Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., has made it his mission to put Dr. Anthony Fauci in prison.

Last month, the chair of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee subpoenaed Fauci, the former director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases who led the nation’s response to the Covid pandemic, to answer still more questions related to the origins of the disease.

Related

Rand Paul’s Attack on Anthony Fauci Chills Scientific Debate Over Gain-of-Function Research

Paul insists the novel coronavirus was the result of the National Institutes of Health having funded gain-of-function research at China’s Wuhan Institute of Virology — essentially that the virus was created in a lab in China and unleashed on an unsuspecting public.

Fauci has maintained that while the mostly likely source of the Covid-19 virus was animal-to-human transmission but that we cannot know for certain. Paul thinks he deliberately misled the public about the coronavirus’s origins and called him to testify before the Homeland Security Committee based on supposed new evidence that comes from Fauci’s diaries.

Over 7 million people worldwide have died from Covid, with about 1.2 million of those deaths occurring in the U.S.

While the quick work to produce a vaccine undoubtedly saved many millions of lives, that level of loss is difficult to account for and has certainly taken an emotional and psychic toll on the world since. We, the public, deserve answers about what went wrong during that time and how our governments are preparing for similar outbreaks in the future such that they can prevent the loss of so much life.

That is not what Paul and his Fauci subpoena are focused on. Instead, Paul sunk his libertarian teeth into a xenophobic conspiracy theory that reinforces his ideological priors: too many government agencies that spend too many public dollars.

It’s the same reason Paul avoids the real, persistent public health crisis underlying huge spike in deaths in the U.S. from Covid — and a host of other diseases: the lack of universal healthcare.

Did the virus come from a lab in Wuhan? I certainly don’t trust Paul’s ideologically infused takes, but I’ll leave it for others to decide.

To focus on it at the exclusion of all other public health policy, though, is clearly a mistake. It’s learning the wrong lesson from the Covid pandemic.

The United States remains the only “developed” country without universal healthcare coverage.

The insurance companies and for-profit medical system insist that this is the best system to provide people with the best healthcare, but during early days of the Covid pandemic, its limitations came into stark relief. The pandemic put so much stress on our system that resulted in shortages in staff, and a decreased quality of care for those infected with virus, and all others who needed care.

Underlying medical issues exasperated Covid deaths. These are exactly the types of chronic illnesses that people suffer from because of a lack of preventative care or a failure to get treatment because of prohibitive costs — respiratory diseases, heart conditions, blood pressure issues.

Related

Network of Right-Wing Health Care Providers Is Making Millions Off Hydroxychloroquine and Ivermectin, Hacked Data Reveals

It’s notable that some of the greatest successes of Covid policy arose not from private health insurers acting on their mandates for profit, but rather by mandates and funding from local, state, and federal government. Acts of Congress forced healthcare insurers and providers into covering certain services. When testing became a feasible method of helping to prevent the spread of Covid, federal funding made it far more widely available — even for the uninsured, with the government providing reimbursement for healthcare providers who tested those without coverage.

This is to say nothing of a federal program to speed along a Covid vaccine and rush its distribution — the key to creating enough immunity to weaken the virus and lower death rates. For those who got Covid, antiviral medication, which could drastically reduce symptoms and prevent hospitalizations and even death, was available for free thanks to federal funding. In the first two years of the pandemic, around 6 million people took the drug without paying a thing.

In 2020, the American Public Health Association released a policy statement that began: “The COVID pandemic adds a new sense of urgency to establish a universal health care system in the United States. Our current system is inequitable, does not adequately cover vulnerable groups, is cost prohibitive, and lacks the flexibility to respond to periods of economic and health downturns.”

This remains true, as the Trump administration and the Republican-led Congress continue their assault of existing forms of federal healthcare spending.

While Paul is focused on trying to place Fauci in prison for not confirming a conspiracy theory, more people are being crushed by the weight of medical debt due to our inadequate system, more people aren’t getting the care they need because of the costs, and more people are dying.

Related

CDC Didn’t Tell New York About Resident on Hantavirus-Plagued Cruise

The fight for universal healthcare coverage remains a vital one, as the uncertainty of when we could face another pandemic looms over us all. The longer the delay, the more unprepared we become for what’s next.

Whatever Fauci said from his perch at the National Institutes of Health about the virus’s origins, the fact of the matter remains that the government’s interventions during the Covid pandemic were overwhelmingly lifesaving. Its biggest failure — then as now — was the inability to provide healthcare coverage for all Americans.

