The unlikely but plausible path for the Democrats to win back the Senate opened up Monday with former Rep. Mary Peltola’s (D-AK) announcement that she’s running against Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-AK), giving Democrats an outside shot at flipping the red-state seat in the midterms.

Peltola isn’t your typical Democratic candidate. She won two separate statewide elections in Alaska in 2022 for the state’s at-large House seat, defeating the state’s former governor and onetime GOP vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin. Despite compiling a moderate (and pro-Israel) voting record in the House, she narrowly lost her reelection bid to Rep. Nick Begich (R-AK), losing the 2024 general election by just two points.

In her launch video, she touted her campaign theme as “fish, family and freedom.”

Sullivan is a traditional conservative politician with a hawkish voting record, and will be favored to win a third term. But Alaska has become somewhat more competitive in the Trump era, with the president winning 55% of the state’s vote in 2024 and Sullivan tallying 54% in his successful 2020 reelection. 

One point in Sullivan’s favor: Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), the independent-minded occasional Trump critic who endorsed Peltola in both of the Democrat’s previous statewide campaigns, quickly got behind the senator’s re-election campaign — before Peltola’s announcement. 

Peltola’s candidacy matters because it gives Democrats four capable recruits to contest four GOP-held Senate seats — two in purple states, and two on more conservative turf. The path to a Democratic Senate majority — which remains a long-shot — increasingly is looking like it runs through North Carolina, Maine, Ohio and Alaska. 

In North Carolina, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) recruited a popular former governor, Roy Cooper, to run forin the open seat. In Maine, Democrats face an ugly primary between the state’s sitting governor, Janet Mills, and left-wing challenger Graham Platner, who has become a darling of the party’s progressive wing.  

Neither race will be easy for Democrats to win: North Carolina hasn’t voted for a Democratic senator since 2008, while Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) is among the party’s most battle-tested senators, regularly winning in a blue state under tough political environments for her party.

But if Democrats ride a blue wave, it’s not hard to see how the swing states could flip with solid Democratic recruits putting typically out-of-reach red-state seats in play.

In Ohio and Alaska, Schumer successfully recruited the only Democrats who have won recently in their respective red states, even as both were defeated in the 2024 election. Former Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH) was the only statewide Democrat that was able to survive the first Trump term, and only narrowly lost his bid for a fourth term. And Peltola, as noted above, is one of a small group of Democrats who have managed to crack the political code in the conservative state.

Schumer, for all the criticisms he’s taken from the progressive wing of his party, still understands the basics of politics that the party’s younger activists often overlook. It takes more-moderate candidates with the ability to win over independents (and even a small number of Republicans) to prevail in swing states. It’s why he can boast a strong recruiting class, which makes the Senate map more competitive, albeit one with mostly AARP-eligible challengers.

But it’s those experienced, pragmatic candidates that can win races and ride a wave if one ends up sweeping ashore. The activist flash can win the social media news cycle, but the fundamentals of politics still apply when it comes to winning back power.

Former Rep. Mary Peltola (D-AK) announced Monday that she’s entering the Senate race against Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-AK) in Alaska, giving Democrats an outside chance of picking up the red-state Senate seat.

Peltola, the first Alaska Native elected to Congress, served for just over one term in the House from 2022 until she lost reelection in 2024, filling the final few months of former Rep. Don Young’s (R-AK) term after he died in office and winning a full term in the November 2022 election. Peltola is the the most recent Democrat to win statewide office in Alaska, and benefited in her House races from the state’s new ranked-choice voting system.

She has been viewed as Democrats’ best and perhaps only hope for unseating Sullivan.

Serving as a leader of the moderate Democrats’ Blue Dog caucus, Peltola was a prominent centrist voice in the House. Her agenda focused primarily on local Alaskan issues, and she was an at times heterodox voice in the Democratic Party. In her launch announcement, Peltola focused on putting aside partisanship and prioritizing quality of life and cost of living issues for Alaskans. “It’s about time Alaskans teach the rest of the country what Alaska First and, really, America First looks like,” Peltola said.

Peltola also maintained a strongly pro-Israel voting record, breaking on numerous occasions with a majority of her party to vote for measures supporting the Jewish state post-Oct. 7. She supported a standalone Israel aid package opposed by many Democrats, as well as a measure to override the Biden administration’s hold on U.S. arms sales to Israel that only a handful of other Democrats voted for.

She also supported a series of measures to combat Iran and its proxies, including stringent restrictions blocking nearly any sanctions relief for the Iranian regime and re-imposing a Foreign Terrorist Organization designation on the Houthis. Peltola also voted in favor of sanctions on the International Criminal Court.

And she supported measures to combat antisemitism, including the Antisemitism Awareness Act, a resolution describing anti-Zionism as antisemitic and a resolution condemning university presidents for their testimony on campus antisemitism before a House committee, though she voted against censuring Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) for antisemitic and anti-Israel activity.

Sullivan, for his part, has been a hawkish pro-Israel voice in the Senate, pushing for a more aggressive stance toward Iran as well as serving as a top critic of Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Elbridge Colby.

In 2020, Sullivan beat Democratic-backed independent candidate Al Gross by more than 12 points. Democrats still face an uphill battle, but Cook Political Report shifted the race from “Solid Republican” to “Lean Republican” with Peltola’s entry, a signal that Democrats have a fighting chance to flip the seat.

Michigan state Sen. Mallory McMorrow, a Democratic candidate for Senate, said in a recent radio interview that accusations of genocide against Israel — with which she has previously agreed — have become a “political purity test,” arguing that there has been too much emphasis on that specific word.

McMorrow herself has backed accusations of genocide, affirming in response to a question at an October event that she believes the war in Gaza is a genocide “based on the definition” — though she didn’t specifically utter the word “genocide” herself.

Asked on local radio station WDET last week whether her stance has changed since October, when she affirmed that she believed the war in Gaza met the definition of a genocide, McMorrow did not offer a direct yes or no answer.

“I am somebody who looks at the videos, the photos, the amount of pain that has been caused in the Middle East, and you can’t not be heartbroken,” McMorrow said. 

“But I also feel like we are getting lost in this conversation, and it feels like a political purity test on a word —  a word that, by the way, to people who lost family members in the Holocaust, does mean something very different and very visceral — and we’re losing sight of what I believe is a broadly shared goal among most Michiganders, that this violence needs to stop, that a temporary ceasefire needs to become a permanent ceasefire, that Palestinians deserve long term peace and security, that Israelis deserve long term peace and security, and that should be the role of the next U.S. senator,” she continued.

McMorrow went on to criticize an unnamed opponent for campaigning on the issue of the war in Gaza, presumably referring to Abdul El-Sayed, the far-left Democrat who has made his opposition to Israel a centerpiece of his campaign.

“Particularly in this primary, we’ve got some candidates who are using this as a political weapon and fundraising off of it, and I think that that is just losing the humanity of what we’re seeing in the Middle East. And we deserve better,” McMorrow continued.

El-Sayed has repeatedly sent fundraising emails highlighting his criticisms of Israel, including one on the second anniversary of Hamas’ Oct. 7, 2023, attack, which ignored Hamas and criticized Israel. Other fundraising appeals have accused Israel of genocide and highlighted the deaths of journalists, accusations of famine and the death toll in Gaza, as well as blamed AIPAC funding for U.S. lawmakers’ support for Israel.

El-Sayed’s campaign has declared in such fundraising appeals that he is “the only candidate in this race with the courage to speak up — even if AIPAC and MAGA billionaires come after him for doing so” and “one of AIPAC’s top targets to defeat.”

El-Sayed’s campaign did not respond to a request for comment.

McMorrow and El-Sayed are, functionally, competing for the votes of anti-Israel voters in the state, with Rep. Haley Stevens (D-MI) maintaining a pro-Israel stance and securing backing from Democratic Majority for Israel.

In the WDET interview, McMorrow said that she continues to support legislation to block offensive weapons sales to Israel.

“The more that [Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu pushes into Gaza, the worse this gets,” McMorrow said — though Israeli territorial advances in Gaza stopped months ago with the ceasefire deal. “And to be very clear, being in support of Israelis is not being in support of Netanyahu, in the same way that being in support of Palestinians is not the same as being in support of Hamas. … So we need to use the leverage that we have as the United States as an ally to ensure that this war ends and that the ceasefire is a permanent ceasefire.”

The House and Senate’s negotiated 2026 funding package for the Department of Justice includes funding for state and local law enforcement specifically allocated for protecting religious institutions.

The explanatory report accompanying the bill, released Monday, instructs the Department of Justice to allocate at least $5 million in DOJ law enforcement grant funding to agencies “seeking to enhance security measures for at-risk religious institutions and to address the precipitous increases in hate crimes targeting individuals on the basis of religion.”

Such funding, aimed at providing law enforcement with additional resources to step up their security presence at synagogues and other houses of worship, has been pursued by Jewish community groups particularly amid rising antisemitic attacks in the wake of the Oct. 7, 2023, attacks in Israel.

Nathan Diament, the executive director of the Orthodox Union Advocacy Center, told Jewish Insider the issue is one that the OU has been working on for some time, noting that many police seen stationed outside synagogues are often off-duty and being paid by the synagogues themselves, not their municipalities.

“It always struck us as a little crazy that communities have to pay out of pocket” to ensure police protection, Diament said, while noting that local law enforcement are often low on funding and cannot always spare the personnel. By dedicating some of the pool of federal funds that the Department of Justice provides annually to local law enforcement, police would be able to deploy on regular duty or on overtime, Diament said.

He said that OU had worked with the Justice Department under the Biden administration to issue guidance to police instructing them that they can, but were not required to, use the grant funding to deploy officers to protect religious institutions. He said he’d had discussions with Trump administration DOJ personnel about specifically allocating existing grant funding to that purpose earlier this year, but the officials said that congressional authorization would be needed.

Diament described this language in the report as a first step forward. He said that OU is hoping to see the language incorporated into the bill text itself before passage.

He said that the program could grow in the future depending on needs and the political debates on police funding, and emphasized that — if the bill passes — OU will urge the DOJ to allocate more than the allotted minimum of $5 million.

Diament also noted that providing police protection at no cost to Jewish institutions can help other security funding provided through the Nonprofit Security Grant Program “go further” and be applied to other security needs.

Diament credited Sen. Jerry Moran (R-KS), the chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee subcommittee responsible for Justice Department funding, and Rep. Grace Meng (D-NY), the ranking member of the corresponding House committee, as key champions of the new provision.

Moran cited the killing of Sarah Milgrim, an Israeli Embassy employee and Kansas resident shot and killed at the Capital Jewish Museum last year, in a statement on the effort.

