The funding marks an increase over 2025 levels but is far short of the $1 billion advocates have sought
David Dee Delgado/Getty Images
A Department of Homeland Security officer stands guard at 26 Federal plaza as protestors gather to demand the release of Mahmoud Khalil at Foley Square on March 10, 2025 in New York City.
House Democrats and Jewish groups welcomed the passage of $300 million for the Nonprofit Security Grant Program (NSGP) on Thursday, while warning that funding for the program remains insufficient to fully protect the Jewish community and places of worship amid a surge in antisemitism.
The appropriation was passed through a bill funding most of the Department of Homeland Security, approved in the House on Thursday after receiving approval in the Senate. The move ends the monthslong shutdown of agencies including the Coast Guard, Transportation Security Administration and the Federal Emergency Management Agency, which operates NSGP.
While lawmakers welcomed the fact that funding marks an increase from the $274.5 million provided in fiscal year 2025, they cautioned that the $300 million still falls short of the need within the Jewish community, given the threat level. The grants are used to harden institutions, including synagogues and day schools, against physical attacks.
Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL) told Jewish Insider that $300 million is “nowhere near enough.”
“It is just unacceptable that we are going in the wrong direction,” Wasserman Schultz said. “$300 million is backwards. We need a billion dollars with the explosive growth in antisemitism and antisemitic attacks.”
Jewish communal groups as well as a bipartisan group of 150 House members called for an increase in funding for the program of up to $1 billion following several attacks including the car-ramming and shooting attack on Temple Israel in West Bloomfield, Mich., in March.
“We need to make sure that every person who attends not just a Jewish institution, but any religious or community organization — that no one should have to fear being attacked in a public space like that,” Wasserman Schultz added. “We need to make sure that the funding is adequate to keep people safe.”
The Florida lawmaker noted that she hopes Congress can unlock more funding for the program, saying that there is an “appropriations process that is ongoing, so hopefully we’ll be able to.”
Rep. Josh Gottheimer (D-NJ) told JI that the development is “good news,” adding that “hopefully we [Congress] will get these resources out the door as quickly as possible to protect our religious institutions.”
“It’s better than nothing, right?” Gottheimer said. “It’s good news to get these resources out the door, and we certainly need to get them out the door, and so this is an important step.”
Still, Gottheimer said the amount is not enough. He stated that he plans to “push for a lot more for next year” and that he has “already taken action, written letters and laid down clear markers that we need a lot more.”
“I think we need more because right now we’re running less than 50% fulfilled in terms of [grant] requests,” Gottheimer said. “So, obviously it’s not enough, especially with the threats out there. When you look at antisemitism and the surge in the rates, we obviously need to get a lot more help for our religious institutions so we can ensure religious freedom and protect our synagogues.”
Gottheimer also expressed frustration with what he described as former DHS Secretary Kristi Noem “holding up the resources.” However, he said he hoped that the department’s newly installed secretary, former Oklahoma Sen. Markwayne Mullin, would mark an improvement.
“She [Noem] had put a review on all of the resources, so a lot of the money didn’t get out the door because they were looking at all the procedures and so the money was being held up,” Gottheimer said. “I’m optimistic that our new secretary, and I spoke to him, will get these resources out the door.”
Rep. George Latimer (D-NY) said he was unsure whether the newly allocated amount was the “right number,” but stated that he believed it could have a “positive effect.”
“The synagogues and the Jewish day schools in my district and around me are really concerned about the rise of antisemitism,” Latimer said. “I’m not Jewish myself, but I can see that there’s a pointed effort to try and make people feel afraid in doing things that we believe everybody should be able to do.”
“I suppose you could always use more [funding],” Latimer added. “But if it’s going to go to the right purpose and it’s done without extra strings attached, as you never know how this administration will operate — but I would certainly say that Jewish communities should have this extra support and protection.”
Jewish communal organizations similarly applauded the funding, but urged for more down the line.
“This increase over last year’s funding level is an important and very welcome step,” Nathan Diament, executive director of the Orthodox Union Advocacy Center, said in a statement. “While sadly even more funding is needed for Jewish community security, this increased level of funding will surely help. We will continue working with members of Congress and our allies to fund NSGP at even higher levels in 2027 to meet demand.”
Lauren Wolman, senior director of government relations and strategy at the Anti-Defamation League, called the funding “an important step in protecting vulnerable communities amid evolving threats.”
“NSGP is a proven, lifesaving program, but demand continues to far outpace resources. As antisemitic threats reach record highs, funding must keep pace. Turning our attention to FY27, we urge Congress to fund NSGP at $1 billion,” Wolman continued. “Now that DHS has reopened, we urge the Administration to ensure FY25 funds are disbursed promptly and [open applications for 2026 grants] in a timely manner.”
The Jewish Federations of North America also welcomed the move, saying in a statement that the funding will “restore critical operations at a moment when threats facing Jewish communities and other vulnerable populations remain alarmingly high.” It also encouraged the administration to release funds allocated for 2025 and open applications for 2026, and indicated that the organization would “fight for $1 billion for FY2027.”
The Ohio congressman had been one of four Democrats to oppose the previous resolution to halt the war in Iran
Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images
Rep. Greg Landsman (D-OH) is interviewed by CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images in his Longworth Building office on Friday, November 3, 2023.
Rep. Greg Landsman (D-OH), one of the few House Democrats who has supported strikes on Iran and opposed a war powers resolution to bring it to an end earlier this month, now says he wants to see the war wrapped up, and will vote for an upcoming resolution to end the conflict.
“It’s time to finish the operation in Iran. It’s time to be done,” Landsman said in a statement on Friday. “No expansion of the original operation. No ground troops.”
Landsman’s statement comes in advance of an anticipated vote on another war powers resolution to end the conflict next week, led by Rep. Greg Meeks (D-NY). Landsman said he plans to vote for the war powers resolution, and urged colleagues to do the same.
Reps. Henry Cuellar (D-TX), Jared Golden (D-ME) and Juan Vargas (D-CA) were the only other Democrats to vote against the previous war powers resolution earlier this month.
“The fact is, in three weeks, we have destroyed nearly all of the regime’s missile and drone launch capacity and eliminated their ability, for now, to produce ballistic missiles and drones,” Landsman said. “This means the objective to destroy the weapons shield built to protect their underground nuclear enrichment facilities has been achieved.”
“The cost of inaction was far too high to tolerate. But now it’s time to be done,” he continued, adding that U.S. military officials have successfully executed their mission, so it is “now it is time for the administration to end the operation before we become entangled in a conflict with no strategic logic.”
The Ohio congressman criticized the Trump administration for its communication around the war, while praising military officials for how they have conducted the U.S. operations.
