Two new polls of Jewish voters released this week show broad opposition to the U.S. military action against Iran, with support for the operation highest among those who are the most connected to Israel and those who are most affiliated with Jewish institutions.

A Mellman Group poll on behalf of the Jewish Electoral Institute (JEI)found that 32% of Jewish voters back the current military action against Iran, while 55% disapprove and  13% remain undecided. Support tracked closely along partisan lines, with 83% of Republicans, 49% of independents and 13% of Democrats approving the war. 

Among those who said they were very connected to Israel, the poll found nearly two-thirds of Jewish respondents supportive, with just 27% opposed. But among those only “somewhat” connected to Israel, 58% said they disapprove of the war with just 25% approving. Nearly all of those Jewish respondents unconnected to Israel said they disapprove of the military action against Iran.

Support also was strongest based on those who are more religiously observant. The vast majority of Orthodox Jews (83%) approve of President Donald Trump’s military action, with just 11% opposing. But among Conservative Jews, opinion is more evenly split, with 40% approving and 48% disapproving. And among Reform Jews, support is the lowest, with just 24% approving and 67% disapproving.  

There’s also a pronounced gender divide within the Jewish community: 40% of Jewish men support the military action against Iran, with 49% opposing. But among women, only 26% approve of the war in Iran, with 59% opposing. 

The poll also found a significant share of Jewish Democrats (28%) and independents (29%) who said they feel “torn” about the war — agreeing that Iran is a threat to peace but disagreeing with Trump’s handling of the operation. 

The “torn” constituency, which makes up 23% of the Jewish vote, generally draws from those who said they were opposed to the war in the end. When the “torn” constituency is broken out, there’s a more even divide between those who support the war (31%) and those who oppose it (41%). 

The Mellman Group poll surveyed 800 Jewish voters between March 13-22.

A separate poll of Jewish voters, conducted by GBAO for the progressive Israel advocacy group J Street, found a similar response towards the war in Iran: A 60% majority of Jewish voters disapprove of U.S. military action against Iran, while 40% support the war. Of note: A sizable 20% minority of Jewish Kamala Harris voters expressed support for Trump’s military action. 

The J Street poll, notably, found higher support for the war among Conservative Jews, with 62% supporting and 38% opposing. It also found moderate Jews nearly evenly split, with 51% of self-described moderates in support, and 49% opposed. 

The survey also asked whether U.S. military action makes Israel more or less secure, and found a 45% plurality agreeing that it helped Israel’s defense, with 36% concluding it made Israel less safe. But a 58% majority also said that the war weakened the United States, with only 30% believing it strengthened American national security. 

The J Street poll also found that 77% of Jews don’t think Trump has a clear plan and mission for the war in Iran. 

And it found that 70% of Jewish respondents said their sympathies are more with the Israelis, with 30% expressing more sympathy with the Palestinians. Asked about Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, 28% of Jewish respondents said they viewed him favorably, with 66% viewing him unfavorably.

Joe Kent, who resigned earlier this week from his role as director of the National Counterterrorism Center over his opposition to the war in Iran, offered a litany of baseless accusations about Israel while defending the Iranian regime in an appearance on Tucker Carlson’s program on Wednesday.

Kent doubled down in the interview on an allegation made in his resignation statement that Israel coerced the U.S. into the war for its own benefit. As evidence, Kent and Carlson — a friend of Kent’s and a leading critic of the Trump administration’s approach to Iran in the conservative movement — pointed to Secretary of State Marco Rubio saying earlier this month that the “imminent threat” that prompted the U.S. to take action was the foreknowledge that Israel was going to strike, likely resulting in retaliation against American targets by the Iranian regime. 

“So, the imminent threat that the secretary of state is describing is not from Iran,” Carlson mused. “It’s from Israel.”

“Exactly,” Kent replied. “And I think this speaks to the broader issue, who is in charge of our policy in the Middle East? Who’s in charge of when we decide to go to war or not?”