“In the months since then, the Jewish community has been rocked by numerous attacks that have prompted increased police presence at synagogues and houses of worship across the country,” he continued. “The freedom to worship is one of the most fundamental rights enshrined in our Constitution. While it is disheartening that places of worship and faith-based organizations are coming under attack, we have a responsibility to protect these institutions and in doing so, protect the rights of Americans of all faiths.”

“In recent years, there has been a significant rise in attacks on houses of worship of Americans of many faiths, including the Jewish community,” Meng said in a statement to JI. “As Ranking Member of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies, public safety is a top priority for me. That’s why I was proud to work across the aisle to secure millions in federal funds to make it easier for houses of worship to hire security personnel. This bipartisan win will help stop incidents before they occur and builds on existing programs that help at-risk institutions enhance their physical security.”

The six-point security plan spearheaded by the Jewish Federations of North America and a coalition of more than 40 Jewish groups in response to the Capital Jewish Museum shooting also called for the government to “increase funding for local police and law enforcement to create capacity for both monitoring and protecting Jewish institutions” because “[t]he demands on local and state law enforcement far outpace their capacity to meet the need, which disproportionately affects targeted communities like the American Jewish community.”

“At a time when antisemitic threats are growing more frequent and more dangerous, federal funding to protect at-risk institutions, prevent hate crimes and support Holocaust education are essential,” Lauren Wolman, the Anti-Defamation League’s senior director of government relations and strategy, said in a statement. “ADL welcomes language in the FY2026 Conferenced CJS, E&W, and Interior funding bill that dedicates resources to help law enforcement enhance security for at-risk religious institutions and respond to the sharp rise in religion-based hate crimes.” 

“We are pleased to see continued support for key programs that strengthen law enforcement, prevention and education,” Wolman continued. “The reality is that the need far outpaces current investment. Combating antisemitism requires sustained resources, coordination, and accountability across the federal government.”

Eric Fingerhut, the CEO of JFNA, also praised the new funding.

“It is critical that local law enforcement agencies have the resources to protect the Jewish communities they serve. Given the rising threats of violence to Jewish events and institutions, local law enforcement definitely needs federal help,” Fingerhut said. “This appropriation is an important recognition of that need and we look forward to working with Congress to develop the most effective and expansive assistance to local law enforcement possible.”

The negotiated bill also preserves funding for a series of hate crimes prevention grant programs supported by major Jewish community groups, providing $35 million under a series of programs, for which the original House version of the bill had not allocated any funding and which the Trump administration had aimed to slash. The Senate proposal included the $35 million in funding.

It also provides $20 million for the Department of Justice’s Community Relations Service — a cut of $4 million from 2025 funding levels. The House version of the bill and the administration had aimed to shutter the CRS, which is charged with helping to mediate communal conflicts based on various forms of hatred and discrimination, completely.

All three of the leading Democratic contenders hoping to replace retiring Sen. Gary Peters (D-MI) condemned two antisemitic incidents targeting Chabad at Michigan State University this week, during the first days of Hanukkah. 

The first incident took place on Tuesday night when an individual “intentionally threw a rock” through a window of the Chabad Jewish Student Center at MSU in Lansing, Rabbi Kasriel Shemtov, executive director of Chabad Lubavitch of Michigan, told Jewish Insider. 

The following night, swastikas and the words “he’s back” were spray painted on the door of the same building. No one was in the building at the time of either incident. Law enforcement officials have confirmed that both incidents are being investigated as hate crimes.

The incidents, which occurred days after a mass shooting at a Hanukkah celebration in Australia left 15 dead — including a Chabad rabbi — prompted quick statements of condemnation from Democratic Senate candidates looking to replace Peters: Rep. Haley Stevens (D-MI), state Sen. Mallory McMorrow and Abdul El-Sayed, a Bernie Sanders-endorsed progressive candidate. 

In a statement to JI, Stevens said, “Acts of blatant antisemitism, like what we just saw at Michigan State, are unacceptable in Michigan and everywhere else. Jewish students at MSU — and all our universities — deserve to feel safe on campus. We must ensure our campuses are free of harassment and violence targeting the Jewish community.”

McMorrow, whose husband is the former president of MSU Hillel, told JI that the “safety of Jewish students on our campuses and in our communities is something that hits home for us…  I know how much this matters to our family and to this community.”

El-Sayed wrote on X, “Antisemitic violence like this has no place in Michigan. We stand together with our Jewish sisters and brothers against antisemitism and hate in all forms.” 

Sens. Gary Peters (D-MI) and Elissa Slotkin (D-MI) also denounced the incidents, as did university officials.

“I condemn the vile antisemitic crime targeted at MSU’s Chabad Jewish Center. This hatred has no place in Michigan or anywhere else. My thoughts are with the Jewish community and the MSU campus during this time that should be filled with light not hate,” Peters wrote on X. 

Slotkin said, “As we see a rise in deadly acts of antisemitism around the world, this must be condemned left, right and center. Anti-semitism can start small and grow into something ever more dangerous.”

In a campus wide email, MSU President Kevin Guskiewicz wrote, “In the wake of unspeakable violence committed against the Jewish community in Australia, I was deeply troubled to learn of multiple incidents of antisemitism near our own campus in the form of vandalism against the university community’s Chabad Jewish Center. That this occurred during Hanukkah — a time centered on light, resilience and faith — only deepens the pain and concern felt by many.” 

Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-LA), the chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, sent a letter on Thursday to the National Education Association accusing the largest teachers’ union in the country of a “deeply troubling” pattern of antisemitism within its ranks.

“The Jewish people have suffered assaults on their identity, religion, culture, and lives for millennia. Disturbingly, we are witnessing a rise in antisemitic sentiment across the Western world, including in the United States,” Cassidy wrote. “Let me put it plainly: antisemitism in all its forms is abhorrent and has no place within our society, especially at our K-12 schools, higher institutions of learning, workplaces, and within unions.”

Cassidy said that the NEA has “lost sight” of its congressionally chartered purpose, adopting a “misplaced” focus on “political activism, foreign policy, and environmental and social justice causes” and becoming “hostile” to Jewish NEA members.

The letter lists out a litany of incidents including a map sent in a mass email to three million NEA members describing the entire land of Israel as “indigenous” Palestinian territory and linking to resources from Hamas-supporting organizations, an attempted boycott of the Anti-Defamation League and reported harassment of Jewish delegates at the NEA’s national conference.

It also raises concerns about a series of provisions included in the 2025 NEA handbook, including language about Holocaust Remembrance Day that “significantly glossed over and failed to mention the attempted annihilation of the Jewish people under the Nazi regime”; one-sided language on the “Palestinian Nakba” that fails to acknowledge Arab attacks on Jews or the United Nations’ role in Israel’s founding; and language that aims to separate anti-Zionism from antisemitism.

Cassidy said that Jewish NEA members have informed the committee that they “are feeling increasingly threatened and ostracized” by the NEA’s “seeming indifference” to them, have been blocked from leaving the national NEA and have had no recourse to address these issues.

NEA representatives at schools have been “increasingly hostile” to Jewish teachers as well, Cassidy said, targeting them for supporting Israel, denying the Oct. 7 attacks and downplaying and denying antisemitism.

Cassidy said the NEA has repeatedly failed to properly and fulsomely apologize for these incidents. In one case, he said, “the NEA’s retroactive statement appears to be a sloppy, insincere, and reactionary attempt [to] move on from its unacceptable behavior.”

Cassidy put forward dozens of questions to the organization, including the process that allowed for the anti-Israel map to be sent out and whether those involved had been held accountable, the NEA’s response to Jewish members who were harassed and the approval process for the handbook language, and how and why it has responded — or not responded — to antisemitism, among various others.

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), the lead Senate sponsor of legislation to designate the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization, criticized members of the House Foreign Affairs Committee for voting to modify the House version of the bill, removing key provisions requiring the designation of Muslim Brotherhood branches and the organization as a whole as a terrorist group.

“Last week, frustratingly, the House version of my bill was advanced but terminally weakened by the House Foreign Affairs Committee,” Cruz said during a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on Thursday. “They took out the ‘designation’ part of the Muslim Brotherhood Terrorist Designation Act. The Senate should do better, and we should move the full bill on our side.”

Cruz suggested that some House lawmakers “did not believe that Congress should have a role in crafting sanctions, which are to be implemented by the executive.” He said he considers that argument “specious” and that most Senate colleagues agree.

A spokesperson for the House Foreign Affairs Committee insisted they remain aligned with both Cruz and the Trump administration, when asked about his comments. 

“We are in full support of the administration designating the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization. That process is well underway. We are in lockstep with Sen. Cruz’s goal and look forward to reviewing his bill once it passes the Senate,” the spokesperson said.

Cruz’s remark came as he questioned Gregory LoGerfo, the acting coordinator for counterterrorism at the State Department, who has been nominated to fill that position in a permanent capacity. LoGerfo is a career State Department official who has filled the acting role since January.

LoGerfo affirmed his commitment to tackling the Muslim Brotherhood, explaining that the U.S. has had concerns about the group “over decades,” particularly following the Oct. 7 Hamas attacks in Israel, and said that it poses a threat to the United States.

Though the Trump administration’s executive order does not require designating the entire Muslim Brotherhood or require officials to assess every branch of the organization for terrorist activity — as Cruz’s bill does — Cruz described his bill and the executive order as pursuing the same goal.

“The president’s executive order is part of a broader ‘bottom-up’ strategy to designate Muslim Brotherhood chapters and then evaluate designating the global Muslim Brotherhood,” Cruz asserted at the hearing, echoing comments he made in a statement to JI earlier this week.

LoGerfo affirmed that the specific branches that the executive order instructs the administration to evaluate are a “first step” toward taking broader action against the Muslim Brotherhood.

During his opening statement, LoGerfo also warned that, “in addition to the global jihadi network, antisemitism and anti-government animus have become significant motivating factors in today’s terrorist threat environment.”

And, he added, “although Iran has been greatly weakened, Tehran and its terror proxies, including the Houthis, Hezbollah and Hamas, continue to destabilize the Middle East and show interest in expanding their reach to regions.”

A new bipartisan and bicameral bill is pushing for greater accountability and transparency on China’s violations of U.S. oil sanctions on Iran.

China is the largest importer of Iranian oil, in spite of the sweeping U.S. sanctions regime targeting the Iranian oil and gas industry, as well as newer sanctions that target importers of that oil, which have been recently applied to some firms in China. 

Recent reports by the Foundation for Defense of Democracies have found that Iran oil exports, primarily to China, have remained near their peak level in spite of U.S. sanctions, which FDD has attributed to a “failure of U.S. sanctions enforcement.”

The new bill, led by Sens. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Reps. Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-IL) and Ben Cline (R-VA), requires the administration, within a year of the bill’s passage, to determine whether the People’s Republic of China is conducting sanctionable activities with regard to Iran.