Cuellar, Golden and Vargas did not comment on how they plan to vote on the next war powers resolution. Assuming full attendance, just three other lawmakers who opposed the previous war powers resolution would need to flip to allow the next one to pass.
Landsman, Cuellar, Golden and three other moderate House Democrats are also co-sponsoring an alternative war powers resolution that would limit the duration of the war to 30 days from its inception, which also should be eligible for a vote in the House soon.
That 30-day deadline from the war’s beginning — March 30 — is quickly approaching, raising the likelihood that other Democrats like Cuellar and Golden might support ending the war, based on the timeline they laid out.
Some told JI they were concerned that President Trump could use it as legal justification to continue the campaign against Iran
Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images
House Minority Leader Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY), joined by fellow Democrats outside of the U.S. Capitol on July 02, 2025 in Washington, DC.
In a surprise vote on Thursday afternoon that baffled some observers in Washington, 53 House Democrats voted against a resolution “reaffirming Iran remains the largest state sponsor of terrorism.” For some, their opposition traces to a desire not to give President Donald Trump rhetorical, or potentially legal, justification for continuing the Iran war, lawmakers said.
The resolution passed by a vote of 372-53, with two members voting “present.”
Most of the lawmakers voting against the resolution — like Reps. Rashida Tlaib (D-MI), Joaquin Castro (D-TX), Ilhan Omar (D-MN), Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) and Pramila Jayapal (D-WA) — are progressives, many of them frequent critics of Israel.
But a handful of others who ended up voting against the resolution are relative moderates who have taken more hawkish stances on Iran, such as Reps. Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-IL), Rob Menendez (D-NJ) and Steve Cohen (D-TN), who also voted against the resolution.
Many of the more moderate lawmakers who voted against the resolution are facing either competitive reelection races with challengers from their left or, in Krishnamoorthi’s case, running for higher office.
Newly elected Rep. Christian Menefee (D-TX), who had thus far not encountered any House votes on Middle East policy and faces Rep. Al Green (D-TX) in a member-on-member primary runoff, also voted no, as did Green.
Rep. Robert Garcia (D-CA), a Democratic rising star who is the top Democrat on the House Oversight Committee, told Jewish Insider he felt the legislation was meant to provide additional support for the war.
“Right now there’s an active situation that I oppose,” Garcia said. “That [resolution is] just meant to provide more pressure on that action. I think that right now, it’s a purely political stunt, and something that I won’t agree with.”
Another House Democrat, who asked to remain anonymous, explained that they were concerned about two clauses in the legislation, which they said could provide Trump with legal justifications for continuing the war.
One clause notes that “Tehran continues to harbor a network of senior al-Qaeda leaders, providing them with sanctuary space to fundraise in support of its fighters.” Given that the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force that approved the Afghanistan war includes language allowing the use of military power against any nations that harbored the organizations or individuals responsible for planning, carrying or aiding in the 9/11 attacks, the Democrat said that Trump could use the language “as a legal justification” for the war.
The other clause describes Iran as a “direct and persistent threat to the United States,” which the Democrat said could trigger the president’s self-defense authorities under Article II of the Constitution.
“Iran is a leading state sponsor of terrorism led by a regime that represses its own people and poses real dangers we must confront. We must ensure it never obtains a nuclear weapon. I will continue to support targeted efforts to counter the threats posed by Iran, but I voted against a separate resolution on Iran that President Trump may soon use to politically justify this war,” Krishnamoorthi said.
“Iran is obviously a state sponsor of terrorism. There’s no debate on that. The issue is that Republicans are using this to claim that Iran is harboring Al Qaeda (sound familiar?) and is a direct and persistent threat to the U.S. so they can legally justify this reckless war,” Rep. Sara Jacobs (D-CA) said on X.
Rep. Bonnie Watson Coleman (D-NJ), a progressive Israel critic who voted against the resolution, called it a “political messaging bill” designed to take attention away from the war powers resolution that failed in the House shortly after.
Rep. Adam Smith (D-WA), the ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee — who supported the resolution — said in a statement, “I agree with the principal assertion of this resolution that Iran is a bad actor. Iran’s malign and destabilizing actions in the region and treatment of its own citizens should be denounced. I have never contested this. What I do contest is that going to war is the reasonable response to this assertion. I support this resolution. I do not support the president’s war of choice with Iran.”
The new resolution, put forth by a group of pro-Israel Democrats, gives the administration 30 days to end the campaign or seek congressional approval
Graeme Sloan/Sipa USA
Pedestrians walk near near the U.S. Capitol Building, in Washington, D.C., on Thursday, January 2, 2025.
A group of six moderate House Democrats introduced an alternative war powers resolution on Iran, which — rather than demanding an immediate end to the ongoing U.S. operation — would give the administration 30 days in which to either end the campaign or come to Congress to seek approval for continued strikes.
The resolution is sponsored by Reps. Josh Gottheimer (D-NJ), Jimmy Panetta (D-CA), Henry Cuellar (D-TX), Greg Landsman (D-OH), Jared Golden (D-ME) and Jim Costa (D-CA). It signals concern from the group of hawkish pro-Israel House Democrats about the efforts by their colleagues to demand an immediate end to operations in Iran, though at least some of the sponsors of the resolution still plan to vote for the existing war powers resolution this week as well.
“Iran is actively firing drones and ballistic missiles at U.S. troops, our embassies, allies, and is targeting civilians across the region,” Gottheimer said on X on Tuesday. “This new Democratic War Powers Resolution will uphold Congress’s constitutional authority — while also ensuring the U.S. can defend our troops, embassies, and allies from Iranian aggression.”
Landsman said that the resolution “allows for the short-term, targeted strikes on the regime’s missiles and bombs, requires Trump to come to Congress for a vote, and specifies ‘no ground troops.’ Destroy the [regime’s] ability to destroy more lives or cause any more mayhem or violence. Nothing more.”
In a press release, Gottheimer’s office pointed to concerns that the resolution led by Reps. Ro Khanna (D-CA) and Thomas Massie (R-KY), which is set to receive a House vote this week, would pull out U.S. forces even as Iran is targeting U.S. troops, assets, facilities and allies. “It is vital that we allow for a safe transition, that protects our service members, embassies, and allies, not a potentially precarious withdrawal,” the statement reads.
Lawmakers supporting the war powers resolutions in both chambers have largely not articulated what an immediate end to the war would entail or the potential consequences of abruptly pulling out U.S. forces.
The new resolution includes specific language forbidding the administration from deploying ground troops into Iran “in a combat role, including for regime change, or for occupation unless explicitly authorized by Congress,” but includes an exception for search and rescue and intelligence operations.