Kent argued that the Israelis “felt emboldened that no matter what they did, no matter what situation they put us in, they could go ahead and take this action and we just have to react.”

He suggested that the U.S. could have threatened to cut off Israel’s military aid, including defensive weapons, in order to prevent them from attacking Iran. 

“We could have said to the Israelis: ‘No, you will not and if you do, we will take something away from you,'” Kent told Carlson. “It’s fine that we offer defense to Israel but when we’re providing the means for their defense, we get to dictate the terms of when they go on the offensive.”

Kent also raised questions during the interview about possible foreign ties to the assassination of conservative influencer Charlie Kirk last fall. He told Carlson he tried to investigate Kirk’s killing, at a Turning Point USA event at a Utah college, last fall because of the pressure Kirk was facing over backsliding GOP support for Israel, but was blocked by the Justice Department and FBI. Kent said that the last time he saw Kirk was last summer at the White House, and claimed that the final message Kirk gave him was to “stop us from getting into a war with Iran.”

“One of President [Donald] Trump’s closest advisors was vocally advocating for us to not go to war with Iran and for us to rethink, at least, our relationship with the Israelis. And then he’s suddenly publicly assassinated and we’re not allowed to ask any questions about that?” Kent said. “The investigation that I was a part of [with] the National Counterterrorism Center, we were stopped from continuing to investigate. And the FBI will say that they stopped it because they wanted to have everything turned over to the Utah state authorities. Everything is going to trial, it’s very sensitive. But there was still a lot for us to look into that I can’t really get into. There were still linkages for us to investigate that we needed to run down.”

Kent said that while he was “not making any conclusions … Charlie was under a lot of pressure from a lot of pro-Israel donors. And again, we know, because of the text messages that have been made public, that Charlie was advocating to President Trump against this war with Iran.”

On Iran, Kent alleged that the regime and assassinated Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei were not interested in acquiring a nuclear weapon, while acknowledging that Iran’s strategy had been “to not completely abandon the nuclear program.”

He cited Khamenei’s 2003 fatwa on the production or use of nuclear weapons, arguing that there is “zero U.S. intelligence suggesting it’s been lifted or ignored in a way that changes the posture. Iran knows what happens when you openly pursue or acquire nukes or even give them up.”

Kent went on to claim, despite reports to the contrary, that Khamenei was working to keep the regime from becoming a nuclear power.

“I’m no fan of the former supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, however, he was moderating their nuclear program. He was preventing them from getting a nuclear weapon,” Kent said. “If you take him out, if you kill him aggressively, people are going to rally around that regime.”

The former Trump administration official later told Carlson that “a good deal of key decision-makers were not allowed to come and express their opinion” to Trump prior to the start of joint U.S. and Israeli military operations targeting Iran.

“In the lead-up to this last iteration, a good deal of key decision-makers were not allowed to come and express their opinion to the president,” Kent said, arguing that this was a contrast from the “robust debate” that took place ahead of Trump’s decision to strike Iranian nuclear sites last June. 

Kent said that efforts by the intelligence community to offer the president a “sanity check” during briefings “were largely stifled in this second iteration.” 

“They had that discussion behind closed doors, and there wasn’t a chance for any dissenting voices to come,” Kent said.

Asked about his resignation, Kent told Carlson that he spoke to Trump prior to announcing his decision publicly and said he believes they “departed personally on good terms.”

“I spoke with him before I departed the administration,” Kent said. “It went great. I mean, not the best conversation ever. I told him why I was leaving. He heard me out.”

Kent’s appearance on Carlson’s show came as sources told Semafor that the FBI began investigating Kent weeks ago for allegedly leaking classified information. 

The WH and FBI declined to comment when reached by Jewish Insider. The Office of the Director of National Intelligence did not respond to a request for comment on the matter.