In advance of that determination, the bill requires the administration to report to Congress within 180 days on China’s purchases of Iranian oil, including how China is using shell companies and other methods to dodge sanctions, as well as on Chinese efforts to sell or transfer chemical precursors to Iran to support its ballistic missile program.

Recent reports have found that Iran has been importing materials from China to rebuild its ballistic missile program, an effort that has prompted concern on Capitol Hill.

“China’s growing purchases of Iranian oil and its support for Iran’s ballistic missile program are not just violations of U.S. sanctions—they are direct threats to regional stability and to our allies,” Krishnamoorthi said in a statement, adding that the legislation “gives Congress the intelligence and transparency needed to expose how the PRC enables Iran’s most dangerous activities.”

“By bringing these transactions into the light, we strengthen our ability to enforce sanctions and hold malign actors accountable,” Krishnamoorthi continued.

Krishnamoorthi is mounting a bid for the U.S. Senate in his home state.

“China’s continued purchases of Iranian oil and its role in enabling Iran’s missile program to pose a direct threat to U.S. national security and to the stability of our allies in the Middle East,” Cline said. He called the legislation and the reporting it requires “a necessary step toward exposing how the PRC uses shell companies, transshipment schemes, and other avenues to evade sanctions.” 

“This report will give Congress and the Treasury Department the insight needed to strengthen enforcement, close loopholes, and ensure that hostile regimes, and those who bankroll them, are held accountable,” Cline continued.

Blumenthal said that China’s purchases of oil are “providing significant financial support for Iran’s terrorist activities in the Middle East and beyond.”

“Transparency is the first step towards accountability, which is why our bill would require a full report on China’s oil and ballistic missile-related transactions with Iran. This information will support robust sanctions enforcement and provide a path forward for additional legislative action,” Blumenthal said.

Graham called the bill “the first step in fully understanding how China and other nations prop up the Ayatollah’s war machine.”

Rabbi Yehuda Kaploun, the Trump administration’s nominee to be the State Department’s special envoy to monitor and combat antisemitism, is expected to come before the full Senate for a confirmation vote before the end of the year, two sources familiar with the situation confirmed.

Kaploun’s nomination was advanced out of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Wednesday with the support of all committee Republicans and two Democrats, Sens. Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) and Jacky Rosen (D-NV). Shaheen is the committee’s ranking member.

Kaploun’s nomination is included in a package of nearly 100 mid-level nominees for a variety of different federal agencies and posts.

Senators will not have the opportunity to vote on Kaploun’s nomination individually, but the nomination package as a whole is likely to be approved. Only a simple majority vote of the Senate will be required to approve the nominations.

The exact timing of the vote will depend on various procedural factors, but Kaploun is likely to be confirmed before the Senate leaves for its winter recess in two weeks, a source familiar with the situation said.

Kaploun wasn’t included in a previous version of this nomination package, which was filed before he cleared the Foreign Relations Committee. That version of the package was defeated on the Senate floor earlier Thursday because a nominee who did not meet the qualifications for inclusion had been part of the package. As they refiled a new version, Republicans added several additional nominees, including Kaploun.

Facing procedural obstacles from Democrats that were slowing confirmation proceedings on the Senate floor to a crawl, Republicans changed the chamber’s rules earlier this year to allow themselves to approve some lower-level nominees in such groups by a simple majority vote, rather than the previous 60-vote threshold.

Jewish Insider’s senior national correspondent Gabby Deutch and congressional correspondent Emily Jacobs contributed reporting.

President Donald Trump announced on Sunday that he plans to designate the Muslim Brotherhood as a Foreign Terrorist Organization following months of bipartisan calls for his administration to target the group. 

Trump announced the move in an interview with journalist John Solomon of the conservative outlet Just the News on Sunday morning, saying that an executive order is being prepared for his signature. 

“It will be done in the strongest and most powerful terms,” Trump said. “Final documents are being drawn.”

The White House did not respond to Jewish Insider’s request for comment on the announcement or details of the order being drafted for the president. 

Trump considered designating the Brotherhood as a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) during his first administration, though that effort never materialized. Sebastian Gorka, who serves as Trump’s deputy assistant for national security affairs and senior director for counterterrorism at the National Security Council, has been publicly and privately urging the president to do so since returning to office, as have a chorus of GOP lawmakers, along with a handful of Democrats in Congress. 

Gorka posted on X on Sunday that the “time has come” to designate the group, which he called “the progenitor of all modern Jihadist terror groups, from al Qaeda to HAMAS.”

A Senate bill that would designate the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist group, led by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), has 11 co-sponsors, including Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR), Sen. Rick Scott (R-FL), Sen. Dave McCormick (R-PA) and Sen. John Fetterman (D-PA). The House version of the bill has 19 co-sponsors, including four House Democrats.

Trump’s announcement comes less than a week after Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, a Republican, issued a declaration designating the Muslim Brotherhood and Council on American-Islamic Relations as foreign terrorist groups and transnational criminal organizations, a move prohibiting both groups from buying land in Texas and allowing the AG’s office to sue to shut them down.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio said in August that the FTO designation was “in the works” for the Brotherhood. 

“Obviously, there are different branches of the Muslim Brotherhood, so you’d have to designate each one of them,” Rubio told right-wing talk show host Sid Rosenberg on his radio program at the time, adding that the State Department needed to go through a lengthy “process which I didn’t fully appreciate until I came into this job.”

News of Trump’s comments was met with praise in the U.S. and in Israel, even as the details are still fuzzy over what he will be signing. 

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said on Sunday that he wanted to “commend President Trump on his decision to outlaw and designate the Muslim Brotherhood organization as a terrorist organization.”

“This is an organization that endangers stability throughout the Middle East and also beyond the Middle East. Therefore, the State of Israel has already outlawed part of the organization, and we are working to complete this action soon,” Netanyahu said. 

The Institute for the Study of Global Antisemitism and Policy (ISGAP) released a statement commending “the fact that the threat posed by the Muslim Brotherhood’s ideology is now being taken seriously at the highest levels of the U.S. government.”

“We welcome President Trump’s statements and the growing recognition that the Muslim Brotherhood, its ideology and network pose a serious challenge to the United States and democratic societies,” Charles Asher Small, ISGAP’s executive director, said to Jewish Insider.^. 

“A formal U.S. designation would represent an important first step to confront the Muslim Brotherhood in the United States,” Small added. “This will require sustained, evidence-based policy, serious scrutiny of its affiliated structures and funding streams, and long-term investment in democratic resilience.”

Dan Schlessinger, the lead attorney for the Boim family in their lawsuit against American Muslims for Palestine regarding the murder of American teenager David Boim in 1996, told JI in a statement: “This is welcome news for many including the Boim family. The next question is what does this mean for U.S.-based, Hamas adjacent groups like American Muslims for Palestine and Students for Justice in Palestine. Our hope is they will be included in this designation as well.”

Schlessinger and his team have accused AMP in court of acting as an “alter ego” of a now-defunct group that shut down after it was found to have provided support to Hamas.

Sens. James Lankford (R-OK) and Jacky Rosen (D-NV), the co-chairs of the Senate antisemitism task force, wrote to Adm. Kevin Lunday, the acting commandant of the Coast Guard, raising additional questions about policy changes regarding displays of swastikas.

The Washington Post reported Thursday that the Coast Guard would no longer consider swastikas to be prohibited hate symbols, but rather “potentially divisive.” The policy was walked back — but Lankford and Rosen’s letter asks for details about changes to the investigative process for such incidents, which remain unchanged in the updated policy.

Per the letter, under previous policies, a full investigation was required for displays of a swastika, whereas the new policy requires a potentially less stringent process, an inquiry by the relevant commanding officer.

“In order for the Coast Guard to fully protect those who serve, any inquiry regarding conduct involving imagery historically associated with genocide, terror, and racial subjugation must, at a minimum, be full and transparent to ensure the civil rights of those impacted are protected and conducted in a manner in which victims feel safe to report these incidents,” the lawmakers wrote.

They also said that they “would like to better understand the rationale for why the inquiry process was deemed to be preferable to the investigative process in place in the 2023 and 2019 policies, which had successfully ensured that hate incidents would lead to accountability.”

They thanked Lunday for working with them to “quickly rectify quickly rectify the November 15 policy language reaffirming the Coast Guard’s views that swastikas and nooses are hate symbols, but more must be done to ensure the Coast Guard’s members know that displays or use of these symbols within its ranks or facilities will be swiftly investigated.”

Both senators said they spoke to Lunday on Thursday evening, amid the uproar about the policy change, and said that the updated policy “is a step in the right direction to affirm the Coast Guard’s commitment to maintaining a safe and inclusive environment for all its members.”

Lankford is one of just a few Republicans who has spoken out publicly about the controversial Coast Guard policy change.

Rabbi Yehuda Kaploun, the Trump administration’s nominee to be the State Department’s special envoy to monitor and combat antisemitism, emphasized the importance of education as the critical tool to combat antisemitism during his confirmation hearing before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Wednesday.

“Together with bipartisan support, we must educate the world to respect one another. Lofty goals, perhaps, but a lesson that I learned from the Grand Rabbi of Lubavitch, as well as from my grandparents and my parents, is to do my best to impact and make the world a better place,” Kaploun said. “We do this by building bridges through education and friendships and dialogue. We must learn from the past to protect and educate the living.”

“We must, educate, educate, educate about the history of the Jewish community in America and the Judeo-Christian values our country was founded on,” he continued. “I pledge to all of you here, I will not waver and I will not rest. I will commit to you to do my very best, if confirmed, to fight antisemitism everywhere and to make this world a better arena for God to dwell and spread his blessings upon us all.”

Kaploun also emphasized the importance of understanding the history of the Holocaust, describing the U.S. veterans who liberated Nazi death camps as men who “saw the worst of humanity” and became “the best advocates in the world” against antisemitism. He also said he urges people to visit the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum.

“People don’t know the history, people don’t understand that we have to respect one another,” Kaploun said. “The problem is that people don’t want to listen to [WWII veterans] and hear their stories. … In America, we believe in freedom of expression and freedom of speech, but at the same time, we have to educate people as to what the facts truly are. … We’re missing that boat.”

Asked by Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) about President Donald Trump’s response to Tucker Carlson hosting neo-Nazi influencer Nick Fuentes on his podcast — Trump said that Carlson has “said good things about me over the years” and that “people have to decide” how they feel about Fuentes — Kaploun emphasized freedom of speech, as well as the administration’s work to combat antisemitism.

“I think the president and the secretary of state have made it perfectly clear that any type of antisemitism [does not have] a place in America. … That’s something that guides the administration’s policy,” Kaploun said, adding that the administration’s policy is that “antisemitism is to be condemned everywhere.”