Gottheimer’s press release argues that an “open-ended commitment” and a potential commitment of ground troops would both be “unacceptable,” while also warning that “it is equally unwise to act in a precipitous way and endanger America’s security and put our service members in additional harm’s way.”
The Gottheimer-led resolution also contains language that would allow the U.S. to continue to defend its facilities, personnel and allies from “imminent attack;” keep forces in the region “for defensive purposes” and who are engaged in other missions and continue sharing intelligence with partners.
The war powers resolution that is set to receive a House vote later this week does not include similar language to specifically allow for continued intelligence sharing and defensive operations protecting allies, which could raise concerns for pro-Israel Democrats.
The Senate version of the resolution does include such protections.
While Gottheimer and Landsman have said they oppose the Massie-Khanna resolution, Panetta said on Tuesday that he would support it, despite also backing the Gottheimer resolution.
“The President has not abided by our Constitution when it comes to invading foreign sovereign states,” Panetta said in a statement. “That is why Congress must fulfill our obligations under the constitution by supporting this week’s bipartisan War Powers Resolution.”
Asked about the Gottheimer resolution, Rep. Greg Meeks (D-NY), the ranking member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, emphasized that the Massie-Khanna legislation will be coming to the floor on Wednesday. “That’s the one we have. This is continuing right now. We need to vote on this resolution tomorrow. I’m not considering any other [resolution].”
Jeremy Bash, a former chief of staff at the Department of Defense and Central Intelligence Agency under the Obama administration, told JI that the Khanna-Massie resolution is reckless.
“We have U.S. servicemembers in harm’s way. Some are flying combat sorties as we speak. We can’t call them in the cockpit and say ‘Congress has prohibited you from completing this mission. Please turn around and stop what you’re doing.’ If that sounds a little strange, it is because the Ro Khanna resolution requires that very strange outcome,” Bash said. “An immediate withdrawal is dangerous for our troops. Any pullback needs to be orderly and safe. We need to give the combatant commander at least a few weeks to do this safely.”
He said that Congress can and should be involved in debating the war and providing oversight, but “for a war powers resolution to be credible, it has to build in several days for the commanders to act responsibly to protect their troops. This cannot be done immediately.”
Bash called Gottheimer’s resolution a “very sensible alternative that will protect our troops.”
Daniel Silverberg, a former advisor to Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-MD), emphasized that a similar effort to cut off the U.S.’ Libya operations led by “one of the most ardent anti-war activists in the House,” then-Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), included a 15-day wind-down provision.
“The Massie-Khanna resolution lacks it. The notion that Democrats would not, at a minimum, support that amendment to allow for a responsible withdrawal of forces is problematic from a national security perspective and from a messaging perspective,” Silverberg said.
Amb. Daniel Shapiro, a former U.S. ambassador to Israel and senior State and Defense Department official, said that the resolution could serve as a “fallback” if the Massie-Khanna resolution fails, one which might have a chance of attracting GOP support.
“The 30 day clock … arguably addresses a concern that some members might have about troops who are actively engaged and in the field, and would need some window of time … to wind down and safely conclude operations,” Shapiro said.
Rep. Jared Moskowitz told JI that Kamala Harris’ team asking Shapiro if he’d ever been an agent for Israel, as Shapiro alleges, is ‘totally insane. I don’t know how else to describe insanity’
Andrew Mordzynski/Icon Sportswire via Getty Images
Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro looks on during the NASCAR Cup Series at The Great American Getaway 400 on June 22, 2025, at Pocono Raceway.
Several moderate House Democrats said they were concerned and frustrated by Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro’s account, which emerged over the weekend, of being questioned by Vice President Kamala Harris’ presidential campaign, as part of his vetting as her potential running mate, about whether he had ever been an agent of Israel.
Some progressives have defended the questioning by pointing to a subsequent report that the campaign had asked Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, the eventual vice presidential nominee, about whether he had served as an agent for China, where he once lived.
But Shapiro, who volunteered on a kibbutz and briefly on an Israeli army base while in high school, also said that the campaign had pressured him to walk back condemnations of antisemitism on college campuses, and emphasized that he took offense to the scope and persistence of the questioning he faced about Israel.
“Totally insane,” Rep. Jared Moskowitz (D-FL) told Jewish Insider. “I don’t know how else to describe insanity. Literally insane.”
Rep. Greg Landsman (D-OH) said the questioning was “concerning” and that he was “glad Josh had the courage to say what happened.”
“Hopefully people will appreciate that you shouldn’t do that. … It’s a longstanding antisemitic trope that we’re all agents of the Israeli government, that we’re all working for this global Jewish cabal. And so that’s problematic,” Landsman, who is Jewish, continued. “Antisemitism is complicated. There’s a lot of pieces to it. They all get very dangerous for us. I do think that people should be open to say, if Jews say it’s antisemitic — even if some say it’s not — let’s just assume it is and be done and not do it.”
Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL) called the revelations “incredibly disturbing,” while saying she didn’t believe Harris would have approved the line of questioning.
“The process that allowed for those kinds of questions to be asked is disturbing to me. I’ve known Josh Shapiro for a really long time, and I understand how he felt and would have felt the same way,” Wasserman Schultz, a former chair of the Democratic National committee, told JI. “It’s a little bewildering that that would be the kind of question line that they would take, given that Vice President Harris’ husband is Jewish. From what I know and experienced of both she and he, separately and together, that doesn’t seem like a line of questioning that she would have approved of. Hopefully it was a rogue question, rather than something that was sanctioned.”
Rep. Brad Schneider (D-IL) praised Shapiro personally and said he took issue with the questions he faced in the vetting process.
“I’ll give you my reaction to Josh Shapiro: This is someone who knows who he is, he’s confident in his identity and proud of where he comes from and strong in what he believes. I think he gave the right answers, and I think it was wrong that those questions were even raised.”
Rep. Tom Suozzi (D-NY) said that the questioning of Shapiro was not appropriate, calling it “very disturbing” and “unfair.”
Rep. Josh Gottheimer (D-NJ) said in a statement over the weekend that Shapiro’s account was “nothing short of outrageous, and, if true, demand[s] an immediate explanation from the Harris campaign.
“That kind of insinuation and targeting is antisemitism, plain and simple. No one should be judged or discriminated against because of their faith. We must do better,” Gottheimer continued.
Rep. James Walkinshaw (D-VA) said on CNN over the weekend, “If that question was asked of Governor Shapiro, it should have been asked to every other candidate who was vetted.”
Others largely withheld criticism of the Harris campaign.
Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY), a co-chair of the Congressional Jewish Caucus, said that it sounded like other potential nominees had also been asked about foreign ties, but described the line of questioning as “bizarre.”
Rep. Brad Sherman (D-CA) withheld judgment when asked about Shapiro’s revelations, telling JI, “It’s obviously very interesting. I don’t know whether the person asking the vetting questions really reflected Kamala Harris’ personal opinions at all, so I’ve got to read more about it.”
