut.
Pressed on the current U.S. position in negotiations with Iran, particularly in comparison to the first Trump administration’s condemnation of the 2015 Iran nuclear deal, Rubio largely focused on the nuclear elements of the deal, but said that Iran’s missile program would also be discussed.
He said that Iran would not receive money or sanctions relief unless it agrees to dispose of its highly enriched uranium and give up its enrichment program.
Asked whether the administration would submit any deal reached to Congress, he said that the administration would comply with the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act, which requires such review. He said in a Senate Appropriations Committee hearing in the afternoon that the bill, known as INARA, has “very specific requirements about elements of the nuclear program that would have to be noticed to Congress.”
Pressed by Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) on whether Iran’s support for proxy terrorism would be part of any deal, Rubio said that the U.S. would like to see limits on that activity in a deal, but said that there could also be U.S. sanctions “just on that.”
He also suggested at the House hearing the U.S. is seeking to address Iran’s supply of 20% enriched uranium, in addition to 60% enriched uranium.
Asked about recent comments by Trump describing the Iranian military as moderate, and saying that the U.S. has left it “alone,” Rubio drew a distinction between military equipment and capabilities, which the U.S. has targeted, and certain figures inside the regime who have been more open to negotiations with the U.S. or a more conciliatory posture.
He also framed all U.S. operations since the ceasefire as defensive — retaliatory attacks to respond to or prevent attacks on commercial shipping, to which Iran has responded with strikes on facilities throughout the region.
“These are completely defensive in nature. But they are happening in response to an Iranian action. If they don’t shoot at those ships, we don’t shoot. But we have to respond,” Rubio said. “You have a civilian commercial vessel transiting the straits and they’re being targeted by drones.”
He denied a report that Iran had threatened to test a nuclear weapon if the U.S. does not make concessions in negotiations.
Asked about congressional action on Iran, Rubio noted that Iranian state media has framed congressional votes in favor of war powers resolutions to block operations against Iran as a victory which would tie the U.S.’ hands.
He also said that the administration does not feel it needs an Authorization for Use of Military force to carry out any potential further operations against Iran, but said that the administration would engage with Congress if that occurs and that it would welcome any further congressional authorities.
Pressed by Rep. Joaquin Castro (D-TX) about Israel’s alleged nuclear capabilities, Rubio emphasized that Israel has never acknowledged that it has a nuclear program, though most of the world believes it does. “But they’ve never acknowledged that publicly, and as a feature of our foreign policy, for a variety of reasons, we don’t discuss it in that way either,” he said.
He said that the State Department might be able to discuss the issue further in a closed session and in a different context than a letter Castro and other Democrats sent to Rubio on the subject.
Rubio also affirmed that Turkey is currently not eligible to receive F-35 fighter jets as long as it operates a Russian S-400 missile defense system, under U.S. statute.
The Pennsylvania Democrat, the most hawkish member of his party on Iran, told JI that failing to eliminate Tehran's nuclear threat would undermine the president's legacy
Andrew Harnik/Getty Images
Sen. John Fetterman (D-PA) speaks at a rally for Democratic vice presidential nominee Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz at York Exposition Center UPMC Arena on October 2, 2024 in York, Pennsylvania.
Sen. John Fetterman (D-PA) said on Tuesday that he is growing increasingly concerned that President Donald Trump may agree to a deal with Iran that does not ensure the retrieval of Tehran’s stockpile of enriched uranium or that the regime will never acquire a nuclear weapon.
Fetterman, who has become the most hawkish Democrat in Congress on Iran and the sole member of his party to vote against every Iran war powers resolution in recent months, spoke with Jewish Insider in Washington about the possible outcomes of the ongoing peace talks. The Pennsylvania senator acknowledged that he and Trump had taken political heat from their respective parties over their stances on the conflict, but argued that solving the Iranian nuclear issue would be legacy-defining for the president.
“Nuclear dust, that’s the reason why we’re here. This is why I was reasoned and OK with setting myself politically on fire to be the only Democrat for the last 90 days voting against these war powers acts,” Fetterman told JI. “Presidents always talk about their legacy. At this point, if you cave just for political convenience, what kind of legacy is that?”
“I appreciate every now and then when Trump will say, ‘Well, it [the war in Iran] is only going to be about that nuclear dust,’ but Israel is never allowed to fully pulverize their enemies,” he continued. “They’re fighting a nation where they like martyrdom and that’s what they celebrate. It’s so dumb.”
The Pennsylvania senator addressed the negative U.S. public perception of the war, arguing that the president was acting in a “Churchillian” manner by taking on the Iranian regime, and expressing concern that reversing course in Iran could indicate the Trump administration’s lack of commitment to Taiwan, in the event of a Chinese invasion.
“I hope after that silly visit to China that they [the Trump administration] aren’t now like, ‘Well, we’re going to turn our back to Taiwan,’” he added, referencing the president’s summit in Beijing last month with Chinese President Xi Jinping. “These are all fights for civilization and democracy. I don’t care if it’s in Gaza or Iran, Taiwan against Chinese communism or Russia and Ukraine, it’s the same fight, and that’s why it’s our special responsibility, it’s America’s, to stand with these allies.”