He said that antisemitism is a “global problem” that stems from “ignorance” and a lack of education.

“But freedom of speech is something that’s a right, and freedom of expression globally is an important part of what the administration’s policy is,” he continued.“You have a right to hate, but we have a right to explain and stand up and abhor everything that you say. I believe very strongly that we can condemn remarks whenever they need to be condemned and educate people.”

The friendly interview between Carlson and Fuentes has touched off a reckoning in conservative circles about antisemitism on the right, though the administration has largely stayed out of the fray on the issue.

Pressed on the line between criticism of Israel and antisemitism, Kaploun pointed to the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s working definition of antisemitism, which has been used by the State Department for years.

He said that anyone has a right to criticize Israel, but that when individuals single out Israel without offering criticisms of any other countries, that can cross the line into antisemitism.

In his opening statement, Kaploun detailed the ways that antisemitism has impacted him throughout his life: he heard shouts of “dirty Jew” while walking to synagogue as a child; he grew up during the Crown Heights riots, hearing cries of “kill the Jews” in the streets; and his sister died of 9/11 related cancer and his cousin was killed on Oct. 7 protecting her children who are now orphans.

He said he also had the opportunity to sit with former hostage Yarden Bibas, whose family was killed by terrorists in Gaza after being taken captive, the night before the funeral of Bibas’ wife and children.

“Yes, I have seen the worst that humanity can do. When asked to serve my country by our president in a role that I truly wished did not need to exist there was no hesitation,” Kaploun said. “I sit before you humbled by the opportunity to serve my country. It is a daunting task.”

Kaploun also emphasized that antisemitism is a “symbol of a larger hatred” and that “when a country starts allowing antisemitism, the results are not kind to that country.”

“That is why President Trump and Secretary Rubio have stated there can be no compromise with antisemitism,” he said. “Antisemitism is anti-American. Those who chant ‘death to the Jews’ all too often chant ‘death to America.’ We cannot allow anyone to teach children from infancy to kill and to be a martyr.”

Sen. Jacky Rosen (D-NV), co-chair of the Senate antisemitism task force and a member of the committee, told Jewish Insider in a statement, “I’ve worked closely with Special Envoys under both Republican and Democratic Administrations. Maintaining this bipartisan tradition will be critical to the success of this role. If confirmed, I look forward to working with Rabbi Kaploun to achieve our shared priorities.”

In a letter to the committee, the Orthodox Union Advocacy Center’s Nathan Diament and Isaac Pretter — while not directly endorsing Kaploun — emphasized the importance of filling the role quickly and noted Kaploun’s qualifications.

“As an easily identifiable member of the Jewish community, and longtime activist, Rabbi Kaploun is familiar with the issues facing Jews around the world,” the OU Advocacy leaders wrote. “As a member of the Orthodox community, we are familiar with Rabbi Kaploun and his commitment to combatting antisemitism.”

The also noted that he had “shown a willingness to cross the partisan divide” to issue a joint op-ed with predecessors Ambassador Deborah Lipstadt and Elan Carr in response to the Capital Jewish Museum shooting.

“In short, Rabbi Kaploun has proven an eager and capable ally in the fight against antisemitism,” Diament and Pretter said.

Ted Deutch, the CEO of the American Jewish Committee, urged the “swift confirmation of Rabbi Kaploun to help the United States continue to lead the fight against antisemitism across the globe,” in a post on X.

Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY), a co-chair of the House Jewish Caucus, and 17 other House Democrats wrote to committee leaders in opposition to Kaploun’s nomination, calling it “partisan and controversial.” 

They criticized him for past comments accusing Democrats of failing to condemn the Oct. 7 attackers as terrorists or call out antisemitism, saying that the comments raise concerns about his “judgement, temperament” and capacity to work with Democrats, and that a vote to support him would be an endorsement of those sentiments and an insult to committee Democrats.

They also condemned him for failing to condemn antisemitic comments by Trump and members of his administration, and highlighted past reporting on a lawsuit relating to an alleged extramarital affair.

“Ultimately, Mr. Kaploun, when confronted by antisemitic rhetoric, did not speak out against it and himself engaged in speech that was deeply damaging to the Jewish community at a time of peak antisemitism,” the letter reads. “We must demand better.”

Other signatories to the letter included Jewish Reps. Jamie Raskin (D-MD), Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), Becca Balint (D-VT) and Steve Cohen (D-TN), as well as Reps. Adam Smith (D-WA), Jim McGovern (D-MA), Andre Carson (D-IN), Joaquin Castro (D-TX), Rosa DeLauro (D-CT), Sylvia Garcia (D-TX), Cleo Fields (D-LA), Mark Takano (D-CA), Madeleine Dean (D-PA), Betty McCollum (D-MN), Troy Carter (D-LA), Emily Randall (D-WA) and Joe Courtney (D-CT).

State Department spokesperson Tammy Bruce, nominated to be deputy U.S. representative to the United Nations, testified alongside Kaploun. She affirmed that the administration is committed to preventing the U.N. Relief and Works Agency from having any role in the future of Gaza.

“Other nations, other entities, NGOs know that this is something now, it is a new way forward, it is something they can work forward with,” she said, praising the Trump administration’s Gaza peace plan, recently approved by the U.N. Security Council. “The World Food Program, other entities associated with the U.N. and other nations and their assistance will make the difference. We will pick up the difference of whatever UNRWA claimed that they were doing.”

She also highlighted concerns about UNRWA’s educational programs radicalizing young generations of Palestinians through antisemitic and anti-Israel school curricula and said these issues must end.

Bruce also committed to pursuing “bold reform” at the U.N. and pursuing an end to its anti-Israel bias.

Senate Democrats echoed their House counterparts on Tuesday in expressing concern about President Donald Trump’s announcement of a deal to sell advanced F-35 fighter jets to Saudi Arabia.

Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), who serves on the Armed Services Committee, told Jewish Insider, “I think there are very serious, potential negative impacts on our national security and they include changing the qualitative edge for Israel, the possibility of a hostile use of them [the jets], the absence of any normalization agreement, which should be part of it, so I think there ought to be very close, critical scrutiny.”

The prospect of advanced weapons sales to Saudi Arabia — along with several other deals announced by Trump on Tuesday with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman — had previously been linked to Saudi Arabia joining the Abraham Accords, something the kingdom is unwilling to do without a “clear path to a two-state solution,” MBS said.

Blumenthal said he was unsure if he would meet with the crown prince during his visit to Washington this week, citing scheduling conflicts. The Connecticut senator said that he’d like to ask MBS about the path forward toward normalization with Israel and the kingdom’s role in the future of Gaza. 

“What’s the path to normalization? Realistically how can we get there as quickly as possible? Because it’s so important to peace and stability in the region,” Blumenthal told JI. “What are the Saudis willing to commit to do for the international security force and for reconstruction of Gaza and financial peace?”

Sen. Mark Kelly (D-AZ) described the jets as an “incredibly capable airplane” and noted that “Israel has F-35s, [as do] some of our other allies.” The Arizona senator said that while he supports the U.S. engaging with the Saudis, he had reservations about selling them the jets.

“Is this the step to some kind of bigger security arrangement in the Middle East? We’ll have to see. I think there’s some benefits for Israel and for Saudi Arabia and for the United States if that’s the case,” Kelly told JI. “I am always concerned about our best technology winding up in the proximity of any of our adversaries. The Chinese have been attempting to build a port there in the UAE, that’s pretty close. So I do worry about these things.”

Some in the Defense Department have reportedly expressed concerns that a sale of the jets to Saudi Arabia would provide China with an opportunity to take or compromise sensitive American technologies.

“I have concerns about it, and also about how the Saudis are going to use these planes,” he added.

Kelly said that if he were a member of the Foreign Relations Committee he would want assurances that China would not have access to U.S. technology before approving the sales.

“If I was on SFRC and had the ability to approve this, I’d want a lot of assurances that the Saudis are going to protect that technology,” Kelly said. “The Chinese would love to get close to these airplanes, to get the radar signatures, if they’re not stealing it from us already.”

Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), the ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee who will have some ability to obstruct or slow the deal, was deeply critical of multiple announcements made by Trump during his White House summit with MBS.

Shaheen said in a statement that the F-35 deal “raises major concerns about protecting U.S. military technology and the military edge America shares with our allies” and demanded the administration “fully explain to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee why this sale is in the vital national interest of the United States.”

The senior Democrat also said that any security agreement made with Saudi Arabia without Senate approval “is very troubling” and would be non-binding and “easily reversed” by a future administration.

“Bypassing Congress on commitments of this scale sets a dangerous precedent, especially after a similar agreement with Qatar without Senate approval,” Shaheen said.

She also said that any nuclear deal with Riyadh, which Trump said on Tuesday he is pursuing, must ensure that it cannot enrich or reprocess nuclear material and include stringent inspections, and warned that “Saudi Arabia’s stated intention to acquire nuclear weapons if Iran does demands extreme caution.”

Shaheen also warned that any deal to provide advanced computer chips to Saudi Arabia must be made in consultation with Congress to protect America’s AI and technological edge over China.

Republican Sen. Markwayne Mullin (R-OK), an Armed Services Committee member, indicated support for the deal, saying, “we have strategic partners around the region and this has been a discussion going on for a long time. … It’s, I think, a [move] in the right direction.”

Other Republicans have also backed the president on the issue.

Mullin said he’d also like to see the United Arab Emirates acquire F-35s. During his first term, Trump sealed a deal to sell the jets to the UAE — in connection with the signing of the Abraham Accords — but the Biden administration suspended the deal due to concerns about the UAE’s relationship with China.

The UAE has since expressed it is no longer interested in reopening the deal.

Mullin said he’s planning to meet with the Saudi crown prince on Wednesday if their schedules allow, to “continue [the] conversation” from past meetings.

Given the GOP’s sturdy 53-seat majority in the Senate, combined with the increasing rarity of split-ticket voters, the Republican Party’s hold on the upper chamber looked nearly guaranteed, with a map featuring very few true swing-state pickup opportunities for the Democrats.

Indeed, the unlikely pathway for Democrats to win back control of the Senate in 2026 runs through states that have been reliably Republican in recent years — Ohio, Iowa, Texas, Florida and Alaska. To win back a majority, the party would need to win at least two of these red-state races, reversing the yearslong Democratic drought in many of these states — along with winning GOP-held seats in battleground Maine and North Carolina, which is far from assured.

But given the dominant Democratic outcomes from the off-year elections, there’s been renewed attention to the possibility of some red-state upsets in 2026. Already, political strategists from both parties are mulling over which seats are the most likely to get competitive, in preparation for an unpredictable midterm election.