There should be accountability for whatever role the government played in the Covid pandemic, but let’s be clear that deaths spiked in large part because of the failures of our healthcare system to cover all Americans, not because of what Fauci said in his diaries.

The post Fauci’s Diary Isn’t the Key to Why Covid Ravaged the U.S. — Our Broken Healthcare System Is appeared first on The Intercept.

The Me, Me, Me Presidency

There’s no I in war. But there is in Iran. And in Iraq, too. Both these wars were about ME — that is, the Middle East. It’s a region rife with supposed American security interests, but this wordplay points to another very all-too-real dynamic: These wars are as much about the “I” and “ME” of the White House as they are about the countries we attack. Or to put it another way: It’s the presidential psyche, stupid.

Way back in 2002, then-President George W. Bush warned that Iraq, Iran, and outlier North Korea comprised a grave threat. “States like these, and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world,” he warned. “By seeking weapons of mass destruction, these regimes pose a grave and growing danger.” North Korea built a nuclear arsenal, and with it, purchased a guarantee of security. The other two countries produced no nukes, and the story has been radically different.

Related

Fool Me Twice: The Case for War With Iran Is Even Thinner Than It Was for Iraq

The U.S. invaded Iraq in March 2003. Two months later, the war was won. Except it wasn’t. Despite President George W. Bush’s unforgettable May 1, 2003, “mission accomplished” moment when, from the deck of an aircraft carrier off the coast of San Diego, he declared “major combat operations in Iraq … ended,” the American war there somehow never actually stopped. An insurgency was raging, U.S. bases were being mortared, and American officials feared a civil war between the country’s formerly reigning Sunni minority and its rising Shiite majority was brewing. It became a forever war that lived up to the moniker. Last week, almost a quarter century since Bush made the case for war in Iraq, a U.S. soldier was killed in an Iranian attack on an American base there.

President Donald Trump was elected on a promise to say goodbye to all that. American-style wars of choice were going to be a thing of the past: “I will not send you to fight and die in stupid foreign wars that never end.” And yet Trump’s America is now deeply involved in a seemingly ever-escalating and never-ending conflict with — yes! — Iraq’s neighbor, Iran.

No one, I suspect, not even Trump, has the faintest idea why he did this, though maybe he felt left out of the club of forever-war makers, co-chaired by Russian President Vladimir Putin and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Maybe he just sensed that he had to give this country a shot at being globally competitive when it came to making endless (and endlessly unsuccessful) war, if the U.S. was to remain the superpower on this planet.

Not everyone thinks, however, that you need to fight ruinous wars to be a superpower. There’s China, which is the quietest rising power in recent history because — except for a few border flare-ups with India early in this decade, and saber-rattling when it comes to Taiwan, the island nation off the coast of the mainland — it hasn’t been at war since 1979.

Related

When Anti-War Candidates Become War-Monger Presidents

In lieu of pursuing fruitless conflicts around the world, it’s been silently leading the global production of green energy technology. China’s exports of green tech shot up by more than a third in the first six months of the year. This included a reported rise in shipments of lithium batteries and wind turbines by 38 percent and 36 percent, respectively. “In the first half of this year, the situation in the Middle East was tense and global supply of chemical products was tight,” Wang Jun, deputy director of China’s General Administration of Customs said at a recent press briefing. “China, with its complete industrial system and full-chain supporting capabilities, quickly seized the sudden external demands.”

And this Chinese green technology boom was in full swing even before Iran’s Houthi allies in Yemen declared a maritime embargo against Saudi Arabia and began attacking the kingdom’s oil ships in the Bab el-Mandeb Strait, briefly driving the price of oil back above $100 per barrel, about 40 percent higher than before the conflict began.

As his war with Iran has gone off the rails, Trump has begun redefining the conflict from a war to “a little excursion,” which just kept going on and on, leading him in March to sum things up this way: “We’ve already won in many ways, but we haven’t won enough. We go forward more determined than ever to achieve ultimate victory that will end this long running danger once and for all.”

You’ll recall that Trump also said on March 2 that the war was set to last “four to five weeks.” And three days later, that the U.S. and Israel continued “to totally demolish the enemy far ahead of schedule.” By March 9, Trump said that the conflict was “very complete, pretty much.” And two days later, the president declared victory. “Let me tell you, we’ve won. You know, you never like to say too early you won,” Trump announced at a rally in Kentucky. “We won.”