Joe Kent, director of the National Counterterrorism Center, resigned from his role on Tuesday over opposition to the war in Iran, baselessly alleging that Israel had coerced the United States into what he characterized as a misguided military conflict.

In a letter to President Donald Trump shared on social media, Kent, a former Green Beret who had reported to Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, wrote that he “cannot in good conscience support the ongoing war in Iran,” claiming that the Islamic Republic “posed no imminent threat to our nation, and it is clear that we started this war due to pressure from Israel and its powerful American lobby.”

Kent, a hard-right former congressional candidate in Washington State who has pushed an isolationist foreign policy vision, has previously drawn scrutiny for promoting conspiracy theories, echoing pro-Russia messaging and associating with white supremacists and neo-Nazis, among other controversies.

During a failed House bid in 2022, Kent also said that accepting donations from pro-Israel lobbying groups like AIPAC puts Israel’s “interests ahead of ours” — invoking an antisemitic trope about foreign influence over American politics that is increasingly common on the far right.

Kent’s wife, Heather Kaiser, is a military veteran who has written for The Grayzone, an extremist outlet, authoring articles with its founder Max Blumenthal, a prominent conspiracy theorist who has published sympathetic coverage of Iran and spread misinformation about the Hamas terror attacks of Oct. 7, 2023.  

In his letter, Kent claimed that Trump had been tricked into striking Iran by “high-ranking Israeli officials and influential members of the American media” who “deployed a misinformation campaign that wholly undermined” the president’s “America First platform and sowed pro-war sentiments to encourage war with Iran.”

“This echo chamber was used to deceive you into believing that Iran posed an imminent threat to the United States, and that should you strike now, there was a clear path to a swift victory,” Kent wrote to the president. “This was a lie and is the same tactic the Israelis used to draw us into the disastrous Iraq war that cost our nation the lives of thousands of our best men and women. We cannot make this mistake again.”

Kent, who served in Iraq, also claimed his first wife, Shannon Kent, a military cryptologist who died in an ISIS suicide bombing in Syria in 2019, had been killed “in a war manufactured by Israel.” Israel was not a member of the U.S.-led coalition combating ISIS at the time.

“I pray that you will reflect upon what we are doing in Iran, and who we are doing it for,” he concluded, telling the president that he can “reverse course and chart a new path for our nation” or “allow us to slip further toward decline and chaos.”

Karoline Leavitt, the White House press secretary, rejected Kent’s account. “As President Trump has clearly and explicitly stated, he had strong and compelling evidence that Iran was going to attack the United States first,” she wrote in a lengthy social media post.

She called Kent’s claim that Israel had duped Trump into joining the war “an absurd allegation” that “is both insulting and laughable,” arguing that “Trump has been remarkably consistent and has said for DECADES that Iran can NEVER possess a nuclear weapon.”

Speaking to reporters from the Oval Office on Tuesday, Trump said it was a “good thing” that Kent had resigned, calling him “very weak on security.”  

“He said that Iran was not a threat. Iran was a threat. Every country realized what a threat Iran was. The question is whether or not they wanted to do something about it,” Trump added. “So when somebody is working with us that says they didn’t think Iran was the threat, we don’t want those people.”

Kent’s comments, which underscored deepening divisions in Trump’s MAGA coalition over the war, also drew criticism from Republican lawmakers. 

Rep. Don Bacon (R-NE), a leading moderate voice in the House, accused Kent of fueling antisemitism. “Good riddance,” he said of Kent’s departure on social media. “Iran has murdered more than a thousand Americans. Their EFP land mines were the deadliest in Iraq. Anti-Semitism is an evil I detest, and we surely don’t want it in our government.”

House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) said Kent’s claims about Israeli influence were “clearly wrong” and that “there was clearly an imminent threat” to the United States.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Rep. Mike Lawler (R-NY) also criticized Kent’s letter and said they were glad to see him leave the administration — Lawler called him “a leaker who spent more time undermining our foreign policy than doing his job,” while Graham said, based on his claims, Kent “clearly … did not go to work enough.” 

