Brandon Herrera, the presumptive Republican nominee in Texas’ 23rd Congressional District, spoke on a podcast in 2024 — after his first run for the House — about owning a copy of Mein Kampf, Nazi leader Adolf Hitler’s manifesto, earning him a fresh rebuke from the Republican Jewish Coalition.

The GOP candidate and social media influencer, whose path to the nomination was cleared Thursday when Rep. Tony Gonzales (R-TX) said he would not run for reelection amid his own growing scandal, has faced ongoing scrutiny over a video he posted to his YouTube channel including imagery, music and jokes connected to the Nazis and the Holocaust, his interactions with neo-Nazis online and his membership in a neo-Confederate group.

During a 2024 appearance on the “Unsubscribe” podcast, another guest joked that he had been deeply involved in communism until he had read another book, producing a copy of Mein Kampf. Herrera, who appeared to immediately recognize the book when others on the podcast did not, promptly turned to his phone to produce a picture of his own copy of the Nazi manifesto.

“That’s my copy at my house next to a bunch of the German stick grenades,” Herrera said. “I got the 1939 edition printed in English just because I thought it was wild that you couldn’t buy it on Amazon but you could buy The Communist Manifesto and Das Kapital,” he added, making a confused face.

Herrera and the others on the podcast went on to make fun of the Nazi book, describing it as poorly written, also laughing at a dramatic reading an antisemitic passage of the book by one of the hosts.

Herrera’s comments during the segment indicate that he has reviewed this version of Mein Kampf — annotated in English prior to World War II with criticism of Hitler’s writing and ideas — in at least some degree of detail.

“It’s nice that it’s not a modern annotation … this is historical context, before Germany is ‘the enemy,’ this is what the sentiment was at the time,” Herrera continued. “I never thought I’d have an intellectual conversation about the validity of reading Mein Kampf in 2024 on a podcast.”

“Poland gives this one star,” Herrera quipped.

Herrera told the San Antonio Express News that attacks on him for owning a copy of Mein Kampf are “hilarious.”

“I bought a copy for my historic book collection, and I keep it right next to my copy of the Communist manifesto. I uh, don’t agree with either book,” Herrera said.

He also denied being antisemitic, dismissing the controversial episodes as jokes.

“If my opponents continue to purposely pretend to not know the difference between humor and jokes clipped out of context and my actual beliefs, it’s going to be an annoying few months,” Herrera continued.

Herrera has also been a critic of AIPAC since its super PAC ran ads against him in 2024.

“Look, I have as much of a reason as anyone to despise AIPAC. They spent over $1 million to slander me and cost my race,” Herrera said in 2024. “But as much as I despise their ‘Israel first’ bullshit: 1. It’s far from a top issue for me. 2. The majority of Congress on both sides have ties to them (also a [red flag]).”

He also said “AIPAC is an enemy of US Elections” and claimed that the group “forces” lawmakers to sponsor legislation.

The Republican Jewish Coalition, which ran an ad campaign against Herrera in 2024 over his past controversies and his opposition to aid to Israel, again disavowed him on Friday.

“The RJC has a longstanding policy of speaking out against those who traffic in Nazi ideology, and this is another case,” spokesperson Sam Markstein told Jewish Insider. “The RJC opposed Mr. Herrera in 2024, and he will not get our support now.”

Democrats have quickly seized on Herrera’s ascension, highlighting his past baggage.

“Mike Johnson tried to quietly push sexual harasser Tony Gonzales through his primary out of fear of defending a Neo-Nazi,” DCCC spokesperson Justin Chermol said in a statement. “Now Gonzales is gone and House Republicans have added another casualty to their massive retirement list. Good riddance.” (Members of Congress who decide not to run for reelection are referred to in Washington as “casualties.”)

The House Majority PAC, a super PAC aligned with Democratic House leadership, has also been highlighting Herrera’s past controversies, and shared a post suggesting the district could be winnable for Democrats.

“Brandon Herrera’s nomination is a gift to Democrats … Herrera is an antisemitic YouTuber,” House Majority PAC spokesperson Katarina Flicker said in a statement. “Now the NRCC and Speaker Mike Johnson are aligning themselves with his extremism, and it could cost them TX-23 in November.”

Johnson’s political team did not provide comment on Herrera.

Long-shot Democratic nominee Katy Padilla Stout raised just $45,000 and ended 2025 with just $8,500 on hand, leaving her ill-positioned to a contest district that strongly favors Republicans without significant help.