Like Bush’s “mission accomplished” moment, Trump’s was also decidedly short-lived. On March 15, the president said Iran still had “a little bit of fight back, but not much.” In a Truth Social post five days later, he wrote: “We are getting very close to meeting our objectives as we consider winding down” the war. On April 1, Trump announced the U.S. was “on track to complete all of America’s military objectives shortly” and on the 6th said the war “could end very quickly.” But it didn’t. “The war in Iran is going along swimmingly,” he declared on April 16. And in a May 1 letter to Congress, Trump said: “The hostilities that began on February 28, 2026, have terminated.” Except Iran never got the memo.

Related

Trump’s Formula for Forever Wars

As the war has simply gone on and on, Trump has continued to tweak his terminology and rebrand the conflict with Iran as “a skirmish.” (Tell that, of course, to all the dead Iranian children!) Here’s how he put it, in fact, on July 22: “I call it a skirmish. This is, with this skirmish we have with the Islamic Republic of Iran, and I call it that, because, let me tell you, they’re getting hit so hard and they want to make a deal. But I say they’re not ready to make a deal.” And if the Iran war doesn’t end in the coming weeks, Trump will undoubtedly have to tweak terminology further, perhaps relabeling his skirmish with Iran a tussle, a scuffle, or even a full-scale kerfuffle.

As Trump insists the war is a minor engagement, he continues to dish out immense amounts of pain on Iranians and threatens even worse. He seems increasingly eager to blast civilian infrastructure and smash Iran into submission. As he put it all too bluntly when it came to those civilian targets: “Any time the Islamic Republic of Iran shoots at a ship in the Strait of Hormuz, whether it be by missile, rocket, drone, or any other device or weapon, the United States will bomb and destroy one bridge or power plant.” And he’s also been threatening to launch “a massive attack. Bigger than ever before.”

His Secretary of War Pete Hegseth certainly understands the president, or why would he start insisting on checking the testosterone levels of American troops and begin referring to what, in the Trump years, had already gone from the Department of Defense to the Department of War as “the High-T Department of War”?

But while Hegseth is hoping to amp up the military’s potency, Americans want to bring the Iran war to a close. Only 29 percent of Americans approve of the way Trump is handling the Iran war, according to a recent Washington Post poll. Even a Fox News survey (yes, Fox News!) found disapproval ratings hit a record high in July, with 56 percent of Americans opposing U.S. military action against Iran, including 40 percent who “strongly” oppose it. Nearly two-thirds of respondents now think the conflict will last at least a year.

Even worse was a recent CBS News/YouGov poll that found 21 percent of Americans think the conflict will last multiple years! That same poll found that 67 percent of respondents say the U.S. should end the war with Iran now. Young people are the most fed up, with 83 percent urging the president to stop the war posthaste.

And even among his most fervent followers, support had already dropped by 13 percent over the previous two months, according to a Politico poll, while almost 1 of every 5 MAGA voters had come to believe that the U.S. should end its war in Iran, no matter the cost or results.

Of course, Trump doesn’t really care about young voters or Republican voters or even MAGA devotees. As he put it last week: “A poll just came out: Americans don’t want high gasoline prices, but they’re not against the war.” His war in the ME is wrapped up in his egocentric narcissism and his me, me, me world. The phrase “wars of choice” now means wars of Donald’s choice. But the Iranian government has a say in the matter and has made a choice to hold out amid renewed threats and attacks. And despite what Trump seems to think, the public in the U.S. can make choices, too. If Trump keeps on fighting in Iran, he may sooner or later also find himself in a distinct “skirmish” with the American people.

The post Donald Trump and Wars of Choice appeared first on The Intercept.

The military personnel, clad in a mix of combat fatigues and gym attire, piled into a bunker, huddling in the darkness. “Guys, off the walls if we can,” a woman, likely a medic, advised, warning about the danger of traumatic brain injuries.

The footage, reportedly from Jordan’s Muwaffaq Salti Air Base, where three U.S. troops were killed during Iranian ballistic missile and drone attacks on July 17 and 18, offers a glimpse of the dangers faced by U.S. forces across the Middle East.

The attacks are continued demonstrations of Iran’s ability to target U.S. bases across the Middle East and kill U.S. troops, despite months of claims by President Donald Trump and self-styled War Secretary Pete Hegseth that Iran’s military was annihilated. As this fiction has collapsed, U.S. Central Command has refused to discuss the number and scale of the strikes. “I have nothing for you on that,” Maj. Emma Thompson, the command’s media operations chief, told The Intercept.

Iran has attacked at least nine U.S. outposts across the Middle East since July 9, according to a U.S. official who spoke to The Intercept on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak with the press. Several of these bases suffered “significant” damage in the attacks, the source said.