On the other side of the aisle, Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA), vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said in a statement that Kent had been “right” to point out “there was no credible evidence of an imminent threat from Iran that would justify” an attack — even as he called Kent’s “record deeply troubling” and believed he “never should have been confirmed” to lead the counterterrorism office.

Meanwhile, Tucker Carlson, a close ally of Kent, praised his decision to resign. “Joe is the bravest man I know, and he can’t be dismissed as a nut,” Carlson told The New York Times on Tuesday.

A number of Republican lawmakers rallied behind President Donald Trump’s military strikes against Iran on Saturday, while leading Democrats expressed quick and strident opposition to the administration’s decision to attack Iran.

Democrats are also demanding Congress reconvene promptly next week to vote on war powers resolutions to block further military operations in Iran without congressional approval. The resolutions were already expected to come up for votes in the coming week.

A few Democratic lawmakers sounded more open-minded about the attack against Tehran. Sen. John Fetterman (D-PA), one of the few foreign policy hawks in his party, said the president “was absolutely” correct to attack Iran in an appearance on Fox News. “God bless the United States, our great military, and Israel,” Fetterman said.

Rep. Greg Landsman (D-OH), who told Jewish Insider earlier this week that limited strikes on Iran could be necessary and productive, echoed that stance on Saturday. He said that he would oppose the war powers resolution.

“I hope these targeted strikes on the Iranian regime’s military assets end the regime’s mayhem and bloodshed and makes way for this lasting peace in the region,” Landsman said. “Thank you to our brave service members who are leading this effort, and I pray their work will finally free the people of Iran and those in the region from more violence or war. May peace emerge from all of this.”

Rep. Josh Gottheimer (D-NJ), who had been planning to oppose the war powers resolution, praised the attack while highlighting the administration’s obligations under the War Powers Act, which limits the duration for which the president can unilaterally commit forces to armed conflict without congressional approval.

“Today, the United States, with our key democratic ally Israel, took decisive action to defend our national security, fight terror, protect our allies and stand with the Iranian people who have been massacred in the streets for demanding freedom from the murderous Iranian regime,” Gottheimer said. “I applaud the extraordinary bravery and professionalism of our servicemembers and pray for their safety as Iran and its terrorist proxies retaliate against American bases and our partners in the region.”

“Confronting the Iranian threat is essential to America’s national security and to global stability. The world is safer because of the courage and skill of our service members. I am praying for their safety and the safety of all of our allies who have been targeted by Iranian retaliation,” he continued.

Sen. Jacky Rosen (D-NV) offered more muted support for the operation, praising U.S. servicemembers while saying she “stand[s] with the Iranian people in their hope for a better future and will continue to work in a bipartisan way in Congress to provide them the support they need.” She called for an immediate and detailed briefing on the administration’s plans, and highlighted Iran’s long record of malign activity and attacks on its own citizens.

But Rosen also warned against a protracted conflict and criticized the lack of congressional authorization.

Rep. Tom Suozzi (D-NY), among the most moderate Democrats in the House and a potential swing vote on the war powers resolution, said Trump needs to seek congressional authorization for the operation, while offering support for the administration’s goals.

“I agree with the President’s objectives that Iran can never be allowed to obtain nuclear capabilities. The President must now clearly define the national security objective and articulate his plan to avoid another costly, prolonged war in the Middle East,” Suozzi said. “Iran remains the leading state sponsor of terrorism in the region and must never be allowed to obtain a nuclear weapon. Preventing that outcome is vital to our national security, the safety of our allies, and the stability of the Middle East.”

Most of the leading voices in the Democratic Party, however, are rallying against the Iran attack.

Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA), who is leading a war powers resolution in the Senate that he planned to call up for a vote next week, said in a statement, “Every single Senator needs to go on the record about this dangerous, unnecessary, and idiotic action,” calling the strikes a “colossal mistake,” accusing the president of having “learned nothing from decades of U.S. meddling in Iran and forever wars in the Middle East” and of being “mentally incapacitated.”

Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA), who is leading similar legislation in the House, said that “the American people are tired of regime change wars that cost us billions of dollars and risk our lives. We don’t want to be at war with a country of 90 million people in the Middle East.”

Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY), one of the few GOP isolationists in Congress and Khanna’s cosponsor on that resolution, also said he opposes the operation.

“This is not ‘America First,’” Massie said. “When Congress reconvenes, I will work with @RepRoKhanna to force a Congressional vote on war with Iran. The Constitution requires a vote, and your Representative needs to be on record as opposing or supporting this war.”

Rep. Warren Davidson (R-OH), another isolationist-minded Republican who indicated this week that he was leaning toward voting for the war powers resolution, sent similar signals on Saturday.

“We need a government small enough to fit within the Constitution. We need a government effective enough to solve problems and serve its own people. Or, we need a new Constitution,” Davidson said.

The House is not scheduled to reconvene until Wednesday.

Rep. Jim Himes (D-CT), the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, who was one of the handful of congressional leaders briefed on the administration’s plans earlier this week, said that “everything I have heard from the administration before and after these strikes on Iran confirms this is a war of choice with no strategic endgame.”

He said he expressed his concerns to Secretary of State Marco Rubio during the briefing this week.

Republicans are largely lining up behind the administration, with the exception of Massie.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), who had urged Trump to take action, praised the administration, saying Trump had “met the moment.”

“My mind is racing with the thought that the murderous ayatollah’s regime in Iran will soon be no more. The biggest change in the Middle East in a thousand years is upon us,” Graham said. “The likelihood of normalization between Saudi Arabia and Israel getting back on track is exceedingly high –  a subject I brought up last week to the key players in the region who concurred if the ayatollah goes down, historic peace advances.”

Graham met with leaders in Israel, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates this month and said on Fox News on Saturday morning that he plans to return soon. Following retaliatory strikes by Iran on U.S. military facilities in several Arab states, Saudi Arabia issued a statement condemning Iran and offering its support for measures the Arab states may take in response.

“This operation has been well-planned,” Graham continued. “It will be violent, extensive and I believe, at the end of the day, successful. Again the demise of the ayatollah’s regime with American blood on its hands is necessary and more than justified.”

He later urged Arab and other allies to “get behind President Trump and go all in to ensure the ayatollah’s Iran, which has become the largest state sponsor of terrorism in the world is no more.”

Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR), the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, who was also briefed, said, “The butcher’s bill has finally come due for the ayatollahs. May God bless and protect our troops on this vital mission of vengeance, and justice, and safety,” highlighting the regime’s long record of attacks against Americans.

House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) said Iran is “facing the severe consequences of its evil actions,” and said Trump had “made every effort” at diplomacy. “For decades, Iran has defiantly maintained its nuclear program while arming and funding Hamas, Hezbollah, and other internationally recognized terrorist organizations. Iran and its proxies have menaced America and American lives, undermined our core national interests, systematically destabilized the Middle East, and threatened the security of the entire West.”

“The Gang of 8 was briefed in detail earlier this week that military action may become necessary to protect American troops and American citizens in Iran. I received updates from Secretary Rubio thereafter, and I will remain in close contact with the President and the Department of War as this operation proceeds,” Johnson continued.

Other rank-and-file Democrats, including some moderates, drew parallels with the Bush administration’s war against Iraq in their criticism. 

Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA), the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, said that the strikes raise “serious legal and constitutional concerns.”

“The American people have seen this playbook before — claims of urgency, misrepresented intelligence, and military action that pulls the United States into regime change and prolonged, costly nation-building,” Warner continued. “We owe it to our service members, and to every American family, to ensure that we are not repeating the mistakes of the past. The president owes the country clear answers: What is the objective? What is the strategy to prevent escalation? And how does this make Americans safer?”