President Donald Trump won the district by 16 points and Gonzales won by 24 points in 2024, though there have been indications that Hispanic voters who swung toward Republicans in 2024 may be trending away from the party. By a narrow margin, more people voted in the Democratic primary than the Republican primary in the district this week.

While the group has not endorsed Herrera, and typically does not make formal endorsements in safe seats, the National Republican Congressional Committee said in response to questions about Herrera that it expects Republicans will hold the seat.

“Texas’ 23rd District is deep red, and Democrats know it. While they talk a big game in Washington, they don’t even have a credible recruit and are too busy defending their own vulnerable members across Texas to compete here,” NRCC spokesman Christian Martinez said. “In November, voters will once again elect a Republican who will secure the border, lower costs, and stand up for Texas families.”

Far-right podcaster Tucker Carlson’s latest extreme rhetoric took aim at the Chabad Lubavitch movement, with sweeping conspiratorial language accusing the Hasidic sect of seeking to start a “religious war” amid the U.S. and Israeli strikes on Iran. 

Carlson argued in an episode of his show that dropped late Wednesday night that Jews see the war against Iran as an opportunity to feud with Islam and to target Christians. He claimed that Jews seek to destroy al-Aqsa Mosque and the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem and build the Third Temple on top of its ruins. 

Carlson specifically called out the Chabad movement, saying the group’s goal is the rebuilding of the Temple — and he argued that Jews who seek to see the Temple rebuilt are at odds with Christians.

“Christians have a way of dying disproportionately in these wars, which tells you something about their real motives,” Carlson said. Rebuilding the Temple, which was destroyed in the first century by the Romans on the site that is now home to the al-Aqsa Mosque, “is totally anathema to Christianity,” said Carlson. 

It is true that Orthodox Jews believe that the Temple will be rebuilt when the Messiah comes, a prophetic vision that has been a part of daily Jewish prayer for two millennia. But no mainstream Jewish denomination advocates for the destruction of the al-Aqsa Mosque, one of Islam’s holiest sites, in order to hasten the rebuilding of the Temple, and current Israeli policy forbids Jewish prayer on the Temple Mount. 

“​​It’s not so subtle that the building of the Third Temple and the Messianic era is central not just to Chabad, but to all of Judaism as one of the 13 Principles of Faith,” Rabbi Mordechai Lightstone, Chabad’s social media director, wrote on X on Thursday. “Acts of destruction or the subjugation of other nations are an anathema to a time when good will flow in abundance and the occupation of the entire world, Jew and non-Jew alike, will be to know the divine.”

Carlson’s remarks prompted outrage among Chabad’s backers, who pointed out that Chabad emissaries have for decades played a crucial role in connecting Jews to their faith and to each other.

“This is so absurd. So ridiculously absurd. If you know anything about Chabad, they have one mission: encouraging Jewish people to practice Judaism,” Punchbowl News founder Jake Sherman posted on X.

Karol Markowicz, a New York Post columnist, criticized Carlson for targeting “the warmest, kindest, most welcoming organization ever that does nonstop charity work.” 

The rhetoric also sparked concern about the physical safety of sites associated with Chabad, particularly after a man repeatedly drove his car into Chabad’s Brooklyn headquarters in January. The NYPD said it would increase patrols at Jewish locations amid fears of antisemitism after the Iran attacks began last weekend. 

California Gov. Gavin Newsom said on Tuesday night on a popular liberal podcast that the U.S. should reconsider its military support for Israel, a marked evolution for a politician who traveled to Israel less than two weeks after the Oct. 7 terror attacks in 2023 and who said in an October interview that he would not consider eliminating U.S. military aid to Israel.

“Do you think, looking down the road, that the United States should consider maybe rethinking our military support for Israel?” Jon Favreau, the co-host of “Pod Save America,” asked Newsom during an event promoting the Democratic governor’s new book.

“It breaks my heart because the current leadership in Israel is walking us down that path where I don’t think you have a choice,” Newsom said in response. He also said in the conversation with Favreau and co-host Tommy Vietor, which came amid the joint U.S.-Israeli operation against Iran, that Israel could “appropriately” be described as an apartheid state. 

The “Pod Save” hosts have been some of the leading voices in the Democratic Party hostile to Israel and pro-Israel groups, boosting progressive primary candidates including Graham Platner in Maine and Abdul El-Sayed in Michigan, who made criticism of Israel central to their campaigns.

Further, Newsom seemed to make the argument that military support for Israel comes at the expense of social welfare programs in the U.S.