Related

Hegseth Asks for More Money as Iran War Costs Skyrocket

Iran’s military managed to overwhelm U.S. air defense systems using a mix of attack drones and advanced ballistic missiles, according to the official. Numerous factors make the missiles difficult to defeat, the source said: They travel at hypersonic speeds, have complex navigational capabilities including methods to circumvent jamming, and some can be guided or steered.

Stocks of advanced air-defense missiles, like Patriot and THAAD interceptors, are so depleted that U.S. forces are not shooting down all Iranian missiles and drones aimed at U.S. and allied targets across the Middle East, the official said, referencing a Friday report by NBC News that revealed the tactic. The official told The Intercept that the U.S. allows missiles through its defenses only in cases where a strike is judged not to imperil U.S. lives.

The U.S. and its allies burned through more than 11,000 munitions, including large amounts of defensive missiles, in the first 16 days of the war alone, according to a March analysis by the Royal United Services Institute. The report predicted then that U.S. forces were about a month away from running out of THAAD interceptors. An April report by the Center for Strategic and International Studies noted that “diminished munitions stockpiles have created a near-term risk.” A follow-up report the next month warned that it would “take three or more years from today to return to prewar inventory levels” of Patriot and THAAD missiles.

Brig. Gen. Hossein Mohebbi, an Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps spokesperson, said that “Patriot systems have been weakened to such an extent that Iranian missiles and drones are reaching their targets without being intercepted.” He said that during a flurry of attacks from July 8 to July 22, Iran struck numerous air defense and radar installations, including six “Patriot air-defense radars.”

CENTCOM did not reply to a request for comment on the claims by the U.S. official or Mohebbi.

The official confirmed that Iran also recently attacked Tower 22, a U.S. military outpost on the northern Jordanian border with Syria. Satellite images as well as photos and videos circulating online indicate the base suffered extensive damage. (In 2024, a drone attack on Tower 22 by an Iran-backed militia killed three U.S. troops.) 

Iran says it also attacked U.S. military facilities at Jordan’s Prince Hassan Air Base, King Faisal Air Base, and Al-Azraq Air Base; Kuwait’s Al-Adiri base, Ahmed Al-Jaber Air Base, Camp Doha, Ali Al Salem Air Base, and Camp Arifjan; Naval Support Activity Sheikh Isa in Bahrain; and Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar.

Thompson refused to confirm Iranian attacks on various U.S. bases across the Middle East. “We don’t comment on battle damage assessments,” she said.

Iran has fired between 8,000 and 9,000 drones and missiles at targets across the Middle East since the U.S.–Israeli war began in February, according to the official. Iran’s Islamic Revolution Guard Corps recently warned residents of countries that host American forces to keep at least 1,650 feet away from any buildings housing U.S. personnel. The group is also fielding crowdsourced information on “new locations of the American occupying forces” from people in these countries.

The IRGC specifically mentioned “covert and secret” facilities in a statement posted on their website. CIA sites in Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and elsewhere in the region were reportedly struck, possibly with Russian assistance, according to Reuters. A former Pentagon consultant with ties to the defense industry told The Intercept that Russia has certainly provided “targeting support” to Iran during the conflict but did not comment directly on attacks on CIA facilities.

Despite Trump’s insistence that Russia and China are “not participating” in the Iran war, Hegseth recently said both are “enabling some of the things Iran is doing.” In March, CIA Director John Ratcliffe told senators that the “Iranians are requesting intelligence assistance from Russia, from China and from other adversaries of the United States,” but said he would only talk about what they might have provided in a classified setting.

The lethal strike on Muwaffaq Salti Air Base in Jordan killed Pvt. Isabella Gonzales, 19, of Carrollton, Texas; Lt. Tyler James Feehan, 25, of Ewa Beach, Hawaii; and Sgt. Angel S. Rampersad, 28, of Ozone Park, New York. All three soldiers were from air defense units. They were “not actively engaged in anti-aircraft activity” during the attacks, according to a different “defense official” who spoke on background because they were not authorized to disclose the information.

An Iranian drone attack on Erbil Air Base, Iraq, on July 18 led to the death of Army Sgt. Michael Emmanuel Swinton, 30, of Fayetteville, North Carolina, and left another soldier injured during what CENTCOM called a “controlled detonation” of the downed aircraft.

In April, Hegseth told the Senate Armed Services Committee that “CENTCOM had every possible measure they could to ensure that our troops are protected.” The U.S. official would not address possible failures of force protection measures that led to the most recent deaths, due to operational security. But the official said that Hegseth’s claims “obviously were not true.” They noted that it was no secret that earlier casualties were caused by a lack of sufficient overhead protection, referencing a March 1 drone attack on the U.S. base at Port Shuaiba, Kuwait, that killed six troops.