Sen. Ruben Gallego (D-AZ), an Iraq war veteran representing a GOP-leaning state, expressed concern for U.S. forces, who Trump acknowledged could be lost in the ensuing war.

“I lost friends in Iraq to an illegal war. Young working-class kids should not pay the ultimate price for regime change and a war that hasn’t been explained or justified to the American people,” Gallego said. “We can support the democracy movement and the Iranian people without sending our troops to die.”

Rep. Brad Schneider (D-IL), a co-chair of the House Jewish caucus and a key pro-Israel leader, criticized the administration’s move and said he would support the war powers resolution. “The President of the United States is not allowed to take our nation to war without authorization from Congress.”

“This is a moment of peril and opportunity,” Schneider said. “Congress must step up to meet the moment, fulfill its constitutional duties, and ensure American action — with our allies in the region and around the world — leads to a more stable and peaceful Middle East, not another generational entanglement ending in failure.”

Former Rep. Elaine Luria (D-VA), among the House’s most vocal Democratic Iran hawks while she was in office and who is now running to reclaim her former seat, also said Congress should “immediately return to Washington” to vote on Kaine’s war powers resolution.

Rep. Jake Auchincloss (D-MA) said that Trump has “no credibility on either the strategy or law guiding foreign policy” — pointing to the president’s delayed promise to Iranian protesters earlier this year that help would be coming — and said he plans to support the war powers resolution.

“I am ready to work across the aisle to craft congressionally directed strategy on Iran, especially for securing American air supremacy in the region and supporting the Iranian people’s right to self determination,” Auchincloss said. “But first congressional Republicans must call the question on this fundamental issue of war powers by voting against a reckless commander-in-chief and for the Constitution.”

The members of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s governing coalition spent much of the weekend arguing over something on which they all ostensibly agree — opposition to a Palestinian state. 

They may have been expressing their long and openly held opinions, but the timing could be damaging, coming days before Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman is set to visit the White House. In the meeting, slated for Tuesday, President Donald Trump is expected to push for normalization between Riyadh and Jerusalem — something the Saudis have long conditioned on tangible steps towards a Palestinian state.

The latest debate started with far-right Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, who recently apologized for saying the Saudis can “keep riding camels” rather than normalize ties with Israel in exchange for a Palestinian state. On Saturday night, Smotrich said that Netanyahu was responsible for a “dangerous” increase in pressure on Israel, criticizing the prime minister for not speaking up more forcefully after nearly a dozen countries recognized a Palestinian state earlier this year. “Immediately come up with an appropriate and decisive response that will make clear to the entire world that a Palestinian state will not be established in our homeland,” Smotrich wrote on X.

Next came Likud ministers. “Israel will not agree to the establishment of a terror state in the heart of the Land of Israel,” Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar asserted. “Israel’s policy is clear: A Palestinian state will not be established,” chimed in Defense Minister Israel Katz.

The impetus for reiterating their position was the U.S.-proposed resolution at the United Nations Security Council backing Trump’s plan for Gaza and the formation of an International Stabilization Force, leading to a scenario in which “the conditions may finally be in place for a credible pathway to Palestinian self-determination and statehood.” 

It’s unclear where these Cabinet ministers were in late September, when Netanyahu signed onto Trump’s 20-step plan, which uses the exact same language.

The Saudis saw Netanyahu’s agreement to a horizon for Palestinian statehood as satisfying their demand for a step in that direction, an Israeli diplomatic source who frequently advises Netanyahu said earlier this month.

But the pressure from the right was such that Netanyahu said at the opening of Sunday’s cabinet meeting that “our opposition to a Palestinian state in any territory west of the Jordan River exists and stands and has not changed at all.”

That apparent reversal of what Netanyahu agreed to less than two months ago could cause serious harm to Trump’s efforts to try to make Saudi Arabia the crown jewel of the Abraham Accords, a move that Netanyahu has long said would be greatly beneficial to Israel.