On paper, Ohio looks like it’s the best opportunity for Democrats to play offense. Former Sen. Sherrod Brown, a populist, battle-tested Democrat won three statewide elections in Ohio even as the state trended in a more conservative direction. He eventually lost in 2024 to Sen. Bernie Moreno (R-OH) by five points, but ran well ahead of Vice President Kamala Harris’ double-digit defeat in the state.

With the national environment tilting back in the Democrats’ favor, Brown is seeking a comeback against appointed Sen. Jon Husted (R-OH), Ohio’s former lieutenant governor. A recently released September poll of the race conducted by the respected Democratic firm Hart Research found Brown narrowly ahead over Husted, 48-45%. Among independents, Brown held a substantial 25-point lead (56-31%).

Of all the five “reach” states for Democrats, Ohio was the closest in the presidential race, with President Donald Trump winning by 11 points. That should make it the best opportunity for Democrats to win a third seat — even as it underscores how many Trump voters Democrats will need to convert in order to win.

Sen. Joni Ernst’s (R-IA) sudden retirement is turning Iowa into a possible opportunity for Democrats. The state was once reliably competitive, but has been a solidly Republican state in the age of Trump. But the state’s farming economy has taken a hit, in part because of the aftereffects from the president’s tariffs. That’s given Democrats a narrow opportunity to capitalize on growing voter dissatisfaction, especially with an open Senate seat in play.

Republicans have coalesced behind Rep. Ashley Hinson (R-IA), a well-liked lawmaker and former TV anchor from the northeastern corner of the state. Democrats, meanwhile, are dealing with a crowded primary, with Iowa state Rep. Josh Turek appearing to be the party favorite. The contested primary could push the eventual nominee to the left, which would be a major handicap in a state that’s now reliably conservative.

Texas hasn’t elected a Democrat to the Senate since 1988, making the Lone Star State an unlikely pickup opportunity. Democrats’ hopes center on scandal-plagued Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton winning the GOP nomination over Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) and Rep. Wesley Hunt (R-TX), and that Democrats nominate a moderate candidate who can win back the Hispanic voters who swung towards the Republicans in the last election. 

Complicating the Democrats’ path: They’re dealing with a competitive primary themselves between former Rep. Colin Allred, who lost his Senate race in 2024, and state Rep. James Talarico, who has won attention for speaking to conservative audiences about his Christian faith.

If there’s a true sleeper race on the board, it’s in Alaska, a state whose Republican voting record belies its independent nature. Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-AK) doesn’t have any obvious vulnerabilities, but respected Alaska pollster Ivan Moore found former Democratic Rep. Mary Peltola leading Sullivan, 48-46%, in his October survey. But Peltola, who held the state’s at-large House seat from 2022-2024, is probably the only Democrat with the political standing who could put the Senate seat in play.

Finally, Florida used to be a perennial swing state but it’s gotten so Republican in recent years that Democrats don’t even look to be seriously challenging appointed Sen. Ashley Moody (R-FL). In a sign of how times have changed: Moody’s leading Democratic challenger appears to be a former Brevard County School Board member without much statewide name recognition.

Jordan Wood, a Maine Democrat who dropped his Senate bid on Wednesday to run for the seat held by retiring Rep. Jared Golden (D-ME), said in a recent podcast interview that he would reject contributions from AIPAC, the pro-Israel advocacy group, joining a growing crop of Democratic candidates who have made similar pledges.

In the conversation with Kaivan Shroff, a Democratic activist, released last week, Wood pointed to what he called “a tremendous amount of distrust right now among Democratic primary voters that the money that AIPAC has put into our political system has affected our priorities when it comes to foreign aid to Israel.”

Graham Platner, a leading far-left candidate in the Democratic Senate primary facing Maine Gov. Janet Mills, has been a particularly hostile critic of AIPAC, which he has made a central focus of his anti-Israel messaging.

In a statement to Jewish Insider, Wood clarified that he does not “take money from AIPAC for the same reason I don’t take money from corporate PACs or lobbyists — because it guarantees voters trust that my policy positions and votes in Congress are not influenced by any campaign contributions.”

A spokesperson for AIPAC, Marshall Wittmann, dismissed that logic. “It’s outrageous to discriminate against pro-Israel Americans,” he said in a sharply worded statement to JI. “Ostracizing and making false accusations about fellow citizens’ democratic engagement to strengthen the U.S.-Israel partnership is contrary to American values and interests.”

“Our six million members will not be deterred by anti-Israel extremists, and their voices will be heard in the 2026 elections,” Wittmann said.

During the podcast interview, Wood stated that, even as he pulls away from AIPAC, “I do also still support aid to Israel,” albeit alongside “conditions on the continuation” of U.S. assistance, including “restrictions on offensive military weapons” to the Jewish state.

Wood, a former congressional staffer who was trailing his rivals in what has increasingly solidified into a two-person Senate race, declared on Wednesday that he was jumping into the open primary to succeed Golden, a moderate Democrat who has represented a GOP-leaning district for three consecutive terms.

The congressman said last week he would not seek reelection, writing he had “grown tired of the increasing incivility and plain nastiness” of American politics and that he and his family had faced “frequent threats” that ultimately contributed to his decision. 

Golden, a retired Marine, has been a dependably pro-Israel voice in the House and was endorsed by AIPAC before he announced he was stepping down.

“With Jared not running, it leaves open one of the most competitive House races in the entire country, and so I’m stepping up to take that on,” Wood said on Wednesday.

Matt Dunlap, the Maine state auditor, was already challenging Golden from the left before Wood, who embraced progressive stances as a Senate candidate, said he would enter the race. 

The primary field is expected to grow in the coming weeks as other potential candidates are floated, including Troy Jackson, the former president of the Maine Senate currently running for governor, and Kirk Francis, chief of the Penobscot Nation.

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, looking for more-moderate candidates in the field, is still recruiting even with Wood and Dunlap in the race, according to a source familiar with the matter.

Former Maine Gov. Paul LePage is the frontrunner for the Republican nomination in the swing district, which backed President Donald Trump by a double-digit margin in 2024. 

The firebombing of a hostage-release march in Boulder, Colo., this summer triggered a wave of calls from lawmakers — particularly Republicans — for action to designate the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization, Jewish Insider’s Emily Jacobs and Marc Rod report.

Legislation to that effect was introduced in both the Senate and House in July, taking a new approach to designating the group as compared to previous legislative efforts that had stalled over the course of the last decade.

The legislation would require the imposition of sanctions on the Muslim Brotherhood, making it illegal to provide support to the group, making its members and affiliates inadmissible to the United States and blocking transactions involving assets held by Muslim Brotherhood members in U.S. financial institutions.

There were also calls from lawmakers on both sides of the aisle for the Trump administration to investigate the group and take action to designate it through executive authorities. The secretary of state has the authority to designate a group as a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO), and the White House could issue an executive order on the subject.

But so far, none of those efforts have come to fruition. The Senate bill currently sits at 11 co-sponsors, having recently picked up Sen. John Fetterman (D-PA) as its first Democratic supporter, while the House bill has 19 co-sponsors from both parties — below the levels of support previous iterations of the bill had amassed.

Fetterman’s co-sponsorship could help the bill receive consideration by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, as the panel often only considers legislation with bipartisan support. A source familiar with the matter tells JI that Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), the bill’s co-sponsor in the Senate and a member of the committee, is pushing for the panel to mark up the bill at their next business meeting. 

Neither bill has been called up yet for a vote in committee — a process further slowed by the ongoing government shutdown — and it is currently not included in either the Senate or House versions of the 2026 National Defense Authorization Act, a potential vehicle for legislation of this sort.

The White House declined to comment. A spokesperson for Cruz told JI: “Sen. Cruz is pushing for the bill to be advanced through the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and then to be passed by the full Senate. Sen. Fetterman is showing commitment and leadership to American national security interests by providing this measure with bipartisan backing here in the Senate, and it’s time to move it forward.”

Sen. James Lankford (R-OK), who is not currently a co-sponsor of the Senate bill but is supportive of efforts to counter the Muslim Brotherhood, told JI on Wednesday that the issue is not top of mind for many colleagues and it will take time to build interest and support for moves like designating the group.

Richard Goldberg, a senior advisor at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and a former Trump administration official, told JI that, within the executive branch, FTO designations are a time-consuming process — requiring extensive legal consultations as well as significant behind-the-scenes work to understand potential implications, unintended consequences and diplomatic fallout, as well as assembling a list of visa exemptions needed for diplomats.

Based on public comments from Secretary of State Marco Rubio and the National Security Council’s Sebastian Gorka indicating support for a terrorism designation, Goldberg said that he believes that there is momentum in the administration, further fueled by the election of Zohran Mamdani as mayor of New York City, anti-Israel protests around the country and evidence of growing Islamist influence on the far right as well. He said that the fact that no designation has been announced should not necessarily be read as a sign that it is not actively being worked on in private.

Goldberg also said that any action on the designation from Congress would likely be timed to coordinate with potentially pending action by the Trump administration, given the high-profile nature of the issue and the administration’s expressed interest.

One potential obstacle to the efforts: Qatar and Turkey, with which the administration has been strengthening ties. Both have extensive links to the Muslim Brotherhood and could be resistant to such a designation. Goldberg, however, said he has not heard any discussion of those countries actively trying to stop a designation, and urged the Trump administration to push forward, describing the Muslim Brotherhood as both a threat to homeland security and President Donald Trump’s desire for Middle East peace.

Members of the Senate Armed Services Committee from both parties voiced concerns with Elbridge Colby, under secretary of defense for policy, and his office at the Pentagon, at a committee hearing — for the second time this week.

While Thursday’s proceedings, a confirmation hearing for Alex Velez-Green, nominated to be Colby’s top deputy and who has been a senior advisor to him in an interim capacity, were generally less heated than a Tuesday hearing with nominee Austin Dahmer, lawmakers reiterated concerns with a lack of consultation by Colby’s team and alleged rogue decision-making on a range of issues by the office.

“Many of this committee have serious concerns about the Pentagon’s policy office and how it is serving the president of the United States and the Congress,” Sen. Roger Wicker (R-MS), the chairman of the committee, said in his opening statement. “In many of these conversations, we hear that the Pentagon policy office seems to be doing what it pleases without coordinating, even inside the U.S. executive branch.” 

Wicker, pushing back on a defense offered earlier this week by Dahmer — who dismissed many concerns as fallacious and based on inaccurate media reporting — said that the issues raised by committee members were based on their own conversations with other administration officials and United States allies.

“Either all of these other administration officials and senior foreign officials are deliberately misleading us or we have a problem coming from this office,” he continued.

He said that the policy office can begin to rectify those issues by meeting “its statutory requirement to consult with this committee … rather than simply informing us of a decision after the fact.”