Related

“Cover-Up” Unravels as Pentagon Admits Nearly 100 Injured in Iran Strikes

Hundreds of U.S. personnel have been killed or wounded in the war. Months of reporting by The Intercept found the Pentagon’s official casualty tally is a gross undercount, which another U.S. government official called a “casualty cover-up.”

Israel, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Iraq, and Qatar said they intercepted attack drones on Monday, two days after the United States abruptly suspended a two-week campaign of airstrikes against Iran amid concern over the dwindling stocks of air defense missiles and a reported dearth of Iranian targets. Trump insisted on Tuesday that there had been some “very good talks” with Iran but failed to offer evidence when confronted with Iranian denials.

Saudi Arabia said on Monday that the drone attacks it suffered were “carried out by Iran-backed militias operating in Iraq.” On Tuesday, Jordanian authorities said they downed a drone in the east of the country, near its border with Iraq and Saudi Arabia.

The post Iran Has Figured Out How to Overwhelm U.S. Air Defenses appeared first on The Intercept.

On Saturday night, a man drove a van into a crowd near Berlin’s Pride Festival, before getting out and stabbing several people, leaving one woman dead and dozens injured.

The suspect, identified as 21-year-old Abdul Ballout, a German national and reported supporter of the Islamic State group, was shot dead by police on Sunday following a daylong manhunt.

“We do not want this deed to be used for political ends,” said the organizers of the festival, also known as Christopher Street Day, in a statement on Sunday before the attacker had even been located. “We don’t want any groups to be placed under suspicion for this. People are trying to divide our society and set some people against others. We will not allow this.”

Amid the shock and grief, the organizers saw the immediate need to stop malign political forces using the horrific attack and the queer community’s suffering to fuel Germany’s already fervent anti-Muslim, anti-Arab, and anti-immigrant sentiment.

They had reason for concern. The far-right Alternative for Germany Party, or AfD — which decries trans people as a “cult,” opposes marriage equality and gay adoption, defines a family as only “father, mother and children,” and condemns so-called “gender ideology” — had moved to weaponize the attack within hours.

“The AfD has been warning for years: Islamism is and remains the greatest security threat to our country,” said AfD member of parliament Martin Hess in a statement. He remarked that “we also urgently need a genuine shift in migration policy” — despite the fact that Saturday’s suspect was born and raised in Germany.

The AfD, which is currently the most popular German party according to recent polls, boasts numerous state-level branches classified as extremist organizations by Germany’s intelligence agencies.

Alliance for Bigotry

The party is using a familiar playbook. In 2016, the day after the deadly Pulse nightclub shooting in Orlando, Florida, then-presidential candidate Donald Trump called for a total ban on immigration from Muslim countries. His two presidencies have since been dedicated to destroying both trans lives and Muslim lives with vigor.

Trump has sought to leverage attacks abroad, including in Germany, to galvanize his anti-Muslim base. The president was quick to condemn the 2016 massacre at a Berlin Christmas market to double down, once again, on his Muslim ban plan.

Related

Germany Turns to U.S. Playbook: Deportations Target Gaza War Protesters

So far, Trump hasn’t said anything about the Berlin Pride attack — perhaps his demonization of Muslims has been so thorough that he no longer needs to feign concern about queer lives to gin up Islamophobia — but the alliances that inform these bigotries nonetheless remain a powerful political force.

Trump and his allies have long boosted the very German politics that is cynically leveraging the Berlin attack for political gains.

Last year, anti-trans zealot Elon Musk threw his support and his social media platform behind the far-right party.

“Only the AfD can save Germany,” he wrote on X.

The Right’s Own Attacks

Day in and day out, meanwhile, it is the likes of the AfD and other conservative German parties, and the Republicans at home, who are assaulting the LGBTQ+ rights.

A spike in anti-LGBTQ+ hate crimes in Germany in recent years has been directly linked to a rise in far-right extremism, including more than two dozen attacks at Pride events.

The attacks themselves, however, are only part of the story.

“Politicians are now shamelessly exploiting the suffering of the queer community for their own agenda, while cutting funding for queer organizations, aid projects, and cultural initiatives,” wrote Mohamed Amjahid, a columnist for German newspaper, Taz.

It’s true. Germany’s Chancellor Friedrich Merz’s Christian Democratic Party, in its role in the coalition leading Berlin’s municipal government, has cut funding for queer community programs in the city and banned drag story hour readings in public libraries.

Of the perpetrators of Saturday’s brutality, Merz said: “They want to take away the most important things we have: our openness, our freedom.”