Fetterman pointed to the pressure Democrats faced during the 2024 election to take a firmer stance in opposition to Israel’s war in Gaza due to the high death toll of Palestinians. He argued that those of his Democratic colleagues who had worked to restrain Israel since Hamas’ Oct. 7, 2023, attacks on the Jewish state had damaged their credibility.
“How can you trust these people?” he asked of those Democrats. “Two years ago they were all demanding and pushing for a ceasefire. Can you believe where we would be now if we had a ceasefire? Can you imagine if Israel had to grovel to get their people back? Can you imagine if Iran could be a nuclear power by now?”
“If [there was] a ceasefire in July [2024] based on the pressures from the election in ‘24, [former Hamas chief Yahya] Sinwar would be alive. Hezbollah would be intact. They could launch thousands of rockets at will — and think of the capabilities that Iran could be at now,” he added. “Where’s the outrage? They pretended to be so worried about it. It was politically convenient to try to push Israel into a position that would put Iran on the path to nuclear power, and [leave] their proxies fully intact.”
The 25th overlaps with the congressman's former district, which was largely dismantled, but leans more Republican
Nathan Posner/Anadolu via Getty Images
Rep. Jared Moskowitz (D-FL) speaks at a press conference on Capitol Hill on Sept. 8, 2025.
Rep. Jared Moskowitz (D-FL), a Jewish Democrat who is among the most vocal supporters of Israel in Congress, announced on Thursday that he would seek reelection in a new South Florida House district recently drawn to favor Republicans, after his own was largely erased, setting the stage for what is expected to be a costly and competitive race.
“The American people are struggling to afford a regular way of life. Many barely have enough money for their bills and feel squeezed by rising costs,” Moskowitz said in a statement. “We must work together to bring back the American dream for the middle class in America. I have never hesitated to work with anyone across the aisle if I think it’ll improve the lives of my constituents.”
The two-term congressman won’t be unfamiliar to voters in the new 25th Congressional District, the product of recent Republican-led redistricting that dismantled his current seat. The recently approved House map overlaps in many ways with his previous constituency, stretching along Florida’s coast from Delray Beach down south to Miami Beach. The Cook Political Report rates the race a toss-up, even as the district leans Republican.
Moskowitz’s campaign said the district is estimated to be 25% Jewish, a demographic that makes him a strong fit for the seat, according to election analysts.
“Political extremism is expanding, and antisemitism is spreading and becoming mainstream,” he said on Thursday, adding, “When I see people in my own party talking about concentration camps or deporting Jews, I am going to be an immovable object to that movement. My kids are never going to hide in attics,” referring to an antisemitic activist who had sought the Democratic nomination to a congressional seat in Texas.
Moskowitz is facing a left-wing primary challenge from Oliver Larkin, who had also been running in the congressman’s old 23rd Congressional District. The GOP primary for the 25th District is more crowded, and includes former Boca Raton Mayor Scott Singer, former state Rep. George Moraitis and Joe Kaufman, who previously ran against Moskowitz in 2024. Moskowitz reported nearly $1.22 million on hand at the close of the most recent quarter, which ended in March.
Maureen O’Toole, a spokesperson for the National Republican Congressional Committee, said in a statement that Moskowitz had “just sealed his own political fate,” claiming that “by choosing to run in a district President Trump won by nine points, he has guaranteed a loss in November.”
Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL), a fellow Jewish Democrat whose South Florida seat was also eliminated, announced last week that she would run in the state’s 20th Congressional District, a safe Democratic seat that has been represented by a Black lawmaker for more than three decades.
‘Ultimately, UNRWA has not been a force for stability but has instead perpetuated the refugee crisis and reinforced the conditions that have allowed terrorism to persist,’ wrote the lawmakers, led in the house by Rep. Mike Lawler
Dawoud Abo Alkas/Anadolu via Getty Images
Palestinian families stand outside a school affiliated with the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) at the Daraj neighborhood as the Israeli attacks continue in Gaza City, Gaza on February 6, 2024.
Republicans in both chambers of Congress are urging the Trump administration to move to permanently dismantle the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, with a new letter from House Republicans calling for a reworking of Palestinian refugee programs in the region.
In a letter sent to President Donald Trump on Tuesday, more than 90 House Republicans, led by Rep. Mike Lawler (R-NY), called for a “broader view of the agency’s operations — not only in Gaza, but across the West Bank, Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria” and for the administration to ensure that the U.S. does not “continue to rely on failed systems that have further entrenched the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.”
The U.S. stopped funding UNRWA in early 2024, after revelations that several UNRWA employees participated in the Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas attacks on Israel, and Congress has continued to impose statutory bans on such funding since then, in spite of efforts by Democrats to reinstate funding for the aid agency.
“Ultimately, UNRWA has not been a force for stability but has instead perpetuated the refugee crisis and reinforced the conditions that have allowed terrorism to persist,” the lawmakers wrote. “We strongly urge your administration to take decisive action to fully dismantle UNRWA and transition its functions to more credible and trusted partners that are demonstrably free of ties to terrorism and committed to transparency, accountability, and peace.”
The letter suggests transferring funding for Palestinian refugee programs to their host countries directly or to other non-governmental organizations.
The letter states that UNRWA has “perpetuated and expanded” the Palestinian refugee crisis by conferring heritable refugee status across generations, “transforming what was once a finite humanitarian issue into a permanent and growing political challenge.”