Elsewhere in Jerusalem, top opposition figures have sounded the alarm on the possibility of a Saudi domestic nuclear enrichment program and Riyadh purchasing F-35 planes. Former Prime Minister Naftali Bennett said that the government “lacks the ability to say ‘no.’ Faced with the initiative to establish a Palestinian state — silence. … Faced with those around us being armed with F-35s — silence.” Meanwhile, Israeli Ambassador to the U.S. Yechiel Leiter told The Jerusalem Post, “There’s no indication that Israel’s qualitative edge will be compromised.”

While Netanyahu and his ministers have been silent on other expected elements of MBS’ planned visit to Washington, there have been behind-the-scenes efforts to ensure Israel’s qualitative military edge is maintained. 

The question remains, then, if these incentives are removed or downgraded, whether the Saudis will still want to normalize relations with Israel.

The nomination of Amer Ghalib, the mayor of Hamtramck, Mich., to be U.S. ambassador to Kuwait is facing what appear to be insurmountable odds as opposition to his confirmation grows among Senate Republicans.

No Republican or Democratic senators have come to Ghalib’s defense after his performance at his confirmation hearing before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee last week, when he faced a bipartisan grilling over his long record of promoting antisemitic ideas and his embrace of anti-Israel positions as an elected official. 

Senators on both sides of the aisle had privately expressed reservations about Ghalib’s nomination prior to the hearing, but his attempts to evade responsibility for his record while under oath prompted several Republicans on the committee to go public. 

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) announced at the end of Ghalib’s hearing last Thursday that he would not be able to support moving his nomination out of committee to the Senate floor. Sens. John Curtis (R-UT), John Cornyn (R-TX) and Dave McCormick (R-PA) have since followed suit. Others on the panel, including Sen. Pete Ricketts (R-NE), have said they plan to raise their concerns about Ghalib with the committee chairman, Sen. Jim Risch (R-ID), and the White House. 

“Based on the hearing that we had last week, I’m going to vote no against him,” McCormick told Punchbowl News on Tuesday. “I don’t think he demonstrated that he’s qualified for the role.”

Asked about Ghalib and the concerns surrounding his nomination while speaking to reporters on Tuesday morning, Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) said he was “vaguely familiar” with the Hamtramck mayor’s nomination but had not “examined” the matter closely. 

The White House did not respond to Jewish Insider’s multiple requests for comment on the status of Ghalib’s nomination or the growing number of GOP senators coming forward to oppose him. 

Ghalib is not believed to have any support on the Democratic side, reinforced by his lackluster answers to questions about his documented history of antisemitic remarks from Sens. Chris Murphy (D-CT), Tim Kaine (D-VA) and Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), the top Democrat on the committee. He also has an embattled standing within the Democratic Party because of his decision to help President Donald Trump win the state of Michigan for Republicans last November. 

“I think that you have dug your hole deeper today,” Murphy, who already opposed Ghalib prior to last week, told the nominee at his confirmation hearing. 

Paul Ingrassia announced on Tuesday he was withdrawing his embattled nomination to lead the Office of Special Counsel amid growing GOP opposition to his recently unearthed antisemitic and racist text messages. 

Ingrassia, 30, currently serves as the White House liaison for the Department of Homeland Security. Prior to that role, he briefly served as the liaison to the Department of Justice at the beginning of President Donald Trump’s second term, but was reassigned after clashing with the DOJ’s chief of staff.

“I will be withdrawing myself from Thursday’s HSGAC [Senate Homeland Security & Governmental Affairs Committee] hearing to lead the Office of Special Counsel because unfortunately I do not have enough Republican votes at this time,” Ingrassia wrote in a post on Truth Social. “I appreciate the overwhelming support that I have received throughout this process and will continue to serve President Trump and this administration to Make America Great Again!”