This purported shared “openness” and “freedom” had not been on display when Merz opposed plans to fly a rainbow flag atop the Reichstag Building to honor Pride last year.

“The Bundestag is not a circus tent,” the conservative chancellor said.

Just hours before Ballout rammed a truck into Pride attendees, Berlin riot police had focused their energies on making arrests and aggressing attendees at the explicitly anti-colonial, anti-capitalist Internationalist Queer Pride march elsewhere in Berlin.

Part-Time Solidarity

As Berlin-based journalist James Jackson noted, Merz’s statement on the attack, along with statements by three other senior conservative politicians, wholly failed to explicitly mention gay or queer people.

The statements defended “tolerance” and “freedom,” but when queer and trans people are attacked and killed, it is not “freedom” that is threatened in the abstract, it is specific forms of life — the very ways of being in the world that have been under assault by far-right politics and centrist complicity, across Europe and the United States.

On Sunday, thousands gathered for a vigil in front of the Brandenburg Gate, which was lit up in rainbow colors by night.

“Last year they refused to let us fly the rainbow flag in front of the Bundestag, because it’s not a circus tent, after all,” said one vigil speaker who identified as Muslim and gay. “Today the flags are flying at half-mast. But solidarity shouldn’t be a knee-jerk reaction after a tragedy.”

It’s a lesson that self-identifying allies in the U.S., above all Democrats who continue to fail trans people, would do well to learn, too.

The post The Right Seeks to Capitalize on Berlin Pride Attack — Even as It Poses Its Own Existential Threat to Queer Lives appeared first on The Intercept.

The House Ways and Means Committee last week carried out an attack on journalism that hasn’t gotten the attention it deserves. The committee subpoenaed BreakThrough News, a left-wing outlet with deep ties to the Party for Socialism and Liberation that is highly critical of the United States and Israel, along with two other nonprofits with similar ideologies, The People’s Forum and Tricontinental: Institute for Social Research. 

The subpoena deserves the same scrutiny as those issued to New York Times reporters over their reporting on security issues with President Donald Trump’s Qatari jet, which, after significant pushback in the courts of law and public opinion, the government withdrew Thursday — the same day BreakThrough announced its receipt of the legal orders.

Mara Verheyden-Hilliard, an attorney for BreakThrough, called the committee “a modern day HUAC,” the McCarthy-era committee on so-called “un-American” activities. Communists aren’t the only ones who should be concerned. As Chip Gibbons, policy director at Defending Rights & Dissent, put it: “Attacks on independent, alternative, or radical media have troubling history. It is always the I.F. Stones or the WikiLeaks who are first on the firing line.”

The Ways and Means Committee is claiming its investigation is a tax-related probe into more than $39 million that flowed from Neville Roy Singham, a U.S. citizen and tech financier based in Shanghai, to the groups, which it claims advance Chinese Communist Party-aligned interests. But we’ve seen that playbook before: Around the globe, financial probes have been used as pretexts to stifle journalism and dissent, and there’s every indication that this is the latest example. 

BreakThrough News has been criticized for favorable coverage of China and other U.S. adversaries, which it indeed publishes. But favorable coverage of foreign adversaries — even in the form of propaganda — is protected by the Constitution. And BreakThrough’s leadership held those positions long before they had any alleged connection to Singham.

BreakThrough’s editor-in-chief, Ben Becker, had a common-sense observation: “The First Amendment was specifically written to protect journalism that the government does not approve of. Journalism approved by the government wouldn’t need protection,” he said. “That’s why so many of the country’s decisive free speech cases involved the abolitionist press, the radical labor press and the antiwar press. … But history looks back on these episodes for what they were — shameful violations of free speech — and that’s the same thing that’s happening here.”

Though the committee denies it is engaging in content-based retaliation in its most recent letter, past correspondence does little to refute Becker’s framing, citing no evidence of any kind of financial illegality and instead focusing on BreakThrough News’ critical coverage of ICE and Israel and criticizing its connections to the PSL, a lawfully organized domestic political party, which it says, “orchestrated the anti-Immigration and Customs Enforcement riots in Los Angeles resulting in violence and dozens of arrests last June.”

My Freedom of the Press Foundation colleague Adam Rose, who also serves as press rights chair of the Los Angeles Press Club, found that last part particularly infuriating (PSL and its leadership have not been charged with any offenses relating to violence in LA). The government, Rose said, has “failed to investigate the documented wholesale violence by federal agents against press and protesters” in LA. “Maybe instead of a foreign state, our elected representatives should be more concerned about our own state violence against innocent civilians in our local streets.” 