Rep. Madeliene Dean (D-PA) said she didn’t want to comment on the situation without having read Shapiro’s book coming out next week, in which he describes the encounter, or having been present for the conversations in question, but said that she has known Shapiro for a long time and praised him as a man of “[faith], family and a belief in the American system.”
House Dems call for steps to restore communications access in Iran, but stay mum on military strikes
Rep. Yassamin Ansari: ‘To the people of Iran: know that you are not alone. Members of Congress and the United States see your incredible courage’
Marc Rod
Rep. Yassamin Ansari (D-AZ) speaks at a press conference outside the Capitol on Tuesday, Jan. 20, 2026
At a press conference outside the Capitol on Tuesday, House Democrats called for action by the U.S. government to ensure free internet access and telecommunications for Iranians amid a crackdown by the Iranian regime, but largely withheld comment on whether the administration should undertake military strikes on the regime in support of the protesters, as President Donald Trump has floated.
“People cannot reach loved ones, plan and organize or reach unbiased information. They are literally being kept in the dark by their own government, and it could very well be permanent,” Rep. Yassamin Ansari (D-AZ), the daughter of Iranian immigrants and the first Iranian-American Democrat in Congress, said. “It’s why long-standing bipartisan efforts to ensure internet access in Iran cannot be left on the back burner. This access could save lives, and this is all very personal to me.”
She thanked colleagues for signing on to a bipartisan resolution expressing support for the Iranian protesters, condemning the Iranian regime, calling for unrestricted internet access and urging the U.S. and allied governments to “implement concrete measures” to deter further killings of protesters.
“To the people of Iran: know that you are not alone. Members of Congress and the United States see your incredible courage, and your resolve, your fight for freedom, democracy and self determination has inspired millions around the world. The future of Iran belongs to you and to no one else. The United States and the international community must continue to stand with the people of Iran and support a democratic Iran free from the tyrannical Islamic Republic,” Ansari continued.
Rep. Brad Schneider (D-IL) highlighted the bipartisan support for the protesters and asked the administration to take “concrete action to break through the communications blackout, to allow the people to succeed and to allow the people of Iran to control its destiny.”
He said that restoring communications access is critical to allowing Iranian dissidents to coordinate with each other and to share their experiences with the rest of the world, and for them to be able to see the support they have received from around the world.
Rep. Tom Suozzi (D-NY) praised the protesters, referencing slogans used in previous Iranian protest movements, and accused the Iranian regime of depriving and stealing from its own citizens in order to “serve as a terrorist banker” and “destabilize the Middle East and terrorize the world.”
“I hope that we can breach the internet blackout so the people will know that their protests these past three weeks have been [an] inspiration to us all,” Suozzi continued.
Rep. Greg Stanton (D-AZ) said, “We, the United States, this Congress, in a bipartisan way, has a moral obligation to amplify [the protesters’] voices when their own government tries to silence them, and we will make clear that we see them, we hear them, and we stand unequivocally with them.”
Asked by reporters about the possibility of military action, the Democratic lawmakers largely deflected.
“My personal belief is that any military action needs to come before Congress. That is the law of the United States within our Constitution,” Ansari said. “But no such action has been proposed or has been put forward by the president. No briefing has been had, no real formal proposal by the president of the United States has come to Congress when it pertains to Iran. So if he has any proposals, I know that many colleagues would be interested in hearing them.”
Trump has dialed back his rhetoric about the immediacy of the situation and the likelihood of strikes in recent days.
When pressed on whether she would support a proposal for military action if it were presented, Ansari reiterated that her “focus is the fact that there is no internet in Iran, and Donald Trump has done absolutely nothing to support internet freedom in the country,” criticizing the president for pulling funding from organizations supporting Iranian dissidents as part of the USAID shutdown last year.
She called for that funding to be “resumed immediately” and for Congress to act on legislation to restore internet and cellular access and her resolution in support of the Iranian people. She said she’s hopeful for a vote on the resolution this week.
“Right now we’re holding together a bipartisan coalition so we can’t go off in all different directions,” Suozzi said. “Right now, we have very strong support for the United States Congress standing by the people of Iran in their protest, and we have strong bipartisan support for providing internet access to the people of Iran. We need to hold that coalition together and get those steps done. And then we can move on to the next.”
The lawmakers urged the DHS secretary to wave any terms ‘that do not directly relate to the grant’s purpose,’ potentially referencing immigration and anti-DEI conditions imposed on the program
Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images
Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem speaks during a TV interview with Fox News outside of the White House on March 10, 2025 in Washington, DC.
The members of the Congressional Jewish Caucus — every Jewish House Democrat — wrote to Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem on Wednesday urging her to rescind new conditions — presumably related to immigration enforcement and diversity programs — instituted earlier this year on recipients of Nonprofit Security Grant Program funding.
“We are writing to you today to express our strong desire to ensure that the NSGP is adequately funded and unimpeded by new requirements that are unrelated to the security of grant recipients and their communities,” the letter reads. “Insufficient funding or unnecessary obstacles to obtaining grants could undermine the right of every religious community to freely and peacefully worship and congregate without fear.”
The lawmakers charge that new conditions for the grant program promulgated in April “create onerous new compliance requirements for recipients that will divert limited funds and restrict the religious conscience of synagogues, schools, and other institutions pivotal to our community,” and call on Noem to issue new guidance waiving any terms “that do not directly relate to the grant’s purpose, which is to help qualified institutions improve their security against increasing threats.”
The letter does not directly spell out which conditions the lawmakers are addressing, but congressional Democrats and some in the Jewish community have previously raised concerns about new language in some grant materials indicating that grants may be contingent on cooperation with federal immigration enforcement and eliminating Diversity, Equity and Inclusion programs.
“[W]e reject any efforts to force Jewish and other houses of worship and institutions to choose between vital security funding and expression of their core religious freedoms, as well as their faith teachings and values,” the lawmakers wrote. “In this time of increased hate crimes against minorities, and in particular rising antisemitism, we believe it is crucial that NSGP remains a critical resource accessible to all communities in need and free from partisan politicization.”
The lawmakers also emphasized that members of Congress on both sides of the aisle have supported a “streamlined, effective program with minimal red tape and compliance requirements.”
The letter was signed by Reps. Jerry Nadler (D-NY) and Brad Schneider (D-IL), the co-chairs of the Jewish caucus, and Reps. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL), Becca Balint (D-VT), Dan Goldman (D-NY), Seth Magaziner (D-RI), Josh Gottheimer (D-NJ), Jamie Raskin (D-MD), Steve Cohen (D-TN), Suzanne Bonamici (D-OR), Lois Frankel (D-FL), Jake Auchincloss (D-MA), Mike Levin (D-CA), Kim Schrier (D-WA), Laura Friedman (D-CA), Sara Jacobs (D-CA), Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), Greg Landsman (D-OH) and Jared Moskowitz (D-FL).