“We need a process that works for the president and the [Congress]. Unfortunately, we do not have such a process at this moment,” Wicker said, adding that progress will require a “change in a mindset” from the policy office.

Sen. Rick Scott (R-FL) added that, “the perception is that there’s some disagreement between what has been put out [by the policy office] and what the president wants. And I think it’s pretty important that you guys figure out how to stop that.”

Velez-Green generally took a conciliatory posture, pledging to communicate and consult with lawmakers whenever possible and appropriate. He also insisted that the policy office and the entire Department of Defense have been diligent in ensuring they are fully aligned with the president’s policy.

But Velez-Green also insisted that the policy office had not directed a pause in U.S. arms transfers to Ukraine, which was later publicly overridden by President Donald Trump, who said he had not been aware of or instructed any such moves. Multiple Senate Republicans pointed to a news release from the Pentagon that specifically stated that such a pause had been implemented.

Velez-Green also denied media reports that Colby had opposed the deployment of additional U.S. forces to the Middle East during the war between Israel and Iran.

Lawmakers again raised concerns that they and U.S. allies in Romania had been notified only days ahead of time that the U.S. would be withdrawing troops from Romania, and that lawmakers were only provided a notification after the decision had been made rather than consulted ahead of time.

“Congress was not consulted about this. I think I can say with certainty about that,” Wicker said.

Sen. Eric Schmitt (R-MO) was the only lawmaker to offer an unequivocal defense of Colby and his office, accusing those criticizing Colby over both policy decisions and communication issues of attempting to block his policy preferences.

“I think much of the criticism, which is cloaked in terms of transparency and communication, really is just an effort to undermine a shift in our foreign policy orientation, which I support, which is to realism, as opposed to some of the failed points of view that have dominated permanent Washington over the last 30 years,” Schmitt said, adding that criticisms of Colby and his team reflect “resistance from those invested in maintaining the foreign policy status quo that has repeatedly failed the American people.”

As the GOP uneasily contends with rising hostility to Israel among younger right-wing voters, Nate Morris, a 45-year-old Republican Senate candidate in Kentucky who is courting the populist right with an anti-establishment message, emphasizes there is at least one long-standing party axiom he will never abandon: unwavering support for the Jewish state.

Morris, the wealthy founder of a successful waste management company who calls himself a “Trump America-First conservative,” said his commitment to upholding a strong U.S.-Israel alliance extends from his alignment with President Donald Trump’s vision for the Middle East.

“I think he’s been the most pro-Israel president we’ve had in our country’s history, and I want to continue that kind of leadership on the issue in the United States Senate, on behalf of Kentucky and the country,” Morris told Jewish Insider in an interview last Friday during the Republican Jewish Coalition’s annual summit in Las Vegas, where he met privately with members to pitch his campaign to succeed retiring Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY).

Trump, he added, “has gotten it right, and obviously the success speaks for itself.”

But Morris also cited a more personal reason for what he described as his unequivocally pro-Israel worldview, explaining that, as a “proud” evangelical Christian, he has “always believed Israel is the land that was given to the Jews by God.”

“My views on Israel are never going to change,” he pledged. “They’re in my bones. That’s the way I was raised. That’s what my faith teaches me.”

“Look, all our differences here and the different positions that are out there, we’ve got to have more education, we’ve got to have more conversations as a party,” Morris said, without referring to Carlson or Roberts directly. “I want to discuss these things as a party, get on the same page as a party.”

His comments, while hardly unusual in a deeply evangelical state like Kentucky, come at a fraught moment for conservative Christian supporters of Israel, in the immediate wake of Tucker Carlson’s friendly interview with the neo-Nazi streamer Nick Fuentes, a source of sustained criticism throughout the RJC’s three-day summit attended by elected officials, conservative activists, media personalities and other political candidates.

But even as Carlson had expressed his disdain for Christian Zionists, claiming they had been seized by a “brain virus,” Morris was relatively cautious when addressing the interview with Fuentes as well as the backlash toward the Heritage Foundation, the conservative think tank whose president, Kevin Roberts, has continued to stand behind Carlson.

“Look, all our differences here and the different positions that are out there, we’ve got to have more education, we’ve got to have more conversations as a party,” he said diplomatically, without referring to Carlson or Roberts directly. “I want to discuss these things as a party, get on the same page as a party.”

Morris also stressed that “we shouldn’t be in the business of canceling anyone, but educating them and making sure they understand the full context and what’s at stake here.”

“That’s the way we’re going to win as a party,” he said, “and I think that is what’s going to tamp out any differences that we have and that we shouldn’t be having.”

The hesitance to offer a forthright condemnation speaks not only to Carlson’s strong influence in the MAGA movement but also to how his fan base likely overlaps with the right-wing coalition that Morris is hoping to activate in a competitive primary with two more-established rivals. 

Morris, a friend of Vice President JD Vance who launched his campaign in June, is facing Daniel Cameron, the former state attorney general, and Rep. Andy Barr (R-KY), both of whom are strong supporters of Israel. Morris described the race as a “proxy war between Mitch McConnell and Donald Trump,” as the outgoing senator has become one of the most vocal Republican critics of the president in the upper chamber and frequently warns of growing isolationism in the GOP.

Even as he worked as an intern for McConnell early in his career, Morris, who attended graduate school at the Princeton School of Public and International Affairs as well as Oxford, has sought to tie his rivals to the retiring senator, arguing that Kentucky voters are “ready for change” and that Congress is in need of “new perspectives.”

To underscore his point, Morris noted that Zach Witkoff, the son of Trump’s special envoy, Steve Witkoff, recently hosted an event for his Senate campaign, where Morris got the chance to “hear firsthand a lot of the inside details” about how the ceasefire deal between Israel and Hamas “came together.”

“What I love about the president is he uses tools of diplomacy, the same tools he uses as a negotiator and as a business leader, and he has applied those to his foreign policy to be able to get things done,” Morris said.

Trump’s approach “shows that when you have outsiders and business people negotiating, you can get great outcomes,” he added. “That’s one of the big reasons why I’m running for the U.S. Senate. I think that we need more people coming from the outside.”

“The thing is, unless you go there and see it, you don’t understand that every day, you don’t know what’s going to happen,” Morris told JI. “You’re under constant threat and potential for assault when you live there and when you’re a citizen of Israel.”

He also called Vance, who encouraged him to run for the open seat, a fellow “outsider” who “wasn’t a career politician” before he launched his own bid for Senate in Ohio just a few years ago. Morris said that they had talked about foreign policy “in the context of” their “general worldview,” but did not elaborate. 

Morris was previously a fundraiser for Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), the libertarian Republican, with whom he traveled to Israel in 2013 on a trip that included evangelical leaders. He said the visit instilled in him a heightened sensitivity to Israel’s ongoing security concerns. (Paul has regularly voted against military aid to Israel and opposed Trump’s attack against Iran’s nuclear program, as part of his overall opposition to foreign aid and military engagement overseas.) 

“The thing is, unless you go there and see it, you don’t understand that every day, you don’t know what’s going to happen,” he told JI. “You’re under constant threat and potential for assault when you live there and when you’re a citizen of Israel.”

The first-time candidate acknowledged waning support for Israel in younger Republican circles, even as he declined to criticize Carlson and others for stoking anti-Israel sentiment on the far right.

He expressed concern about students who posed a series of antisemitic questions to Vance at a recent Turning Point USA campus event, but stopped short of addressing the backlash the vice president subsequently faced for choosing not to challenge the students’ hostile remarks about Jews and Israel. 

While his evangelical faith primarily drives his own support for Israel, Morris said he also believes that “it makes the most sense for the United States,” and skeptical younger conservatives could be persuaded simply on the basis of that argument. “Even looking at it economically,” he said, “I could sell that all day long to any American, to say you’re going to prosper more by this relationship.”

“I think that these are the kind of tools that we can use to get over any hatred, any disagreement — any of the discourse that has been disgusting we’ve seen online,” Morris told JI. “These are the kind of things that can help change hearts and minds.”

Senate lawmakers from both parties on the Armed Services Committee excoriated the Department of Defense policy office run by Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Elbridge Colby at a Tuesday hearing. They criticized the office for a lack of communication with lawmakers as well as a series of controversial decisions seemingly at odds with White House policy.

Lawmakers expressed frustration that they had not received sufficient communication from the Pentagon’s policy office and criticized Colby and his team for making controversial decisions like pausing U.S. aid to Ukraine, opposing the deployment of additional U.S. forces to the Middle East during Israel’s war against Iran, withdrawing U.S. forces from Romania and re-assessing the AUKUS submarine agreement with the U.K. and Australia.

Democrats have publicly voiced frustration with Colby’s alleged rogue decision-making in the past, but the committee meeting — a confirmation hearing for several civilian Pentagon officials — constituted an unusual public airing of grievances from Republicans and Democrats alike about their concerns with Colby and his office.

“It just seems like there’s this pig-pen like mess coming out of the policy shop that you don’t see from [other departments of the Pentagon]. Why do you think it is that there’s so many controversies emanating out of the policy shop and not these other offices in the department?” Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) asked Austin Dahmer, the nominee to be assistant secretary of defense for strategy, plans and capabilities — a top position in Colby’s department — who is currently serving in an acting capacity as one of Colby’s chief deputies.

Cotton also serves as the chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee.

“I’ve noticed an unsettling trend this year at times, that Pentagon officials have pursued policies that are not in accord with President Trump’s orders, or seem uncoordinated within the administration,” Sen. Roger Wicker (R-MS), the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, said, adding that the members of the committee have found out about such moves from press reports rather than the Defense Department.

“There are strong foreign policy debates in my political party. We do not have consensus on every issue and I welcome healthy discussion on America’s role in the world. I think the president does too,” Wicker continued. “Amid these debates, I think everyone would expect the president’s national security strategy staff to follow his lead and implement his vision.”

He added that committee members “have struggled to receive information from the policy office and have not been able to consult in a meaningful way with [the policy office] either on the national defense strategy or the global posture review. … The situation needs to improve if we are to craft the best defense policy.”

A  frustrated Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-AK) described Colby as “the hardest guy to get a hold of in the Trump administration.”

“He came to this committee and said, ‘Hey, I’m going to work with the Congress.’ He hasn’t, on big issues,” Sullivan continued. “I can’t even get a response and we’re on your team.”

Sullivan and other lawmakers expressed particular frustration with the lack of consultation from the administration on the forthcoming national defense strategy and global posture review, which news reports indicate will prioritize the Western hemisphere and domestic missions at the expense of other threats and theaters including China.

Dahmer, a former staffer for Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO), pleaded ignorance about the controversial moves and lack of communication or claimed that such moves had not happened and that public reporting about them was false.

Regarding the recent drawdown of troops from Romania, Dahmer claimed that lawmakers had been briefed three times prior to the move — but Wicker said that neither the majority nor minority staff had been notified ahead of time about the plans.