Related

Criticizing Israel? Nonprofit Media Could Lose Tax-Exempt Status Without Due Process

There’s another problem with the probe of BreakThrough. Putting aside the subpoenas’ flimsy evidentiary backing, House subpoenas must carry a legislative purpose. Why would the committee need a fishing expedition into the finances of a few leftist nonprofits to decide whether legislative reforms are necessary? The committee’s letter claims to have already spotted the gap in nonprofit tax law they contend Singham is exploiting, and it cites plenty of public reporting on his network, so it’s unclear what other information its members need that could conceivably justify congressional action as extreme as subpoenaing news outlets. If the best argument they can come up with for their contemplated legislation is that three obscure organizations were funded by an American citizen living abroad, maybe they should find other fish to fry. 

As Breakthrough’s chief correspondent Rania Khalek recently said, “I think this is really just about trying to bury us in legal proceedings until we’ve basically run out of money or stop reporting out of intimidation.

BreakThrough is far from the first victim of this censorial playbook. Rodrigo Duterte’s government in the Philippines, for example, filed a series of tax evasion cases against Rappler, the investigative outlet led by journalist Maria Ressa, due to its alleged acceptance of foreign investments (Ressa is a former board member of The Intercept). Advocates described the cases as part of a broader legal campaign designed to wear the outlet down. It took years and a change of administration before courts acquitted Ressa and Rappler. Authorities in Azerbaijan have also repeatedly brought pretextual financial charges including tax evasion against investigative journalism they sought to suppress.

There are also examples closer to home — not just from Red Scares decades ago, but in present-day Florida. A 2025 state law restricts nonprofits from accepting funds from broadly defined “foreign sources of concern” tied to countries like China, Russia, Cuba, and Iran, while a related “Honest Services Registry” asks charities to affirm they’re free of such foreign influence. A separate domestic terrorism law lets state officials designate organizations as terrorist groups — organizations like the Muslim civil rights group CAIR and the amorphous non-entity the government calls “antifa” have already received the designation.

Florida First Amendment Foundation executive director Bobby Block explained the agenda in an email: “Make people wonder whether joining an organization, donating to a cause, attending a protest or expressing an unpopular viewpoint could put them under a government microscope, and some will simply decide to remain silent. That’s the chilling effect the First Amendment is supposed to protect against.” 

Combined with the administration’s crackdown on purported domestic terror outlined by National Security Presidential Memorandum 7; Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s bizarre memorandum claiming a Cuban conspiracy to spread communism stateside; and the countless other suppression of dissent we’ve seen from Trump allies, all of them predictably targeting speakers whose politics differ from the president’s — it’s not hard to spot the endgame.

BreakThrough isn’t the only news outlet recently swept into this broader crackdown. Earlier this month, U.S. Customs and Border Protection agents detained Grayzone journalist Max Blumenthal and seized two smartphones after he returned from reporting in Iran. Like BreakThrough, Grayzone is highly critical of U.S. and Israeli foreign policy, and its detractors accuse it of being soft on U.S. adversaries. It’s the kind of outlet governments know they can harass without nearly the blowback that comes with subpoenaing the New York Times.

Related

Crossing the U.S. Border? Here’s How to Protect Yourself

After Blumenthal sued, authorities let him pick up his phones, but he remains concerned about whether their content was searched or copied. Blumenthal said officers asked him to unlock his phones and when he refused, they told him they’d “hook them up to machines,” presumably to extract their contents. Blumenthal, of course, is far from the only reporter who has reported from Iran or who visited the country to cover Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s state funeral. But, to the best of our knowledge, he’s the only one who has had his phones searched and seized.

Whatever leeway the law affords border agents to conduct searches that would otherwise be unlawful cannot be abused to punish constitutionally protected speech because they dislike its content. The federal Privacy Protection Act of 1980 — which prohibits searches of journalists’ files absent probable cause to suspect criminality — contains no exception for border searches. It is likely not a coincidence that the attack on Blumenthal’s rights followed calls by the pro-Israel doxxing organization Canary Mission and MAGA influencer and Trump ally Laura Loomer for government retribution against Blumenthal based on his coverage.

Gibbons is right that attacks on press freedom historically start on the edges. Trump has arguably been an aberration, though. Although he certainly draws inspiration from outliers, taking legal theories that were laughed at the court on the local level and turning them into federal policy, his own strategy is generally to start big.