“The Nonprofit Security Grant Program has been a lifeline as we face rising antisemitism, hate, and extremism — but these politically-motivated grant requirements threaten to force our communities to choose between their safety and their core religious values,” Jewish Council for Public Affairs CEO Amy Spitalnick said in a statement about the letter, which specifically referenced the immigration and DEI language. “The fact is that the NSGP is simply too important to be politicized to advance the administration’s agenda..”
JCPA has previously urged the administration directly to repeal the conditions.
A coalition of major Jewish communal and security organizations, including the Jewish Federations of North America, Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, Anti-Defamation League, Secure Community Network, Community Security Initiative and Community Security Service issued a joint statement in September urging institutions to apply for the grants in spite of any concerns that they may have about the new criteria.
More than 30 House Democrats criticized the management of the 2025 Nonprofit Security Grant Program, saying that a lack of information provided by DHS is severely hampering applications
JIM WATSON/AFP via Getty Images
Committee ranking member Representative Bennie Thompson, Democrat from Mississippi, speaks during a House Committee on Homeland Security hearing with testimony from US Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem on fiscal year 2026 budget requests, on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC, May 14, 2025.
A group of more than 30 House Democrats wrote to leaders at the Department of Homeland Security on Tuesday criticizing their management of the 2025 Nonprofit Security Grant Program, saying that a lack of information provided by DHS is severely hampering applications to and implementation of the critical program.
The lawmakers criticized DHS and the Federal Emergency Management Agency for publishing the application for the grants months behind schedule, and, they allege, failing to provide “basic information necessary to move the application process forward and to fruition,” including specific timelines for the grants and applications, which the Democrats said still have not been provided.
“States have repeatedly asked FEMA for this information, and they have received no response,” the lawmakers continued. “This has also created a chilling effect on faith-based and nonprofit organizations that are hesitant to participate in an opaque application process.”
The lawmakers stated that the delays in allocating 2025 funding are concerning given the ongoing spate of attacks on religious institutions across the country, including a Catholic church in Minneapolis, a Latter-day Saints church in Michigan and the Capital Jewish Museum in Washington.
They also said that FEMA has failed to engage in educational and outreach programs to prospective applicants about the grants and the application process — programs that are required under law.
“Because of FEMA’s delays and lack of coordination and communication with States, many States have already opened and closed the application period for nonprofit organizations, meaning that any outreach from FEMA at this point would be too late,” the letter continues. “Other States have not opened the application process and have not communicated with faith-based and nonprofit stakeholders, leaving the process and the potential applicants in limbo.”
The Democrats criticized DHS for ignoring bipartisan requests from Congress to share the names of organizations awarded NSGP funding under a supplemental funding round earlier this year, which had been standard procedure in the past.
They also said DHS has added burdensome new requirements on state administrators for nonprofits that are seeking reimbursements for security costs from grants that have already been provided, slowing down reimbursements, increasing administrative costs and discouraging further applications.
The letter also raises concerns about language included in some NSGP materials suggesting that the grants could be conditioned on compliance with immigration enforcement efforts and alleges that DHS may be attempting to ban Muslim organizations from receiving security funding. The administration has already pulled funding from some Muslim groups with alleged ties to terrorism.
“FEMA must take immediate steps to get the FY 2025 NSGP back on track so that FY 2026 can proceed without the present delays, inconsistencies and uncertainties, and lack of uniformity and predictability that have previously been the hallmarks and guardrails for a program serving several thousand faith-based and nonprofit applicants each grant cycle,” the letter concludes.
The lawmakers urged DHS and FEMA to take immediate action to rectify the series of concerns they outlined and move the 2025 grant process ahead quickly.
The letter was led by Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-MS), the ranking member of the House Homeland Security Committee, and co-signed by Reps. Eric Swalwell (D-CA), Lou Correa (D-CA), Shri Thanedar (D-MI), Seth Magaziner (D-RI), Dan Goldman (D-NY), Delia Ramirez (D-IL), Tim Kennedy (D-NY), LaMonica McIver (D-NJ), Julie Johson (D-TX), Nellie Pou (D-NJ), Troy Carter (D-LA), Al Green (D-TX), James Walkinshaw (D-VA), Bobby Scott (D-VA), Nydia Velazquez (D-NY), Lloyd Doggett (D-TX), Ed Case (D-HI), Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL), Yvette Clarke (D-NY), Andre Carson (D-IN), Dina Titus (D-NV), Tom Suozzi (D-NY), Lizzie Fletcher (D-TX), Sylvia Garcia (D-TX), Shontel Brown (D-OH), Gabe Amo (D-RI), Greg Landsman (D-OH), Jennifer McClellan (D-VA), Laura Friedman (D-CA) and Dave Min (D-CA), and Dels. Pablo Hernandez (D-PR) and Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC).
“It is absolutely unacceptable that the Trump administration is dragging its feet on the awarding of these vital security grants,” Pou said in a separate statement. “As domestic extremism and terrorist threats to synagogues and other religious and community centers explode, Congress appropriated these grant funds to help support readiness. Americans have an unshakeable right to worship in peace and security. Congress deserves answers and our nation deserves action from this administration.”
The Democrats — all from the left wing of the party — call for the imposition of sanctions on Israel
Anti-Israel protestors with the group Code Pink sit in the chair reserved for US Secretary of State Antony Blinken prior to a House Committee on Foreign Affairs hearing (Photo by SAUL LOEB/AFP via Getty Images)
A group of 21 House progressives, led by Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-MI), introduced a resolution accusing Israel of committing genocide in Gaza.
The legislation is cosponsored by Reps. Becca Balint (D-VT), Andre Carson (D-IN), Greg Casar (D-TX), Maxine Dexter (D-OR), Maxwell Frost (D-FL), Chuy Garcia (D-IL), Al Green (D-TX), Pramila Jayapal (D-WA), Hank Johnson (D-GA), Ro Khanna (D-CA), Summer Lee (D-PA), Jim McGovern (D-MA), Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), Ilhan Omar (D-MN), Mark Pocan (D-WI), Ayanna Pressley (D-MA), Delia Ramirez (D-IL), Lateefah Simon (D-CA), Nydia Velazquez (D-NY) and Bonnie Watson Coleman (D-NJ).
Khanna, Ocasio-Cortez and Pressley are all seen as likely to seek higher office.