Trump nominated Ingrassia in late May to lead the Office of Special Counsel, which is tasked with investigating and prosecuting whistleblower claims and accusations of corruption within the federal government. He was scheduled to receive a confirmation hearing in committee on Thursday.

The nomination was initially poorly received by some Republicans on the committee due to his past incendiary comments, including antisemitic conspiracy theories posted to social media. Two GOP committee members had privately expressed concerns to the White House about Ingrassia’s candidacy in recent months, those senators told Jewish Insider on condition of anonymity. 

Ingrassia’s standing plummeted further after Politico reported on Monday that he had sent text messages in a group chat of Republican operatives stating that Martin Luther King Jr. Day should be “tossed into the seventh circle of hell” and described himself as having a “Nazi streak … from time to time.”

Ingrassia wrote in the text chain that he would “never trust a chinaman or Indian,” a comment made in reference to former Republican presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy. Another message stated that “We need competent white men in positions of leadership … The founding fathers were wrong that all men are created equal.” 

The revelation prompted immediate outcry on Capitol Hill, with Democrats reiterating their prior calls to pull Ingrassia’s nomination and Republicans publicly and privately urging the White House to do the same. Three Republicans on the Homeland Security Committee — Sens. Ron Johnson (R-WI), Rick Scott (R-FL) and James Lankford (R-OK) — told reporters that they would vote against Ingrassia’s nomination at his confirmation hearing. 

Johnson said that Ingrassia’s nomination “never should’ve gotten this far” and that the White House “ought to withdraw” his name from consideration. 

“I don’t plan on voting for him. I can’t imagine how anybody can be antisemitic in this country,” Scott said, later adding that he had informed the White House of his decision after the most recent text messages were published.

Asked by reporters at the Capitol on Tuesday if the White House should pull Ingrassia’s nomination, Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) replied, “I hope so. He’s not going to pass.” He responded, “Yeah,” when asked if it’d be a mistake for Ingrassia to appear before the Homeland Security Committee on Thursday. 

Ingrassia also lost the backing of the Zionist Organization of America, the sole Jewish group that was supporting Ingrassia’s nomination, over the texts. The group announced on Tuesday that they were pulling their endorsement as a result of the messages.

“In this age of Jew hatred, even a hint of antisemitism can’t be tolerated,” Mort Klein, the group’s president, told the Washington Post of the decision. 

At a luncheon hosted by the White House on Tuesday for GOP senators, several Republicans took part in a discussion about Ingrassia’s nomination being “dead,” according to one senator who participated in the conversation.

“He’s going to be pulled,” the senator said of Ingrassia, citing several conversations this week with the White House. 

Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), who also serves on the panel, similarly predicted the White House would withdraw his nomination, saying there was no reason to force the confirmation hearing to proceed on Thursday when he had no chance of being confirmed.

“I expect it because there’s no way he’ll be confirmed. I don’t know why anyone would put him through the gauntlet of questions that I would be asking him, along with others,” Blumenthal told JI. “They should mercifully spare him the ignominy of being overwhelmingly disapproved.”

Ingrassia’s nomination was already considered controversial prior to the leak of his text messages, the result of his ties to avowed white nationalists and antisemites like Kanye West and Nick Fuentes, his record of public statements embracing conspiracy theories and his already rocky tenure in the second Trump administration, which had seen him depart from two roles due to friction with colleagues in less than a year. 

Ingrassia was also the subject of an internal investigation at the Department of Homeland Security this month after a sexual harassment complaint was filed against him, though the complaint was later withdrawn and no wrongdoing was found. 

Ingrassia has also been consistently critical of the U.S.-Israel relationship and has repeatedly asserted since Hamas’ Oct. 7, 2023, attacks on Israel that the United States should not provide any aid to the Jewish state. 

As the Hamas attacks were still underway, Ingrassia posted on X calling illegal immigration to the U.S. “comparable to the attack on Israel.” Days later, Ingrassia wrote in a since-deleted post on the platform that the Israel-Palestine conflict was a “psyop.”