The lawmakers also argued that in serving as the primary provider of public services in several countries and territories, UNRWA has “has reduced incentives for host governments to pursue long-term solutions, leaving millions dependent on the agency and prolonging the refugee crisis.”
And it raises concerns about the role that UNRWA educational curricula may have played in radicalizing young Palestinians.
The House letter follows a similar letter last week led by Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) with two dozen other Senate Republicans which also calls for dismantling UNRWA both in Gaza and throughout the region.
The letter highlights that UNRWA employees were involved in the Oct. 7 attacks and that 10% of UNRWA’s employees in Gaza have been found to have ties to terrorist groups. It also notes that Hamas has diverted UNRWA’s supplies and repeatedly used the agency’s facilities for terror purposes.
The letter urges the administration to eliminate UNRWA from the U.N. budget.
“Any aid organization in Gaza or otherwise must be demonstrably free of ties to terrorism and committed to transparency, accountability, and peace,” the senators wrote. “We must ensure this failed system doesn’t continue reinforcing the conditions that have fueled terrorism from generations.”
Jewish and pro-Israel groups seem at pains to clarify how they are now assessing an issue that has long been key to their advocacy — particularly as the conversation around funding and the possibility for a new MOU has rapidly evolved in recent months
Joe Raedle/Getty Images
President Donald Trump shakes hands with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu during a press conference at his Mar-a-Lago club on December 29, 2025 in Palm Beach, Florida.
Late last month, AIPAC circulated what seemed at first glance like a relatively anodyne memo stressing its support for the current 10-year memorandum of understanding between the United States and Israel, which guarantees $3.8 billion in annual military aid and missile-defense funding to Israel through 2028.
“Congress must fulfill America’s commitment by providing full security assistance and missile defense funding to Israel for the remainder of the MOU,” the group wrote in its missive published on April 28.
The memo was notable, however, for what it left out: calling to negotiate a follow-up MOU — the future of which has been a topic of ongoing speculation among analysts and lawmakers beginning to think about the contours of a potential new agreement in a changing political landscape.
That AIPAC had only urged the implementation of the final two years of the current deal was in many ways a tacit acknowledgement of shifting attitudes against U.S. military aid even among supporters of Israel.
The omission, intentional or not, was otherwise reflective of uncertainty around an agreement that has drawn scrutiny not only among Israel critics on the far left and right but also moderate defenders of Israel in both parties who are openly questioning the necessity of U.S. military assistance to a longstanding Middle East ally.
Meanwhile, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has called for winding down U.S. financial aid over the next decade, saying that the Jewish state has “come of age” and matured economically to continue on its own. In an interview with CBS’ “60 Minutes” earlier this month, he confirmed that he wanted to immediately begin the process of weaning Israel off of U.S. aid, noting the future of the U.S.-Israel alliance should be focused on joint projects equally funded by Israel and the United States.
“Each U.S.-Israel MOU to date — negotiated by Presidents Clinton, Bush and Obama — has laid the framework for the decade ahead, strengthening an alliance that advances American interests, supports a strong and capable ally in an unstable region, and drives a remarkable ecosystem of joint development and cooperation between two reliable allies,” Deryn Sousa, a spokesperson for AIPAC, told Jewish Insider in a recent statement.
Some pro-Israel Republican lawmakers — including Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), John Thune (R-SD), the Senate majority leader, and Roger Wicker (R-MS) — have welcomed the idea, even as the GOP has long touted its staunch support for such funding. Rahm Emanuel, the former Chicago mayor and Democratic presidential prospect who holds close personal ties to Israel, has advocated for immediately ending military aid to Israel, arguing it is not worth expending the “political capital” to promote spending that is facing mounting opposition in Congress and among voters.
But Jewish and pro-Israel groups seem at pains to clarify how they are now assessing an issue that has long been key to their advocacy — particularly as the conversation around such funding and the possibility for a new MOU, which remains an open question, has rapidly evolved in recent months.
“Each U.S.-Israel MOU to date — negotiated by Presidents Clinton, Bush and Obama — has laid the framework for the decade ahead, strengthening an alliance that advances American interests, supports a strong and capable ally in an unstable region, and drives a remarkable ecosystem of joint development and cooperation between two reliable allies,” Deryn Sousa, a spokesperson for AIPAC, told Jewish Insider in a recent statement.
She added, “We appreciate the Trump administration working closely with the Israeli government toward a new agreement that will strengthen and define the mutually beneficial partnership in the years ahead.”
“We’re figuring it out ourselves,” said Michael Makovsky, the president and CEO of the Jewish Institute for National Security of America, adding that he believed Israel “made a mistake” in choosing to forgo U.S. financial aid. He suggested that the U.S. sign “one more” MOU with Israel to cover the next 10 years and help Israel replenish its munitions stocks amid the war against Iran, which he believes is key to advancing American interests in the region. “It zeroes down at the very end,” he explained to JI.
In lieu of an agreement, Makovsky floated “non-monetary” alternatives, for instance, a U.S.-Israel mutual defense treaty — though he questioned whether such a pact could gain enough support in the Senate, where most Democrats recently voted in favor of resolutions to block arms sales to Israel.
Former U.S. and Israeli officials have also recently called for building closer technological ties between the two countries, in anticipation of an era in which financial aid is not a defining feature of the alliance.