“I think all of us would like to have more information on how the decision was made” and communicated to Romania, Sen. Rick Scott (R-FL) said, adding that he had more questions for Dahmer about “what the policy office has been doing as compared to the president’s and secretary’s directives and stated policy objectives” and “confusion between what the president and secretary called for versus what the policy office has been doing, from weapons sales and deliveries to troop draw-downs.”

Sen. Jack Reed (D-RI), the committee’s ranking member, said that Dahmer had “cloaked your testimony in a veil of ignorance, when in fact you were basically the stand in and the surrogate for [Under] Secretary Colby. … You’re clearly avoiding answers to questions that you should have been acutely aware of in your position.”

“I think you’ve essentially indicated to us that you won’t cooperate with us,” Reed continued.

Wicker also criticized the administration for providing notification to Congress on Sunday — days before the confirmation hearing — that it had renamed and changed the duties of the position for which Dahmer is nominated. Reed said that those changes were apparently made a month ago, without notifying Congress.

Alex Velez-Green, another former Hawley staffer nominated for a top Pentagon post under Colby, is scheduled to appear for his own confirmation hearing later this week.

Before making public denunciations and rejections of AIPAC an early pillar of his Senate campaign against Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA), Rep. Seth Moulton (D-MA) spent months seeking a promise that the group would endorse him upon the announcement of his Senate campaign, a source familiar with the situation told Jewish Insider.

The source said that Moulton — who has been endorsed by AIPAC in previous races — began courting AIPAC leaders in Massachusetts in the spring this year and then made multiple explicit requests for an endorsement throughout the summer.

AIPAC leaders were ultimately unwilling to provide such a guarantee before the race began, the individual said.

On the second day of his nascent primary campaign, Moulton released an announcement rejecting AIPAC and saying that he would return any donations he had received from its members.

He has continued to hammer the group since then, saying in a recent interview that his break with AIPAC was “a long time coming.”

“AIPAC has made clear to all in Congress that it intends to use its significant resources to influence U.S. elections, and Seth believes that’s all the more reason to engage and push for change from within,” the Moulton campaign said in a statement. “He’s never been afraid to disagree with AIPAC, both privately and in public, but he’s been increasingly and particularly focused on getting them to distance themselves from the Netanyahu government. When it became clear that they would not do so, Seth made the decision to return their contributions.”

The campaign did not deny JI’s reporting that Moulton had made repeated requests for a guarantee of an AIPAC endorsement before announcing his Senate run.

Asked for comment on the situation, AIPAC spokesperson Marshall Wittmann referred JI to the group’s original statement on Moulton’s break with AIPAC. That statement highlighted his past relationship with and requests for an endorsement from the group — though it did not explicitly mention outreach in connection with the Senate campaign.

“Rep. Moulton is abandoning his friends to grab a headline, capitulating to the extremes rather than standing on conviction,” Wittmann’s original statement reads. “His statement comes after years of him repeatedly asking for our endorsement and is a clear message to AIPAC members in Massachusetts, and millions of pro-Israel Democrats nationwide, that he rejects their support and will not stand with them.”

The revelation of Moulton’s recent and unsuccessful efforts to secure a guarantee of AIPAC’s support may cast his rejection of the group in a new light.

Many strategists involved in Massachusetts politics said Moulton’s move is an odd strategic choice for a lawmaker known more as a moderate — especially when running against Markey, who holds a strong progressive record and has a deep well of support among progressive voters.

Moulton’s strategy is “all a little head scratching,” a state Democratic official told JI. In some ways, the official said, Moulton’s campaign mirrors his successful line of attack — focused on a generational and anti-establishment argument — against then-Rep. John Tierney (D-MA) in 2014, whom he unseated.

But, the official continued, “on the face of it, it doesn’t make a whole lot of sense as a political strategy” for Moulton to try to out-flank Markey from the left. “Maybe he sees something other people [don’t], but it’s an odd thing to make as your signature opening move.”

Moulton, the official continued, would probably be more successful once again focusing on a generational argument and “frankly staying far away from issues like Israel,” which is not likely to be a particularly salient issue in the race.

Anthony Cignoli, a longtime Massachusetts political consultant, said that “it’s clear Moulton is looking for the base of voters that he would need in a primary” — a voting population that’s generally to the left of Moulton’s own track record.

“But here you’ve got the long-standing champ of a lot of these issues, Ed Markey, and Moulton is really trying to find a way to muscle in here,” Cignoli said. “These are not issues he has a track record on.”

In the primary, Cignoli said Moulton needs to “reinvent and reintroduce himself” as a more progressive figure. “It’s hard to change in mid-course from his congressional track record … [and] that’s going to take an awful lot of money.”

He said that he thinks many voters, particularly in the Jewish community, will find Moulton’s sudden U-turn on AIPAC to be disingenuous. And he said that Markey is well-known and highly popular among key Democratic primary constituencies, particularly among the progressives who make up the base of the primary electorate. 

One leader in the Boston Jewish community told JI that Moulton’s rejection of AIPAC has been largely overlooked outside of a highly engaged constituency of Jewish voters.

But, the leader agreed, Moulton’s strategy does not seem to make much sense. In a head-to-head race, they said, Markey will clearly own the left flank of the electorate. Moulton has “actively and aggressively” sought AIPAC’s endorsement in past races, the leader continued, and it’s not likely that many anti-Israel voters will see his recent turn as authentic.

Moulton’s strong rejection of AIPAC could lead Jewish pro-Israel voters in Massachusetts to give a second look to Markey, local observers say.

Particularly in recent years, Markey has been one of the most vocal and consistent critics of Israel in the Senate. He voted in favor of every resolution to block arms transfers to Israel that has come before the chamber in the past year and faced boos for a call for de-escalation between Israel and Hamas at a Jewish communal gathering immediately after the Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas attacks. 

He was also a frequent critic of Israeli policy prior to the war in Gaza.

But despite his record, Markey has a long-running relationship with the state’s Jewish community and has been popular among Jewish Democratic voters during his long career.

“He does have a multi-decade well of support and goodwill. That’s been challenged in recent years … but he’s got a deep well of relationships to call upon and credibility from the past,” the Democratic official said. “That could potentially open an opportunity for new conversations.”

Moulton’s anti-AIPAC blitz is “almost pushing that community into Markey’s arms,” the official continued.

Cignoli said that while Markey may face some challenges in the Jewish community, Moulton appears to be effectively surrendering that territory.

It remains unknown whether other candidates, such as Squad member Rep. Ayanna Pressley (D-MA), will join the race. A Pressley candidacy in particular could prompt Jewish voters to unite around an alternative to block her ascension.

How strong supporters of Israel end up voting remains an open question, the Boston Jewish leader said — highly dependent on the ultimate shape of the race.

The Democratic official said that whether Pressley enters the race is currently one of the most-watched dynamics in Massachusetts politics — “the person that everybody is waiting for is Ayanna” — and that she is believed to be considering a campaign, though time could be running short.

“If Ayanna is in, that definitely changes the calculus for the [pro-]Israel community. Maybe people would rather have Markey at that point,” the official said.

Cignoli was somewhat skeptical that any others would enter the race, given that they’d likely split the anti-incumbent vote with Moulton, potentially to Markey’s benefit, and might struggle to qualify for the ballot.

“Pressley against the incumbent is one thing, but Pressley with another challenger out there who’s aggressive in his election style, campaign style, it makes it more difficult,” Cignoli said. “She would be a more significant candidate [against Markey] but with Moulton in, not as much.”

Pressley, he added, might have a stronger chance of winning a Senate seat if she waits until one of the incumbents retires. She could retain her safe House seat until then, or potentially find herself in line for a House Democratic leadership position, gain a spot in a future Democratic administration or run for another office.

Another potential challenge for Moulton could be locking down the necessary 15% support at the state’s Democratic convention — from local Democratic activists and officials, who are well to the left of the average Democratic voter and not Moulton’s natural constituency — to appear on the ballot next year.

Markey already has sufficient support and Pressley would likely be able to rally it, but “I don’t see where Seth gets his 15% from,” the official said.

Cignoli also said he’s unclear on how Moulton plans to meet that 15% threshold.

Jewish Insider’s Congressional correspondent Emily Jacobs contributed reporting.

President Donald Trump defended Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s decision to order what the prime minister called “forceful” strikes on Hamas targets in Gaza on Tuesday in response to ceasefire violations by the terror group, dismissing concerns that the actions could upend the deal.

“They killed an Israeli soldier, so the Israelis hit back and they should hit back. When that happens, they should hit,” Trump told reporters aboard Air Force One on Tuesday evening. “Hamas is a small thing, but they kill people. They grew up killing people, and I guess they don’t stop. Nobody knows what happened to the Israeli soldier, but they say it was sniper-fire and it was retribution for that. I think they have a right to do that.”

“Nothing’s going to jeopardize that [the ceasefire],” he continued. “Hamas is a very small part of peace in the Middle East, and they have to behave. They’re on the rough side, but they said they would be good, and if they’re good, they’re going to be happy. If they’re not good, they’re going to be terminated. Their lives will be terminated, and they understand that.” 

The Associated Press reported at least 80 killed in the strikes, including dozens of children. The Israeli army said it had hit dozens of terror targets and struck over 30 terrorists holding command positions within terrorist organizations operating in Gaza.

Initial reaction to Netanyahu’s decision to strike in Gaza fell largely along party lines, with Israel’s Republican allies in the Senate defending the Jewish state’s actions as self-defense while Democrats expressed concerns that the ceasefire in Gaza could be in jeopardy. 

“You’re going to see a lot of this,” Sen. John Kennedy (R-LA) told Jewish Insider of the renewed skirmishes in Gaza. “I mean, the Hamas soldiers are not terribly civilized, and the fact that there’s a ceasefire is of no moment to many of them. You’re periodically going to see them continue to shoot at the Israeli soldiers, and when they do, the Israeli soldiers are going to shoot back and kill them.”

“Eventually the really stupid Hamas members will stop doing it, because they’ll be dead,” the Louisiana senator continued. “But this is gonna happen. I mean, you’re not talking about sane people.”

Sen. Pete Ricketts (R-NE) suggested “we ought to expect” the Israelis to still conduct operations in Gaza given Hamas’ actions targeting IDF troops and Palestinian civilians since the ceasefire went into effect. 

“Hamas is a terrorist organization. They are going to continue to commit acts of violence, and Israel is going to need to respond,” Ricketts told JI. “That’s why it’s imperative that the Gulf states work together to get an international police force to be able to keep peace in Gaza while we go through this transition.”

Sen. James Lankford (R-OK) said he felt it was “entirely appropriate” that Israel struck Hamas targets in order to protect Israeli forces.