Dexter, notably, was elected on a generally pro-Israel platform with significant support from AIPAC’s United Democracy Project super PAC in a race against a candidate viewed as more anti-Israel, but has turned increasingly critical of the Jewish state in recent months.
Frost had previously told Jewish Insider he hesitated to use the term “genocide” himself, though he said he did not criticize others for doing so.
Casar is the chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, while McGovern is the ranking member of the House Rules Committee.
Balint is the only Jewish member cosponsoring the resolution.
The resolution is backed by a slew of anti-Israel groups, including the Democratic Socialists of America, Jewish Voice for Peace, IfNotNow, the Quincy Institute, Sunrise Movement, Amnesty International, Code Pink, CAIR, American Muslims for Palestine, American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee and DAWN.
The resolution asserts that “the overwhelming evidence is clear that the State of Israel has committed acts (actus reus) within the scope of the Genocide Convention against Palestinians in Gaza.”
It states that the U.S. must “prevent and punish the crime of genocide wherever it occurs,” and must therefore halt the transfer of any weapons or equipment to Israel, impose sanctions on Israel and individuals and companies involved in “facilitating the commission of genocide or incitement to commit genocide,” support efforts at the United Nations to punish Israel, cooperate with the International Criminal Court’s investigation of Israel and lift sanctions on the ICC, enforce the International Court of Justice’s decisions against Israel and ensure funding for the United Nations Relief and Works Agency — which was halted following findings that UNRWA employees participated in the Oct. 7, 2023 Hamas attacks.
It also states that the U.S. should “ensur[e] that individuals and corporations in the United States and within United States jurisdiction are not involved in the commission of genocide, aiding and assisting the commission of genocide, or incitement to commit genocide, and investigat[e] and prosecut[e] those who may be implicated in these crimes under international law.”
Among the various sources the resolution cites in accusing Israel of genocide is the International Association of Genocide Scholars, describing the group as the “world’s leading subject matter experts on genocide.”
But supporters of Israel found, after the group’s vote to condemn Israel, that the association had an essentially open membership policy with no requirements of any actual subject matter expertise, beyond paying a membership fee of as little as $30.
The resolution also cites Amnesty International and other groups, which reinterpreted the legal definition of genocide in order to level that charge at Israel, as well as the United Nations Commission of Inquiry on Israel, whose members have repeatedly faced accusations of blatant antisemitism.
Less than one-quarter of House Democrats signed the letter, even as several European allies recognized a Palestinian state at the U.N.
Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images
Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA) leaves the U.S. Capitol on March 13, 2024 in Washington.
Forty-seven progressive House Democrats, led by Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA), signed onto a letter to President Donald Trump and Secretary of State Marco Rubio calling for the U.S. to recognize a Palestinian state on the heels of similar decisions by European allies last week.
“It has long been acknowledged by much of the international community and previous U.S. administrations of both major political parties that a Palestinian state recognized as a full and equal member of the community of nations is necessary to fulfill the legitimate national rights of the Palestinian people and ensure the state of Israel’s survival as the democratic homeland of the Jewish people,” the letter, which was first reported on by Jewish Insider, reads.
The lawmakers argue that because the current Israeli government opposes a two-state solution — a position currently shared by much of Israeli society — and is “actively undermin[ing]” the prospects of an independent Palestinian state, “meaningful action is necessary to join the majority of the world in codifying Palestinian statehood and to unlock the potential for a broader regional peace and security arrangement.”
Trump vowed last week week that he would not allow Israel to annex the West Bank.
The letter also claims that recognizing Palestinian statehood would make reform of the Palestinian Authority “far more achievable and sustainable.”
Signatories to the letter include Reps. Becca Balint (D-VT), Donald Beyer (D-VA), André Carson (D-IN), Greg Casar (D-TX), Joaquin Castro (D-TX), Judy Chu (D-CA), Danny Davis (D-IL), Madeleine Dean (D-PA), Diana DeGette (D-CO), Chris Deluzio (D-PA), Mark DeSaulnier (D-CA), Maxine Dexter (D-OR), Lloyd Doggett (D-TX), Veronica Escobar (D-TX), Dwight Evans (D-PA), Bill Foster (D-MA), Maxwell Frost (D-FL), John Garamendi (D-CA), Chuy García (D-IL), Sylvia Garcia (D-TX), Robert Garcia (D-CA), Al Green (D-TX), Val Hoyle (D-OR), Jared Huffman (D-CA), Jonathan Jackson (D-IL), Sara Jacobs (D-CA), Pramila Jayapal (D-WA), Hank Johnson (D-GA), Marcy Kaptur (D-OH), Zoe Lofgren (D-CA), Stephen Lynch (D-MA), Betty McCollum (D-MN), James McGovern (D-CA), Chellie Pingree (D-ME), Mark Pocan (D-WI), Mike Quigley (D-IL), Emily Randall (D-WA), Mary Gay Scanlon (D-PA), Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), Bennie Thompson (D-MS), Mike Thompson (D-CA), Jill Tokuda (D-HI), Paul Tonko (D-NY), Nydia Velázquez (D-NY), Maxine Waters (D-CA) and Bonnie Watson Coleman (D-NJ).
Dexter and Garcia were both beneficiaries of significant outside spending from AIPAC’s United Democracy Project super PAC in their primary races, running against farther-left anti-Israel opponents.
Balint and Schakowsky are both Jewish. Davis, Evans and Schakowsky are retiring from Congress at the end of their current terms.
Many of the furthest-left lawmakers in the House, including some of the Jewish state’s most outspoken critics, did not sign onto Khanna’s letter, nor did some of the more moderate Democrats backing a concurrent effort to place strict restrictions on U.S. aid to Israel.
The letter is backed by groups including American Muslims for Palestine, DAWN, Emgage Action, Indivisible, J Street, MoveOn, MPower, Muslim Public Affairs Council, New Jewish Narrative and the Quincy Institute.
There is a notable split on this issue within the Democratic caucus: Khanna’s letter follows a letter from 30 moderate pro-Israel Democrats condemning unilateral recognition of a Palestinian state as “performative” and saying that doing so risks “emboldening Hamas, entrenching division, and undermining the very legitimacy and peace such recognition purports to advance.”
The lawmakers also said unilateral recognitions of a Palestinian state are ‘performative’ and ‘risk emboldening Hamas’
Bill Clark/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images
Rep. Jake Auchincloss (D-MA) participates in the House Transportation Committee hearing on Thursday, June 27, 2024.
A group of 30 House Democrats urged Secretary of State Marco Rubio to leverage a joint statement from the Arab League this summer — which called for Hamas’ disarmament and removal of power, the release of hostages and a path toward a two-state solution — as a potential diplomatic breakthrough for the region.
The lawmakers also condemned the unilateral recognition of a Palestinian state recently undertaken by several close U.S. allies.