“To say this is in America’s interest at a time when affordability is at crisis levels, where you have an administration who literally got elected saying this is exactly the opposite of what they would ever consider doing, the fact that we are in this now regional war, all these proxies,” Newsom said, before trailing off into a conversation about corruption in the Trump administration.

On Thursday, Newsom will appear in Portsmouth, N.H., for another book talk — a location sure to raise eyebrows because of the state’s importance in the presidential primary contest. He’ll be interviewed by Jack Cocchiarella, a self-described “progressive political YouTuber” who also frequently bashes Israel. Cocchiarella said in a post on X promoting the event that they will be discussing Israel. Earlier this week, the podcast host called Israel “a terrorist state that threatens and kill [sic] Americans.” 

Izzy Gardon, a spokesperson for Newsom, told The New York Timeson Wednesday that he “believes in Israel’s right to exist — and its right to defend itself. Period.” 
Newsom “is calling out a difficult truth,” added Gardon, saying that President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu are “taking Israel down a course that threatens the safety of Israel — a democracy and America’s closest Middle East ally — as well as Israelis and American Jews.” Gardon declined to comment further to JI.

Newsom’s move away from military support for Israel is a shift even from his recent positions. In October, during an interview with the “Higher Learning” podcast, Newsom said he would not support ending U.S. military aid to Israel.

“No, I’m not prepared to say that I would support a blanket exemption for military support of Israel. That said, I’ve been very vocal in my opposition to Bibi Netanyahu,” said Newsom. 

He touted his decision in December 2023 to send humanitarian aid to Gaza, while also defending Israel’s right to exist.

“I am sitting here on your behalf, you’re a taxpayer,” Newsom said on the podcast, “as the only governor in the United States that sent a field hospital to Gaza and got it in through a third party country, and is disgusted by what’s happened in Gaza as a human being, as a father, who sees these children and how this war has been perpetuated by Bibi Netanyahu. I also have deep respect for the right of the State of Israel to exist and defend itself. And I thought the attack by Hamas was a terrorist attack, and we have to be clear about that as well.” 

Newsom is widely considered a 2028 presidential contender, and he has been shifting his public stances on Israel to the left in recent months in response to questions from progressive interviewers. 

In the days immediately after Oct. 7, Newsom lit the state capital in blue and white and unequivocally condemned Hamas’ actions. Less than two weeks later, he added a one-day visit to Israel onto a pre-planned trip to Asia. 

“Despite the horror, what I saw and heard from the people of Israel was a profound sense of resilience. A commitment to community and common purpose, especially in these most difficult of times,” Newsom said afterward. He first traveled to Israel in 2008, the first sitting mayor of San Francisco to do so, on a trip organized by the San Francisco Jewish Community Federation. 

Jewish allies of Newsom’s in California told Jewish Insider they disagreed with his choice of using the word “apartheid” but said his comments reflected sentiments familiar to those held by many pro-Israel Democrats who disagree with Netanyahu’s actions.

“I heard what he was saying as sort of a frustration, as, ‘I don’t want it to go there,’ but I’m hearing a lot of concerns and frustrations when he’s saying ‘it breaks my heart,’” said Andrew Lachman, a Culver City school board member and the former president of California Jewish Democrats.

Sam Lauter, a Democratic donor and activist in San Francisco, said he “would have preferred [Newsom] not use those words.”

“I don’t want the word apartheid to come up. I don’t want someone to position themselves as being open to the idea of cutting off military aid to Israel,” Lauter said. “I wouldn’t say that his position has changed or evolved. I think it’s just that the more that folks see Netanyahu and the Netanyahu government proceed down the path that they have proceeded down, the more you’re going to hear people say, this is where he’s put us.” 

During his October interview with the “Higher Learning” podcast, Newsom was asked to discuss his views on AIPAC after Van Lathan, the show’s host, said he would not vote for any candidate who accepted money from the pro-Israel lobby. At the time, Newsom appeared flummoxed and did not give a substantive answer.

“It’s interesting. I haven’t thought about AIPAC. And it’s interesting, you’re, like, the first to bring up AIPAC in years, which is interesting. It’s not relevant to my day to day life,” Newsom said.

Two months later, he was asked a similar question by Cocchiarella.

“I’ve never received a dollar from them in my entire political career. So that’s sort of absolute. So I’ve had an opinion on that going back decades now,” said Newsom. 

AIPAC only started spending in political races in 2022, and they have never donated to state candidates, only to congressional campaigns. But Newsom doubled down and compared AIPAC to other groups deemed politically toxic to Democrats.