“The model in which Israel is assisted by the United States and receives aid has a very small chance of continuing under any future administration,” former IDF intelligence chief Amos Yadlin said this month while promoting a new strategic technology alliance with Tom Nides, a former U.S. ambassador to Israel. “And perhaps even under the Trump administration, so we need to find a new basis for the relationship that is a transition from aid to partnership.”
Even as analysts had indicated last year that the U.S. should begin considering what the next MOU entails, it is unclear if the process is now seriously underway, as Netanyahu’s remarks have complicated the effort. One Hill staffer to a pro-Israel House member told JI he had no knowledge of discussions at the moment.
President Donald Trump was initially surprised when Netanyahu first proposed winding down U.S. funding late last year and did not immediately lend support to the move, JI has previously reported.
A White House spokesperson declined to comment on the prospects for a future MOU, the framework for which first went into effect in 1998 during the Clinton administration. The current agreement was finalized in 2016 near the end of the Obama administration — which touted the deal as “the largest single pledge of military assistance in U.S. history” at the time.
Tal Naim, a spokesperson for the Israeli Embassy in Washington, referred JI to Netanyahu’s comments to “60 Minutes” this month.
Looking ahead, Brian Romick, the president of Democratic Majority for Israel, said “there can and should be a discussion about how the U.S.-Israeli security relationship should change with the times, how our partnership must evolve as Israel’s own capabilities grow and its security needs change, and how we can align on a long-term vision for the region.”
“While a new MOU should reflect that Israel’s economy has grown, it should also recognize that Israel’s defense requirements have too, and Israel may struggle to fill the gap in its defense budget that the loss of FMF would create,” Justin Leopold-Cohen, a senior research analyst at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies’ Center on Military and Political Power who specializes in U.S.-Israel security cooperation, said.
But, he added, “that debate must bring a serious analysis grounded in prioritizing America’s interests and Israel’s security. It cannot shift with political changes or in the middle of a war, especially when American troops are actively deployed in the region. Ultimately this will be a negotiated agreement between two democratically elected governments.”
A spokesperson for the American Jewish Committee likewise used broad strokes to discuss a future MOU, saying it is “far more than a financial commitment.”
The agreement “is a cornerstone of a broader strategic relationship that advances both U.S. and Israeli national security interests, strengthens deterrence against shared adversaries, and reinforces America’s commitment to the security of its closest ally in the Middle East,” the spokesperson told JI. “At a time of growing regional volatility and evolving security threats, maintaining strong and sustained U.S.-Israel security cooperation remains critically important.”
Justin Leopold-Cohen, a senior research analyst at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies’ Center on Military and Political Power who specializes in U.S.-Israel security cooperation, said that “there will likely be a new, heavily modified MOU following the current agreement’s expiration.”
Netanyahu, he told JI, “already revealed his desire to phase out American military aid, granted primarily as Foreign Military Financing,” which typically must be used to purchase U.S. defense products and services.
“While a new MOU should reflect that Israel’s economy has grown, it should also recognize that Israel’s defense requirements have too, and Israel may struggle to fill the gap in its defense budget that the loss of FMF would create,” Leopold-Cohen said.
Dan Shapiro, a U.S. ambassador to Israel in the Obama administration who served as a top defense official in the Biden administration, speculated that “the next MOU — if there is an MOU — will look very different from the current one.”
“It will likely phase out FMF, which both Prime Minister Netanyahu and Americans from the left and right are calling for,” Shapiro added. “It will likely emphasize joint research and development, sharing technological advances, and expanded co-production to answer President Trump’s question of what’s in it for the United States. To garner bipartisan support, it should include a consultative mechanism to ensure U.S. weapons are only used in ways consistent with American laws and values and that minimize civilian casualties.”
Daniel Silverberg, a former top foreign policy advisor to Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-MD), characterized the MOU as “mutually beneficial,” saying that “it does not need to be exclusively assistance-based.”
“There are many ways to expand cooperation that involve more than giving aid,” he said. “The MOU is a key framework to do so, and it’s crucial to spell that out for a skeptical U.S. audience.”
But, he emphasized to JI, “We can’t want the MOU more than the Israelis want it.”
Her decision has sparked frustration from Black Florida Democrats, who say that the seat should be represented by a Black lawmaker
Aaron Schwartz/Bloomberg via Getty Images
Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL)
Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL) announced Friday that she plans to run in Florida’s 20th Congressional District, which has been represented by a Black lawmaker for more than three decades, after her current district was redrawn by Florida Republicans in an effort to secure more seats in the House.
The decision will pit her against scandal-plagued former Rep. Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick (D-FL), who is running again for the seat despite recently resigning ahead of an anticipated expulsion effort, progressive activist Elijah Manley and others running primary challenges against Cherfilus-McCormick.
Her decision has also sparked frustration from Black Florida Democrats, who say that the seat should be represented by a Black lawmaker.
In an announcement statement, Wasserman Schultz and her supporters emphasized Wasserman Schultz’s experience and seniority in the House as a key asset for the community.
“We cannot let Trump destroy Broward County’s power. Having somebody with that experience right now in these turbulent times is so important. … I’ll use all my seniority and clout in Washington to continue to make our lives more affordable and make Broward a safer, less expensive place to live, raise a family, and retire,” she said. “Some people do a lot of talking. I work hard to deliver results.”