“While there is much we disagree with in the statement, we do believe that this breakthrough presents a rare and urgent opportunity to ensure Israel’s security and create a brighter future for innocent Palestinians free from Hamas through American leadership,” the lawmakers said in a letter to Rubio on Thursday, emphasizing that it is the first time the Arab League has explicitly rejected Hamas.
“The statement made at the conference offers a unique opportunity — one that strengthens both Israel’s long-term security and Palestinians’ aspirations for self-determination under accountable, nonviolent leadership,” the letter continues. “While we once again emphasize that we do not endorse everything in the text, we recognize the unprecedented nature of the declaration and believe it presents a positive shift that opens the door to productive diplomacy and long-term solutions.”
The lawmakers urged Rubio to work with Israel to bring together regional and international partners to broker an agreement that would immediately and unconditionally free the hostages, remove Hamas from power in Gaza and achieve a “responsible deescalation of the conflict” in Gaza that would allow for rebuilding, governmental reform and peace.
They said that such an approach would be “far more constructive than recent unilateral and performative recognitions of a Palestinian state by other nations, which risk emboldening Hamas, entrenching division, and undermining the very legitimacy and peace such recognition purports to advance.”
“With regional partners signaling readiness to help facilitate both security and governance transitions, the United States has a pivotal role to play in turning principle into progress toward a two-state solution,” the letter reads. “This is a chance to protect Israel — our strongest ally — and align American values with regional momentum, and also leave a lasting legacy.”
The letter was led by Reps. Jake Auchincloss (D-MA), Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL), Greg Landsman (D-OH) and Tim Kennedy (D-NY), joined by Reps. Dan Goldman (D-NY), Grace Meng (D-NY), Marilyn Strickland (D-WA), Emilia Sykes (D-OH), Josh Gottheimer (D-NJ), Frank Pallone (D-NJ), Jared Moskowitz (D-FL), Lois Frankel (D-FL), Kim Schrier (D-WA), Tom Suozzi (D-NY), Jimmy Panetta (D-CA), Brad Schneider (D-IL), Angie Craig (D-MN), Kevin Mullin (D-CA), Juan Vargas (D-CA), Ritchie Torres (D-NY), Chris Pappas (D-NH), Eric Swalwell (D-CA), Ted Lieu (D-CA), George Latimer (D-NY), Haley Stevens (D-MI), Darren Soto (D-FL), Greg Stanton (D-AZ), Nikki Budzinski (D-IL), Shri Thanedar (D-MI) and Wesley Bell (D-MO).
Craig, Pappas and Stevens are all running for the Senate in their respective states.
Democratic Majority for Israel supported the letter.
“The U.S. must act quickly to seize on this diplomatic opportunity which presents a unique opening to both ensure Israel’s security and create a future for Israelis and Palestinians free from the terrorist group Hamas,” the group’s CEO, Brian Romick, said in a statement. “While there is much we disagree with in the Arab League statement, its historic nature is unprecedented. By calling for the release of hostages, condemning the October 7 attacks, disavowing Hamas and endorsing a two-state path, Arab countries have signaled a potential willingness to be part of a new, constructive chapter for the Middle East.”
“At the same time, we call on all leaders to reject unilateral performative recognition of a Palestinian state which risks emboldening Hamas rather than advancing peace,” Romick continued.
A letter led by Reps. Brad Schneider and Jamie Raskin says such a move would ‘not only violate international law but undermine decades of bipartisan U.S. policy and threaten the progress of the Abraham Accords’
Annabelle Gordon/Bloomberg via Getty Images/Samuel Corum/Getty Images
Reps. Jamie Raskin (D-MD) and Brad Schneider (D-IL)
Most House Democrats, including all of the current and former top Democratic leaders, signed on to a letter on Thursday to Israeli leaders warning them against unilaterally annexing territory in the West Bank or Gaza.
At a time when Democrats are increasingly divided over the U.S.-Israel relationship and its direction, the letter highlights a strong degree of unanimity within the party against annexation, among both Democrats who largely remain supportive of Israel and those who have become more critical over the war in Gaza. President Donald Trump reportedly told Arab leaders on Tuesday that he would pressure Israel against annexation.
“As long-standing supporters of the U.S.-Israel relationship, Israel’s security, and Israel’s future, we are deeply opposed to proposals for unilateral annexation of territory in the West Bank,” the 178 lawmakers, led by Reps. Brad Schneider (D-IL) and Jamie Raskin (D-MD), said. “Such a move would not only violate international law but undermine decades of bipartisan U.S. policy and threaten the progress of the Abraham Accords, which offer Israel and its neighbors the opportunity to build a more secure, cooperative, and prosperous regional future. Unilateral annexation of the West Bank would plunge the region, already reeling from tens of thousands of deaths in the horrific Gaza war, into further chaos and violence.”
The letter is addressed to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Defense Minister Israel Katz and Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar. Included among the signatories are House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY), Minority Whip Katherine Clark (D-MA) and Democratic Caucus Chair Pete Aguilar (D-CA), as well as former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), former Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) and former Democratic Whip Jim Clyburn (D-SC).
The signatories highlighted that leaders from the United Arab Emirates have expressed that West Bank annexation would be a red line for them that would endanger regional normalization and integration with Israel.
“Moves toward annexation would undermine Israel’s progress on normalization, prevent international cooperation to rebuild Gaza after this devastating war, risk instability in Jordan, and even further strain ties with key European partners,” the letter continues.
They added that annexation of territory in Gaza, as discussed by some Israeli ministers, “would not only violate international law but exacerbate humanitarian and diplomatic challenges at a moment when broad international support for Israel is at risk.”
The lawmakers stated that they are “convinced that unilateral steps by either side,” including Israeli annexation of territory in the West Bank or Gaza, would be an impediment to direct negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians toward a two-state solution and make a “just, sustainable peace” harder to attain.
“We respectfully urge your government to refrain from steps toward unilateral annexation and to recommit to a negotiated outcome consistent with U.S. policy and the regional vision embodied in the Abraham Accords,” the letter concludes. “That path best safeguards Israel’s security and democratic ideals, advances regional cooperation against shared threats, and offers Israelis and Palestinians the possibility of living side by side in peace and dignity, freed from perpetual attacks on civilians and the threat of war.”
Schneider, a co-chair of the Congressional Jewish Caucus, has been a leader in the moderate pro-Israel wing of the party, though he has expressed concerns about the humanitarian situation in Gaza and previously warned individually against annexation. The progressive Raskin is a co-sponsor of legislation that would severely restrict many critical arms transfers to Israel.
Signatories to the letter similarly span the spectrum from consistent supporters of Israel to vocal critics.