“I don’t take tobacco money, oil money. I’ve never taken AIPAC money. I mean, there’s certain absolutes that are the lines that have been drawn for decades for me,” he said.

Lauter, who used to be involved with AIPAC and now sits on the board of Democratic Majority for Israel, called Newsom’s comments on AIPAC “immensely unfortunate.” 

“I’m disappointed that AIPAC has become such an easy target, even for folks that we should consider friends,” Lauter told JI on Wednesday.

In a combative conversation with Tucker Carlson, U.S. Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee repeatedly corrected and pushed back against the far-right podcaster’s caricatures of Israel, the country’s war against Hamas, the historic connection of Jews to Israel and threat that Iran poses to global security.

The nearly three-hour episode, taped at the Fattal Terminal at Tel Aviv’s Ben Gurion Airport earlier this week, was one of the most public clashes between a prominent Christian Zionist and stalwart supporter of Israel and Carlson, who has emerged as a leader of a small but growing antisemitic faction on the far right.

Since being fired from Fox News in 2023, Carlson has used his online platform as a friendly venue for Holocaust revisionists and antisemitic social media influencers. Among the few times he has used his show to aggressively question guests, those he has invited on have been conservatives who support Israel, such as Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) last summer.

Carlson opened the episode with Huckabee, which was released on Friday, with a lengthy monologue defending his refusal to leave the airport grounds and baselessly alleging aggressive treatment by Israeli officials, including passport holds and questioning of his producers — claims that Huckabee and Israeli authorities have described as routine security procedures rather than detention. 

The two men sparred throughout the hourslong interview, with tensions rising when Carlson challenged Huckabee’s references to biblical ties of Jews to the land of Israel and pressed him on the scope of land promised in Genesis 15:18 — from the Nile to the Euphrates.

Carlson asked if this meant Israel could claim “basically the entire Middle East.” Huckabee replied that “it would be fine if they took it all,” but quickly clarified that Israel was not pursuing such expansive territorial goals.

Huckabee underscored that his position was far more modest: “I’m simply saying that the people who live in Israel… have a right to have security, have safety. They have a right to be able to live in this land that they have a connection to.” 

Later in the conversation, Huckabee confronted Carlson over his decision to host Anthony Aguilar, the ousted Gaza Humanitarian Foundation contractor whose claim that the IDF killed a 14-year-old was definitively disproven when the individual was located alive, having safely been extracted from Gaza with involvement from multiple countries, including U.S. diplomatic efforts in which Huckabee played a key role.

Huckabee stated bluntly: “You interviewed Tony Aguilar, who claimed that IDF soldiers killed a little boy in his presence. That didn’t happen. It did not happen. … Tony Aguilar is a liar.”

Carlson grew tense, denying he had “platformed” Aguilar in a problematic way, “I don’t know if you know whether it happened or not. I don’t know that he made it up. He seemed to believe it to me, but it’s possible he’s wrong. I’ve been wrong many times.”

Huckabee pressed back, emphasizing that this went beyond a minor error: “This is a little bit more than just missing a fact.”

The discussion again grew heated when Huckabee highlighted Hamas’ terror tactics, including its documented practice of recruiting and arming Palestinian teenagers to serve as terrorists.

Carlson immediately accused Huckabee of justifying the killing of such individuals in Israeli military operations, pressing him on whether a 14-year-old “has agency” and “deserves to die because he’s being used by adults.”

Huckabee countered by underscoring the serious security threats that Israel faces, asking what Israeli forces should do in a life-or-death scenario: “What are they supposed to do if that individual is holding a gun and he’s pointing it at someone who’s trying to save a hostage, and that’s the only way to save that hostage?”

“I’m telling you that war is a horrible thing,” Huckabee added.

The two also discussed Qatar, and Carlson’s connections to the Gulf state. Carlson argued that Christians were treated better in Qatar than in Israel. Huckabee responded that most Christians in Qatar were low-paid foreign workers, while Christians thrive in the Jewish state.

The argument then turned on the tendentious question of whether there were more Christian citizens in Qatar or Israel. Huckabee stumped Carlson by asking him what the Christian population in Qatar was, which Carlson admitted he did not know off-hand. Huckabee then pointed out that Qatar’s Christian population included fewer citizens than Israel’s. 

“You’ve caught me. I don’t know,” Carlson said before pivoting topics. “I can look it up on my phone, but I was just there, and there are many. Whatever.”