Wasserman Schultz has served in Congress for more than 20 years, and is a senior member of the House Appropriations Committee, a member of House Democratic leadership and a former Democratic National Committee chairwoman. She one of several pro-Israel Democrats, including Reps. Jared Moskowitz (D-FL), Darren Soto (D-FL) and Kathy Castor (D-FL), who have had their districts redrawn by redistricting in the state.
Wasserman Schultz has long prided herself on representing a heavily Jewish constituency, joking to Jewish audiences about the number of Jewish retirees in her district.
State Sen. Shevrin Jones, the incoming Florida Democratic Senate leader, expressed disappointment with Wasserman Schultz’s decision while calling her a friend. He said in a statement he’s spoken to her about the issue and emphasized that “Black representation is a non-negotiable for me.”
“Everyone deserves to have a seat at the table to ensure our communities are represented by those with their same lived experience. This is not about Debbie because she has shown she can lead; that’s not the argument nor should it be the fight, at least not mine,” Jones said. “My fight is for Black representation, and I am in the business of expanding it, not diminishing it.”
In a joint statement, the Florida Legislative Black Caucus also criticized Wasserman Schultz’s decision.
“Congresswman Wasserman Schultz’s decision to pursue reelection in this historically Black district, despite explicit requests from the Black community to seek candidacy in a neighboring district, is disheartening,” the statement reads. “Building trust with Black leaders and constituents should be paramount for anyone seeking to represent a majority-Black district. Unfortunately, the actions taken by Congresswoman Wasserman Schultz suggest a failure to prioritize these essential values, perpetuating a narrative of performative allyship rather than meaningful connection.”
Manley condemned Wasserman Schultz as a carpetbagger and compared her to Florida Republicans who redrew the state’s congressional districts.
Wasserman Schultz told Politico she had engaged with more than 100 community leaders in the district, many of them Black, before making her decision, again emphasizing the need for an experienced lawmaker.
Other candidates in the race include Luther Campbell, a musician and free speech advocate, physician Rudolph Moise and former Broward County Mayor Dale Holness.
The anti-Israel account rescinded its endorsement of Maureen Galindo, who called to imprison Zionists, after a groundswell of Dem condemnation
Katina Zentz/San Antonio Express-News via Getty Images
Maureen Galindo, left, and Johnny Garcia, right, participate in a TX-35 forum in San Antonio on May 6, 2026.
Track AIPAC, the social media account that has gained a growing audience among anti-Israel activists in recent years, found itself in an embarrassing position this week when a candidate it had championed for Congress faced bipartisan backlash over extreme antisemitic comments calling to imprison and castrate “American Zionists,” whom she accused of pedophilia.
In a lengthy statement posted to X on Tuesday, the account said it was “aware of incendiary statements and troubling behavior” by Maureen Galindo, a San Antonio activist competing for an open swing seat in Texas next week against a pro-Israel Democrat whom national party leaders view as their best chance to flip the newly drawn House district in the general election.
While the account, which runs an affiliated super PAC, qualified its response with the added caveat that it “stands firmly on the side of free expression,” it informed its nearly 500,000 followers that it was “immediately revoking” its endorsement of Galindo, whom it had helped raise funds for through an online portal, and encouraged others “to follow suit.”
“Calls for cruel and unusual punishment,” Track AIPAC wrote, “are fundamentally in opposition to our organization’s commitment to justice and due process.”
Still, the point at which Track AIPAC finally chose to draw a line over Galindo’s rhetoric underscored how the account’s ostensibly narrow focus on opposition to what it calls the “Israel lobby” has often obscured an indulgence of extreme views and positions.
Galindo, who narrowly finished in first in the March primary, rose to prominence with a stream of unhinged videos promoting conspiracy theories about Jews and Israel.
Well before calling to imprison Zionists, for example, she had said Jews “own Hollywood” and “worship the synagogue of Satan,” while claiming that “billionaire Zionists and their puppet journalists are FAKE Jews who create antisemitism to harm and harvest off the real Jews,” among several other incendiary remarks Track AIPAC apparently did not find disqualifying.
Those who have taken issue with the account — which has also faced criticism for using antisemitic language in its fierce opposition to AIPAC and calls for the group to register as a foreign agent — were quick to detect a lack of sincerity in its decision to rescind support for Galindo.
The about-face raises questions about Track AIPAC’s judgement and vetting process, adding to widespread criticism related to its methodology for scoring candidates and elected officials who have taken donations from a range of disparate Israel advocacy groups like J Street, AIPAC and Democratic Majority for Israel, a broad category critics have dismissed as selective and sloppy.
The account, which has backed several candidates through its political arm, Citizens Against AIPAC Corruption, has at times included contributions from individual lobby donors, fueling accusations that it is simply singling out Jewish political spending without making clearer distinctions among pro-Israel groups.
Brian Romick, the president of DMFI PAC, which is backing Galindo’s runoff opponent, Johnny Garcia, argued that “Track AIPAC embodies the very-online activist fringe: large social-media following, minimal real-world influence, and a political strategy based on vibes.”
While Galindo is likely the most extreme candidate Track AIPAC has endorsed this election cycle, it has backed others who have used inflammatory rhetoric while speaking about Israel, including Chris Rabb, a Democratic state legislator in Pennsylvania who recently claimed the nomination after sharing an Instagram post blaming the massacre of Jewish Australians at Sydney’s Bondi Beach on “Zionists.”