“Because Hamas is attacking the IDF, that is entirely appropriate for Israel to defend itself — today, yesterday, tomorrow. If Hamas is attacking them, violating, obviously, the ceasefire and attacking IDF soldiers, Israel has been very clear: If you shoot us, we’re going to actually stop you,” Lankford told JI. 

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), who offered his support for further Israeli confrontation with Hamas earlier this week, wrote on X on Tuesday afternoon that he was in “total support” of “the recent military action by Israel against Hamas.”

“Without Hamas being disarmed and removed from power permanently, there will be no pathway to stability and peace in the Middle East. Hamas is killing their opposition and consolidating their power,” Graham wrote. “If Israel believes it is necessary to reengage Hamas militarily, so be it. They have my complete backing.”

Sen. Rick Scott (R-FL) concurred with his GOP colleagues, telling JI, “If Hamas is going to strike Israel, they [Israel] don’t have a choice. They have to strike back. It’s too bad, but they don’t have a choice.”

Sen. Mike Rounds (R-SD) surmised that Israel launched the strikes because Hamas was not honoring their side of the ceasefire deal by refusing to disarm. 

“I think the reasoning for it was: Hamas is supposed to be planning on disarming, but I suspect that there’s probably some portions of Hamas that don’t want to disarm, and they’re probably regrouping,” Rounds told JI. “If [Netanyahu] can take out some more of those terrorists, I think he probably decided he would do it now as opposed to later.”

“We want that ceasefire to be successful, but it means Hamas has got to give up their weapons,” he added.

Sen. Ted Budd (R-NC) wrote on X on Tuesday that, “Hamas is in direct violation of the ceasefire, including deceptively & cruelly obstructing the return of deceased hostages to their families. The @IDF’s actions are a result of Hamas’ repeated violations & their targeting of Israeli troops.”

The North Carolina senator declined to elaborate when asked by JI at the Capitol about the developments, noting that he wanted to hold off on commenting further until he had been fully briefed on the situation. 

Some Senate Democrats who have been critical of Israel’s actions in Gaza since Hamas’ Oct. 7, 2023, attacks on the Jewish state said they hoped the latest developments would not completely upend the ceasefire deal. 

“It is very troubling,” Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA) said of Netanyahu launching the strikes. “I give President Trump a lot of credit for really working hard to get him [Netanyahu] to accept the deal. He wouldn’t have accepted it before.”

Kaine questioned if Netanyahu was aiming to derail the ceasefire, and noted that such a development would upend current efforts by the U.S. to bring more Gulf states into the Abraham Accords. 

“My question is: Is he trying to undo the deal?” the Virginia senator asked of Netanyahu. “If he’s trying to undo the deal, then he’s got another problem, which is [that] they [the U.S.] want more nations in the Abraham Accords, and those nations have said we’re not coming in unless there is a path forward to Palestinian autonomy.”

Sen. Mark Kelly (D-AZ) told JI that he was waiting to be briefed before speaking publicly, but said it would be “unfortunate if we wound up in a situation where this unravels.”

Middle East experts with whom JI spoke described Israel’s strikes against Hamas as necessary for its security, and dismissed concerns that Israel was acting without U.S. involvement or trying to disrupt the deal, while others expressed concern regarding Washington’s ability to constrain the Israelis. 

“Israel has shown considerable patience and restraint in the face of multiple Hamas violations of its ceasefire obligations, but attacks on its personnel are something no government can accept,” Rob Satloff, executive director of The Washington Institute for Near East Policy, told JI. “Hamas’ violations are real and serious, deserving of an appropriate response.”

Mona Yacoubian, director and senior advisor of the Middle East Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, remained skeptical over Israel’s decision to strike. She said the operation could reflect a developing pattern where Israel takes military action with or without U.S. cooperation, and argued that Washington should be willing to adjust accordingly to “enforce” and monitor the ceasefire arrangement.

“Although we are still very much in the ‘fog of war,’ it does not appear that the United States approved the strike or necessarily even agrees with Israel’s interpretations that Hamas violated the ceasefire,” Yacoubian told JI. “We are likely seeing the beginnings of a ‘new normal’ where Israel strikes as it sees necessary. The key question is whether or not the United States will acquiesce to that.”

Gaith al-Omari, a senior fellow at The Washington Institute, predicted that the breakout of strikes was an isolated episode that would be “contained.” 

“The current escalation is concerning but not surprising. Ceasefires take a while to solidify and stabilize, whether because of accidents or because the sides testing the limits of the ceasefire,” al-Omari said. “The challenge facing the U.S. now is how to balance supporting Israel’s right to respond to Hamas’ violations while at the same time ensuring that this round of escalation does not spin out of control.”

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. 

Rep. Jake Auchincloss (D-MA) became the first elected Democrat to call on scandal-plagued Democrat Graham Platner to drop out of the race for Senate in Maine amid controversy over a tattoo on his chest with Nazi origins and other controversies.

Jewish Insider earlier reported that Platner had on at least one occasion identified the tattoo on his chest as a Nazi SS symbol, known as a “Totenkopf,” to a former acquaintance and had been fully aware of the tattoo and its meaning well before jumping into the race to replace Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME), even bragging about having it. 

Auchincloss urged Platner to abandon his Senate bid on Sunday, telling Politico that he finds the progressive candidate’s conduct “personally disqualifying.” 

Platner has dismissed wrongdoing and claimed he had no idea the tattoo symbol was a Nazi insignia when he got it with fellow Marines while in Croatia in 2007. 

“I am not a secret Nazi. Actually if you read through my Reddit comments, I think you can pretty much figure out where I stand on Nazism and antisemitism,” Platner said on the “Pod Save America” podcast last week.

Auchincloss expressed dissatisfaction with Platner’s defenses, in which the progressive candidate has said his actions aren’t a “liability.”

“I think it’s a liability, and I think we should have high standards for United States senators and one of them is: you don’t have a Nazi tattoo on your body,” Auchincloss told WCVB Channel 5 Boston on Sunday. 

“I hope that Maine voters would agree with me,” Auchincloss said to Politico. “Democrats would be united in condemning a Republican candidate who has this episode, and we should be consistent.”

Platner is running against Gov. Janet Mills in the Democratic primary. The winner will face Collins in what is expected to be a hotly-contested race.

Some progressive members of Congress, led by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), have defended Platner amid his numerous scandals. 

“He sounds like a human being to me,” Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT) said of Platner’s tattoo in a CNN interview on Sunday. “A human being who made mistakes, recognizes them, and is very open about it.”

Graham Platner, the scandal-plagued Democrat running for Senate in Maine, continued to insist he only recently became aware that a black skull tattoo on his chest resembles a Nazi SS symbol, even amid mounting evidence suggesting he was aware of what the image represented long before he announced his campaign this summer.

A new investigation published on Friday by CNN confirmed Jewish Insider’s earlier reporting that Platner had on at least one occasion identified the tattoo as a Nazi SS symbol, known as a Totenkopf, to a former acquaintance more than a decade ago.

The former acquaintance spoke with CNN, which also interviewed a second person who said that the acquaintance had mentioned Platner’s tattoo years ago. In addition, CNN reviewed a more recent text exchange from several months ago in which the acquaintance discussed the tattoo, before Platner himself revealed he had the tattoo in an interview last week, in an effort to preempt what he described as opposition research seeking to damage his insurgent Senate campaign.

Both JI and CNN also cited deleted Reddit posts in which Platner, a 41-year-old Marine veteran and an oyster farmer, defended the use of Nazi tattoos, including SS lighting bolts, among servicemembers. In one thread, a user had mentioned the Totenkopf, further indicating that Platner had been aware of its symbolism before he entered the race in August to unseat Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME).

While Platner has apologized for some recently unearthed Reddit posts in which he had described himself as a “communist,” called all cops “bastards” and downplayed sexual assault in the U.S. military, he has otherwise dismissed JI’s reporting about the tattoo, which he said he had gotten with a group of “very inebriated” Marines while they were on shore leave in Croatia in 2007. 

Platner said the group had no idea it was a Nazi insignia and chose it simply because “skulls and crossbones are a pretty standard military thing,” as he put it in an interview with the “Pod Save America” podcast.

He has also dismissed claims by a former political director — who recently resigned from his campaign over objections to his past posts — who said last week that Platner had an “antisemitic tattoo on his chest” that he acknowledged “could be problematic” at the beginning of his campaign.

Platner said on Wednesday he had covered up the tattoo with a dog-themed Celtic knot, displayed in a video he posted to social media soon after JI published its story.

“The amount of money and time it takes to dig through somebody’s entire past who has not lived a very public life is extensive, and yet they are willing to expend those resources,” Platner told a crowd of supporters during an event in Ogunquit, Maine, last week. “They are not trying to organize people. They are trying to destroy my life,” he said, alluding to his perceived political enemies.

Progressives also continued to rally behind Platner, who is facing Gov. Janet Mills and other candidates in the Democratic primary next year — a prelude to what party leadership views as a key race to regain a majority in the Senate.

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), who is backing Platner and campaigned with him in Maine last month, was among top progressives who stood by the embattled Democrat hoping to withstand the ongoing scrutiny over his tattoo and now-deleted Reddit comments.

And not one Democratic senator has yet to say that Platner’s tattoo or his other controversies disqualify him from running, according to a recent NBC News report.

“He sounds like a human being to me,” Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT) said of Platner’s tattoo in a CNN interview on Sunday. “A human being who made mistakes, recognizes them, and is very open about it.”

Some polling has shown that Mills, a two-term governor who landed an endorsement from Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), is trailing Platner by double digits — even among respondents surveyed amid the controversy over his past Reddit remarks.

A more recent survey released Saturday, however, showed Platner behind Mills by five points with 36%. But while his deficit broadly increased after voters were informed of his Nazi-linked tattoo, according to the poll conducted by SoCal Strategies, younger voters ages 18-29 still favored the former Marine.

Another recent poll, screenshots of which were shared with JI on Friday, included questions that had inaccurately described Platner’s tattoo as an “anti-Israel tattoo” and asking if such a tattoo “is disqualifying for a candidate seeking public office.”

It was unclear who had commissioned the poll. A spokesperson for Platner said he was not behind it. And the National Republican Senatorial Committee, which also released a poll late last week that showed Platner ahead of Mills, did not respond to a request for comment from JI on Friday.

Meanwhile, Jordan Wood, a former congressional aide also running in the Democratic primary, wrote last week that Platner’s “Reddit comments and Nazi SS Totenkopf tattoo are disqualifying.”
And another Democratic candidate in the primary, Daira Smith-Rodriguez, announced on Friday that she was ending her bid and endorsing Mills, citing her concerns over Platner’s past Reddit comments “as a survivor of military sexual assault.”