The exchange drew comparisons to a viral exchange from Carlson’s interview with Cruz last summer, when Carlson promoted the fact that the Texas senator didn’t know the exact population of Iran.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) on Thursday rejected the suggestion from some in the Arab world that the deaths of civilians in Gaza does not align with Christian values. Graham made the comments during an appearance on an episode of the “On The Record” podcast with Hadley Gamble, while discussing how Israel’s war in Gaza had impacted regional stability in the Mideast and delayed normalization efforts with the Saudis.

“I just don’t buy that at all, because what did we do in World War II? Did we think for one minute about starving the Germans? Did we bomb every city into smitherreens?” Asked if that meant he was comparing Israel’s response to Hamas’ Oct. 7, 2023, attacks on the Jewish state to how the U.S. responded in World War II, Graham responded affirmatively.

“This is an absolute, existential threat to the Jewish people. What happened on October the 7th was 1,200 people were slaughtered, raped and murdered, and filmed by radical Islamists who would kill every Jew if they could.”

Gamble then pressed Graham on Israel “flattening Gaza,” which the South Carolina senator said he took no issue with.

“Just flatten it. We flattened Berlin. We flattened Tokyo,” Graham said. “Were we wrong to drop an atomic bomb to end the Japanese reign of terror? Were we? In my view, if I were Israel, I would have probably done it the same way. Without military victory, there is no hope of breaking radicalism. We flattened Germany. We flattened Japan.”

“It’s a TV war. We didn’t have TV in World War II. The behavior of the United States was to pursue total destruction of the enemy. That was our behavior. Take Tokyo and Berlin,” he added. “Those people who are trying to say this is just another conflict, it’s not another conflict. It’s existential to the Jewish state.”

Graham, who is in the Middle East for meetings with Israeli, Emirati and Saudi officials, also criticized Saudi Arabia for “attacking the United Arab Emirates pretty viciously for being in the Abraham Accords” and questioned assertions that the kingdom’s ongoing dispute with the Emiratis was solely based on differences in Sudan and Yemen. 

“Saudi Arabia is now moving backward. They’re attacking the United Arab Emirates pretty viciously for being in the Abraham Accords,” Graham said. “There is no good reason for this. You can have disputes about Sudan and Yemen, but they’re basically declaring war.”

Asked if he believed the dispute “is all about Israel,” Graham replied: “I don’t know what this is about. I know the consequences. [Mohammed bin Zayed], the president of the United Arab Emirates, I’m going to meet him, you could not ask for a better partner. You could not ask for a better partner than the United Arab Emirates. They’ve stuck with the Abraham Accords through Gaza.”

In a post on X after his meeting on Thursday with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, Graham praised the kingdom while acknowledging his concerns about achieving normalization with Israel. 

“The Crown Prince is dealing with the aftereffects of October 7 like all leaders in the region, particularly with the tremendous loss of life in Gaza,” Graham wrote. “Having said that, his vision for the region is for conservative Islam to coexist — with tremendous economic opportunity — for the people of Saudi Arabia, the Middle East, and the entire world. He is the first Arab leader in modern history that’s expressed a vision not only for the faith, but for economic empowerment that is simply stunning when absorbed, and will set the tone for the region for generations to come.”

Graham criticized Gulf state opposition to regime change in Iran over fears about potential fallout as politically weak.

“That is a short-sighted view of the problems you face over here,” he said. “You’ve got domestic problems, so do I. I’ve got domestic problems. It’s probably better for me to be at home than it is here, so I don’t have a lot of tolerance anymore for people having to make uncomfortable decisions, because I have to make them all the time.”

Pressed on Saudi concerns about oil prices and regional instability, Graham said all of the Gulf states needed to “suck it up.”

“I’m telling everybody over here to suck it up. You’ve got to suck it up to bring about real change. Real change doesn’t come without sacrifice. Now, this region is going to change one way or the other,” Graham said. “There are two scenarios. … The inflection point is weeks away, not months away. That’s why I’m here. That’s why I haven’t slept, because it’s either going to go really good or really bad.” 

Later Thursday, Graham warned in a post on X that the U.K. should not deny the U.S. the ability to use British military bases to attack Iran. 

“If it turns out to be true that Britain is denying the United States the ability to use British bases against Iran if there is a necessity for an attack – it would be beyond surprising,” Graham tweeted. “I’ve been a military lawyer most of my adult life. What they’re saying about the status of Diego Garcia, the joint US-UK military base, is a huge question.”

“To my friends in Britain, sitting this one out puts you on the wrong side of history and is yet another example of how much our alliances throughout Europe have degraded,” the tweet concluded.