Track AIPAC was co-founded by Casey Kennedy and Cory Archibald, a former campaign staffer for several anti-Israel Squad members who has described herself as a Marxist and reportedly resides in Germany. The account, which launched in 2024, has claimed a level of growing vitality among far-left audiences due to its eye-catching scorecards posted to social media. Its super PAC, however, reported only $265,000 cash on hand at the end of March, far outnumbered by AIPAC itself.
The group has endorsed around 80 candidates for House and Senate this election cycle, most notably Graham Platner and Abdul El-Sayed, now running for Senate seats in Maine and Michigan, respectively.
Even as Galindo’s comments drew fierce blowback from some high-profile figures on the left, including Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), Track AIPAC largely eluded serious scrutiny in progressive circles. In a testament to the extremist views of its followers, the account faced criticism from anti-Zionist X users who accused Track AIPAC of abandoning its values in pulling support for the antisemitic House candidate.
Jewish Insider contacted several candidates backed by Track AIPAC asking if they were still comfortable receiving support from the account after the Galindo episode, and only one responded.
Chuck Park, a Democrat challenging Rep. Grace Meng (D-NY) in New York City, said “Galindo’s antisemitic comments are reprehensible,” while adding, “I agree with their decision to rescind the endorsement.”
Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA), a progressive critic of Israel, has interacted cordially with Track AIPAC but is not endorsed by the account, which encourages him “to continue improving” his record “on Israel-Palestine issues.”
In a statement to JI, Khanna appeared to distance himself from Track AIPAC without directly referring to the account. “What Galindo said was hateful and disgusting,” he said. “Antisemitism has no place in the Democratic party or America. There is a reason I never supported Galindo, and no one should endorse her.”
Track AIPAC did not respond to a request for comment.
Joel Rubin, a progressive strategist who has warned that the far left is alienating Jewish Democrats with incendiary rhetoric about Israel, said he believed that Track AIPAC’s decision to rescind its endorsement of Galindo did not go “far enough,” saying the account “should be calling for her to immediately withdraw from the race.”
“For Track AIPAC, this does demonstrate the hostility they have to the Jewish community and Israel,” he told JI on Wednesday. “They were so gleefully supporting someone like this when they knew very well how hateful and racist she was.”
DNC Chair Ken Martin added his condemnation of Galindo: ‘This kind of vile, antisemitic rhetoric has no place in the Democratic Party’
U.S. House of Representatives
Reps. Josh Gottheimer (D-NJ) and Jared Moskowitz (D-FL)
Reps. Josh Gottheimer (D-NJ) and Jared Moskowitz (D-FL) said on Wednesday that they would seek to expel Maureen Galindo, a Democrat running for Congress in Texas who has expressed extreme antisemitic views, if she is elected.
Their comments mark an escalation among Democrats condemning Galindo since comments by the House candidate, in which she called for the interment and castration of Zionists, gained widespread attention.
“If for some reason, Maureen Galindo wins the Congressional election in TX-35, as soon as she is sworn in, we will force a vote to expel her every single day we are here,” Gottheimer and Moskowitz said in a joint statement. “Maureen’s insane, antisemitic views — including putting Americans in concentration camps — have no place in our Party or country.”
Moskowitz added in a post on X about Galindo, “My grandmother was part of the Kindertransport out of Berlin. Her parents were killed in Auschwitz. My kids are never going to ‘the camps.’”
He made a similar comment, and expounded on the situation, during a House hearing earlier in the day, describing Galindo’s comments as a logical escalation of attacks on Jewish and pro-Israel Americans and U.S. support for Israel, which have become increasingly common in Democratic politics.
“We’ve gone from, ‘Oh there’s Americans who donate to elected officials that are AIPAC,’ and then it’s ‘ok, Netanyahu,’ and then it’s ‘ok, maybe we shouldn’t support foreign money,’ and ‘ok, now we’re going to call all these people Zionists.’ And now we’re at concentration camps,” Moskowitz said. “By the way, we got to concentration camps much faster than I thought we would, but here we are. And it’s real scary.”
“People are scared. People don’t want to show their Jewish stars anymore, they’re moving into neighborhoods just to be around other Jews because they’re concerned,” he continued.
Galindo came in first place in the March 3 primary race, leading sheriff’s deputy Johnny Garcia, despite Garcia being the party-backed candidate. Since the primary, a host of national Democratic groups, including the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and Democratic Majority for Israel, have been boosting Garcia ahead of a runoff race.
But Lead Left PAC, a secretive GOP-linked super PAC, has been airing ads backing Galindo with close to $1 million in outside spending ahead of next week’s runoff.
Galindo had previously made numerous antisemitic comments, including claiming that Jews “own Hollywood” and “worship at the synagogue of Satan,” but her comments about placing Zionists into concentration camps gained greater attention.
All Jewish Democratic House lawmakers joined in another joint statement on Wednesday to condemn the “vile, bigoted, and antisemitic views spewed by the desperate and unhinged Maureen Galindo,” which they said “[merit] no safe harbor anywhere in American politics, and for sure not in the Democratic Party.” In a first, the group expressed their joint support for Garcia.