Other signatories include Senate candidates Reps. Angie Craig (D-MN), Robin Kelly (D-IL), Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-IL) and Chris Pappas (D-NH); No. 4 House Democrat Rep. Ted Lieu (D-CA); Jewish Caucus co-chair Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY); and Reps. Greg Meeks (D-NY), Adam Smith (D-WA) and Rosa DeLauro, the ranking members of the Foreign Affairs, Armed Services and Appropriations Committees, respectively.
Some of Israel’s most vocal far-left critics, as well as some of its most ardent centrist defenders, did not sign onto the letter.
Some congressional Republicans, meanwhile, have shown signs of increasing openness to recognizing Israeli sovereignty over the West Bank.
Plus, Tucker Carlson’s antisemitic tropes in Kirk eulogy
Antoine Gyori - Corbis/Corbis via Getty Images
British Prime Minister Keir Starmer is greeted by French President Emmanuel Macron ahead of the 'Coalition Of The Willing' summit in support of Ukraine at Elysee Palace on March 27, 2025 in Paris, France.
Good Monday morning.
In today’s Daily Kickoff, we report on the fallout from a series of Palestinian statehood recognitions and highlight a letter drafted by a group of House Democrats calling on U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres to request a peacekeeping operation to secure Gaza aid convoys. We cover Tucker Carlson’s eulogy for Charlie Kirk, whose assassination he compared to the killing of Jesus, and report on the investigation into the shooting at a country club in New Hampshire on Saturday night. Also in today’s Daily Kickoff: Mike Waltz, Jocelyn Benson and Edan Alexander.
Ed. note: In observance of Rosh Hashanah, the Daily Kickoff will be back in your inboxes on Thursday. For our premium subscribers, the Daily Overtime will return Thursday as well. Shana tovah!
Today’s Daily Kickoff was curated by Jewish Insider Israel Editor Tamara Zieve and U.S. Editor Danielle Cohen-Kanik with an assist from Marc Rod. Have a tip? Email us here.
What We’re Watching
- Diplomats from around the world are en route to New York for the United Nations General Assembly, which officially begins tomorrow.
- On the sidelines of the UNGA, France and Saudi Arabia are chairing a summit calling for a two-state solution. More below on diplomatic moves by Paris, Ottawa, Canberra and Lisbon to unilaterally recognize a Palestinian state.
- Also this morning, on the sidelines of the U.N. General Assembly, Syrian President Ahmad al-Sharaa and retired Gen. David Petraeus will take part in a fireside discussion on democracy, security and geopolitical risk at the Concordia Annual Summit.
- Eleven members of the Syrian Jewish community in New York attended a meeting with al-Sharaa last night.
- U.S. Ambassador to Turkey Thomas Barrack, who is serving as special envoy to Syria, and Counselor of the U.S. Mission to the United Nations Morgan Ortagus will also participate in a discussion at the Concordia summit this afternoon on diplomacy and America’s role in the world.
What You Should Know
A QUICK WORD WITH JI’S TAMARA ZIEVE AND LAHAV HARKOV
In a move that has sent ripples through diplomatic circles and sparked outrage in Jerusalem, multiple countries officially recognized a Palestinian state yesterday. The coordinated announcements by the U.K., Canada, Australia and Portugal, with more to come, mark a significant shift in the West’s posture — one that, while largely symbolic, underlines concerns about growing efforts to isolate Israel diplomatically.
“Today, to revive the hope of peace for the Palestinians and Israelis, and a two-state solution, the United Kingdom formally recognizes the State of Palestine,” said Prime Minister Keir Starmer.
While Starmer said that the move toward a two-state solution “is not a reward for Hamas, because it means Hamas can have no future,” the terror group hailed it as “a gesture to the struggle, steadfastness and sacrifices of our people on the path to liberation and return.”
In President Donald Trump’s meeting with Starmer last week, Trump described the statehood push as “one of our few disagreements.”
The chain of Palestinian statehood recognition is unlikely to bring any immediate changes on the ground. As U.K. Deputy Prime Minister David Lammy said yesterday in an interview with Sky News, “any decision to recognize a Palestinian state … does not make a Palestinian state happen overnight. That has to be part of a peace process, it has to be based on 1967 borders, it has to be based on a shared capital in Jerusalem.”
Israel and many of its supporters have slammed the move as rewarding terrorism, as the country continues its war against Hamas in Gaza, where 48 hostages kidnapped during the group’s Oct. 7, 2023 attacks remain in captivity.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said he has “a clear message to the leaders who recognize a Palestinian state after the terrible massacre of Oct. 7: You are giving a massive prize to terror. … It will not happen. There will not be a Palestinian state west of the Jordan River.” Netanyahu hinted that Israel will increase settlement activity in response. Far-right National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir and several other coalition members went a step further by calling for annexation of the West Bank, which Saudi Arabia has reportedly said would have “major implications.” Read more on Netanyahu’s reaction and upcoming UNGA speech here.
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) delivered a scathing assessment of the statehood development, writing on X: “80 years after the end of WWII, where over 6 million Jews were killed by the Nazis for simply being Jewish, the so-called civilized world is rewarding modern day religious Nazis with an arbitrary Palestinian state designation,” pointing to the lack of defined borders, leadership, and security arrangements.
GROWING PRESSURE
Israel battles proposed EU sanctions

Israel’s Foreign Ministry and Economy Ministry, which oversees foreign trade, have been pushing back against proposed European Union sanctions over the war in Gaza. The European Commission proposed the roll-back of relations between the bloc and Israel after it “found that actions taken by the Israeli government represent a breach of essential elements relating to respect for human rights” given “the rapidly deteriorating humanitarian situation in Gaza following the military intervention of Israel, the blockade of humanitarian aid, the intensifying of military operations and the decision of the Israeli authorities to advance the settlement plan in the so-called E1 area of the West Bank, which further undermines the two-state solution,” Jewish Insider’s Lahav Harkov reports.
What’s at stake: The proposal, if accepted, would suspend free trade between Israel and the European Union, its largest trade partner. A source in Brussels estimated that the move would cost Israel 227 million Euros ($266 million) in customs duties per year. A date has not yet been set for voting on the suspension of free trade, which requires a qualified majority, also known as a “double majority,” meaning 55% of member states, and states representing 65% of the EU population, with at least four states opposed. Hungary and the Czech Republic said they would oppose the proposal, following calls between their foreign ministers and Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar.
Soccer scramble: The Israel Football Association is reportedly working to thwart a Qatar-led effort to expel it from Union of European Football Associations (UEFA) events.








































































Continue with Google
Continue with Apple