They also said they were “appalled” by reports of a GOP-linked super PAC supporting Galindo, “shamefully embracing and elevating her disgusting antisemitic views and ideas.”
Democratic National Committee Chairman Ken Martin also condemned Galindo.
“This kind of vile, antisemitic rhetoric has no place in the Democratic Party,” Martin said. “No matter someone’s political party, we must confront and stand up to hate wherever and whenever it appears.”
A group of Texas Democratic Party leaders, including the state party chair, also condemned Galindo on Wednesday.
“Antisemitism and hateful rhetoric have no place in the Democratic Party or in our communities. Maureen Galindo’s comments do not reflect our values as Democrats or Texans,” their statement reads. “The Texas Democratic Party and its county parties remain committed to standing against antisemitism in all its forms.”
‘Barney Frank changed the country through the barriers he broke and through the seriousness, clarity, and effectiveness he brought to public life,’ said Jeremy Burton of the Boston JCRC
Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images
Former Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) speaks during a bill enrollment ceremony for the Respect For Marriage Act as Rep. David Cicilline (D-RI) looks on at the U.S. Capitol Building on December 08, 2022 in Washington, DC.
Former Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA), who represented the Boston area in Congress for more than three decades and was the first openly gay member of Congress, died on Tuesday. He was 86.
Known as a liberal firebrand, Frank’s most high-profile act in politics was drafting the legislation that tightened financial regulations in response to the 2008 financial crisis, a bill known as the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. He also was widely considered a pioneer for the LGBTQ community after coming out publicly as gay in 1987.
Frank grew up in a working-class Jewish family in Bayonne, N.J. His sister, Ann Lewis, also worked in politics, holding senior roles in the Clinton administration and later on Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign.
Frank said he was drawn to public service early, feeling in some way that he was an outsider who could challenge how things were done.
“I’m a left-handed gay Jew,” Frank said. “I’ve never felt, automatically, a member of any majority.”
He knew from the time he was a teenager that he was gay, but figured that being Jewish would be a bigger barrier to holding public office.
“I knew I was a homosexual growing up in the 1950s, but figured no one had to know I was one,” Frank told a group of Yale students in 2013. “And it was already out [that] I was Jewish. I had been bar mitzvahed.”
A graduate of Harvard Law School, Frank spent nearly his entire career in elected office after a short stint working in Boston politics. He was elected to the Massachusetts State House in 1972, a position he held for eight years until his election to Congress in 1980.
For 32 years, until he retired in 2013, he represented a district that included the Boston suburbs of Newton, Needham, Brookline, Foxborough and Sharon. One of Frank’s final acts in office was marrying his husband, James Ready, in 2012, becoming the first sitting member of Congress to marry a same-sex partner.
“Massachusetts and the Jewish community are mourning one of the defining public leaders of his generation,” Jeremy Burton, CEO of the Jewish Community Relations Council of Greater Boston, said in a statement. “Barney Frank changed the country through the barriers he broke and through the seriousness, clarity, and effectiveness he brought to public life.”
In the final weeks of his life, Frank did a series of interviews to promote his new book, The Hard Path to Unity: Why We Must Reform the Left to Rescue Democracy, which will be released in September. He entered hospice a few weeks ago and knew he would not make it to the book’s release date.
Frank explained in a May 8 interview with the Jewish Telegraphic Agency that he believed Democrats should get rid of far-left litmus tests that he said limited the party’s electoral prospects and turned away voters — but added that he thought Israel should be treated differently.
“I’ve been talking about the importance of repudiating positions from the left and from the far left, but the Israel one is almost 180 degrees” different, he told JTA. “It’s the one area where we are not doing enough in terms of making our position clear.”
Frank, who considered himself a Zionist and supporter of Israel, said Democrats need to be much clearer about their opposition to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his treatment of the Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank. He said Netanyahu is the “enabler” of rising anti-Israel Democrats, such as New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani.
“It’s what the Democrats should be doing, it’s what America should be doing, and it should be what the Democrats are advocating, is giving an ultimatum that [Netanyahu] either changes things substantially in Gaza and the West Bank, or we cut off any aid,” Frank said in the interview. “We’ve now gone to the point where supporting Israel has become unpopular, and that’s all Netanyahu’s doing.”
But, Frank added, opposition to Netanyahu should not be seen as opposing Israel’s very existence.
“We should make it clear that the right position here is to support Israel’s right to exist, but to be unwilling to facilitate what they’re doing militarily and to give them an ultimatum,” said Frank.
Plus, bipartisan push for Jewish American Security Act
Jeffrey Dean/Bloomberg via Getty Images
Representative Thomas Massie, a Republican from Kentucky, speaks during a campaign event ahead of a primary election at Veterans Memorial Park in Vanceburg, Kentucky, US, on Monday, May 18, 2026.
Good Wednesday morning.
In today’s Daily Kickoff, we break down the results of yesterday’s critical primaries, including Rep. Thomas Massie’s loss in Kentucky and Chris Rabb’s win in PA-03, and report on the introduction by Sens. Jacky Rosen and James Lankford of the Jewish American Security Act. We look at how Democratic officials speaking at the Center for American Progress’ convening on Tuesday sidestepped discussions about Israel even as it held multiple sessions on the Middle East, and cover a new report from Israel’s Institute for National Security Studies warning about the effects of the erosion of American Jewish support for Israel on the relationship between Washington and Jerusalem. Also in today’s Daily Kickoff: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Nick Valensi and Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar.
Today’s Daily Kickoff was curated by JI Executive Editor Melissa Weiss and Israel Editor Tamara Zieve, with assists from Danielle Cohen-Kanik and Marc Rod. Have a tip? Email us here.
What We’re Watching
- The House of Representatives is expected to vote today on the Iran war powers resolution sponsored by Rep. Greg Meeks (D-NY), the ranking Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee. The vote comes a day after Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-LA), who last week fell short in his reelection bid after President Donald Trump endorsed an opponent, flipped his vote to advance a similar Democratic-led measure in the Senate. More below.
- The House Education Committee’s subcommittee on Health, Employment, Labor, and Pensions is holding a hearing this morning on antisemitism in the healthcare field, with the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law’s Deena Margolies, Dr. Jacob Agronin, Bend the Arc CEO Jamie Beran and American Jewish Medical Association CEO Eveline Shekhman set to testify. Read more here.
- Former Rep. Tom Malinowski (D-NJ) is among those slated to speak at a hearing being convened this morning by the House Foreign Affairs Committee on the State Department’s budget request for its adjacent entities.
- The House Judiciary Committee is holding a hearing on the Southern Poverty Law Center in a session titled “The Southern Poverty Law Center: Manufacturing Hate.”
- Elsewhere in Washington this morning, the Jewish Federations of North America, Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, Combat Antisemitism Movement and the Weitzman National Museum of American Jewish History are hosting a congressional breakfast to celebrate Jewish American Heritage Month. Sam Salz, who in 2022 became one of the only Orthodox Jews to play Division I college football when he walked on to Texas A&M’s team, will give the breakfast’s keynote address.
- Down Pennsylvania Ave., the Hudson Institute is holding an event with Sarah Rogers, the under secretary of state for public diplomacy, on modernizing public diplomacy to address global challenges. Sen. Eric Schmitt (R-MO) is slated to give introductory remarks at the event.
- The Federalist Society is hosting its inaugural Legislative Branch Summit today in Washington.
- In Israel, the Knesset unanimously advanced a bill to dissolve the body, which if passed would automatically trigger elections, which are slated to take place no later than October 27. The bill will still need to go through several more readings and votes before it is passed.
What You Should Know
A QUICK WORD WITH JI’S JOSH KRAUSHAAR
Pro-Israel and Republican Jewish groups helped oust one of their leading GOP antagonists on Tuesday night, aligning with President Donald Trump to defeat Rep.Thomas Massie (R-KY) in the most expensive House primary in recent memory.
Ed Gallrein, a military veteran and farmer recruited by the Trump White House to challenge Massie, decisively defeated the congressman by 10 points, 55-45%. Massie, a libertarian lawmaker who long cast lonely Republican votes against Israel funding and resolutions condemning antisemitism, increasingly trafficked in bigoted rhetoric in the closing weeks of the campaign.
In his concession speech, Massie continued his antisemitic vitriol against his opponent, telling the crowd: “I had to call my opponent and concede, and it took a while to find Ed Gallrein in Tel Aviv.” Even though Trump’s outspoken opposition was the leading factor behind his demise, he routinely blamed Jewish and pro-Israel donors like Miriam Adelson for costing him his seat and insinuated that Israel was buying seats in Congress.
Massie first drew the ire of Trump for voting against his “big beautiful” reconciliation bill last year, and the anger was exacerbated by his work with Democrats to force the Department of Justice to release all of the files involving Jeffrey Epstein.
Outside groups, including a Trump-aligned super PAC (MAGA KY) and those affiliated with the Republican Jewish Coalition, AIPAC and Christians United for Israel, spent aggressively with ads and billboards attacking Massie over his record, with several pointing out his opposition to Israel and Trump’s foreign policy.
Massie’s defeat also underscores Trump’s strong and continued support within the party, with his endorsements in primaries almost always translating into his candidate’s victory. His opposition to Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-LA) led to his defeat last week, and he successfully ousted most of the Indiana GOP state senators who opposed his redistricting efforts.
POLICY PRIORITIES
Rosen, Lankford introduce bill championed by Jewish leaders to address antisemitism

Sens. Jacky Rosen (D-NV) and James Lankford (R-OK) on Tuesday introduced the Jewish American Security Act, a broad new effort by the lawmakers, who co-chair the Senate antisemitism task force, to address antisemitism across multiple sectors of American society, Jewish Insider’s Marc Rod reports. Similar legislation is also expected to be introduced in the House.
About the bill: The bill contains various provisions aimed at increasing security for Jewish communities through additional funding and federal resources. Key provisions include: additional security assistance and improvements to security grant programs for Jewish communities; addressing antisemitism on college campuses through new federal oversight measures including a federal official to handle campus antisemitism; and addressing the spread of antisemitism online by requiring new transparency reports from social media companies, among a range of related steps in each category.





















































































































Continue with Google
Continue with Apple