Related

Kash Patel Is Using MAGA’s Favorite Tool to Muzzle the Free Press

Likely because he still mentally resides in a skyscraper in 1980s Manhattan, Trump is far more focused on outlets like the Times than on the independent press. He files SLAPP suits against mainstream journalists at a pace that would land anyone else on a restricted filers list; his Federal Communications Commission continues threatening the licenses of broadcasters who don’t kiss the ring emphatically enough for his liking; his Pentagon tried to extract loyalty pledges from the country’s most prominent outlets; and his Justice Department and FBI can’t seem to stop raiding and subpoenaing journalists no matter what the judiciary has to say. 

These efforts have certainly had an incalculable chilling effect on the press, but they’ve largely fizzled in court. The prospect that the administration may have caught on to that pattern and shifted its focus to outlets with less mainstream support, less money, and fewer lawyers on retainer is an alarming one.

As Gibbons put it, “Those who are serious about press freedom cannot be selective in their solidarity.” 

The post House Investigation of BreakThrough News Is an Attack on All Journalism appeared first on The Intercept.

Sen. John Fetterman may switch parties, and the reason is simple: The Democrat from Pennsylvania loves nothing like he loves media coverage.

Adam Jentleson, Fetterman’s former chief of staff who now heads the centrist Searchlight Institute think tank, said as much this week.

“I think, if he is the majority-maker, he will flip, because it would give him a massive amount of attention,” Jentleson said.

It’s not hard to see why someone as addicted to attention as Fetterman would make a big deal out of leaving his party, nor why he has doubled and tripled down on it in the past week. After all, this is the same man who has made a spectacle of his appearance, walking around the Senate halls in a hoodie and shorts rather than conform to the business dress code of his peers.

Since October 2023, his relationship with the progressive wing of his party has been strained, primarily because of a divide over support for Israel’s genocide in Gaza. 

Fetterman is now willing to use his leverage as key player for control of the chamber to help Israel — the main reason he’s said he could change sides. If Democrats continue to oppose Israel, he said, specifically if they do so in their party platform, Fetterman says he’s likely to split.

“If our party ever becomes, and just makes it official, the anti-Israel party, that’s when I would leave because that’s been a moral clarity for me,” Fetterman said at a convention in Washington last week.

Swiping at his own party aren’t out of character, and are part of what has led to a rift with the Democratic base. Fetterman’s closeness to right-wing media and penchant for punching left, as well as his loyalty to Israel, make him both a target of the progressive wing of the Democratic Party and one of the least popular incumbents in the country.

Related

Fetterman Is Sole Democrat to Vote Against Blocking Caribbean Drug Boat Attacks

Predictably, a bare majority of Pennsylvania Democrats want him to leave the party, almost assuring he won’t make it out of a primary. But switching to the GOP wouldn’t lead to a cakewalk reelection either.

By his own admission, Fetterman would be dogged by his own very socially liberal voting record in a Republican primary where he’s also certain to face defeat.

That leaves running as an independent who caucuses with Republicans, a move guaranteed to play spoiler for one party’s hopes to control the Senate in 2028, though it’s unclear who he’d hurt more.

Presidential Run?

Antipathy to the left now defines much of his politics.

Earlier this year, in June and July, Fetterman was receiving lots of attention for his criticisms of former Maine Senate candidate Graham Platner, repeatedly claiming that there were intimate images of the upstart Democrat online and referring to him as his Reddit moniker, “P-Hustle.”

On June 10, the day after Platner won his primary, NOTUS reporter Igor Bobic posted on X that Fetterman was haranguing him about the Maine Democrat — “You wanna talk about P-Hustle? You wanna talk about P-Hustle?” — as soon as Bobic entered the Senate building. Fetterman continued with a line that must have been rehearsed: “Have we become the pro-dick party?”

He ignored that due to pressure from the Democratic Party that Platner dropped out of the general election race earlier this month.

This level of embarrassing, childish behavior calls to mind Elon Musk, whose awkward hamming it up to fulfill his need for attention culminated in a number of humiliating appearances on the campaign trail alongside Donald Trump in 2024.

Fetterman doesn’t appear to be quite ready to go onstage and leap around with a MAGA hat on, but testing the waters for a party switch is certainly a step forward into whatever comes next.

There are signs the next move could be Fetterman’s own run for president.

Related

Fetterman Staff Quit Amid Frustration Over “Just Working on Israel All the Time”

According to reporting from the Philadelphia Inquirer in May, Fetterman lost interest in the day-to-day of the Senate and has his sights set on the White House. One aide described the senator as “disengaged” and said “he doesn’t read memos, he’s taking very few meetings … the job is just a platform for him to run for president, that’s all he cares about.”

A run for president would be welcome news to friend Bill Maher, the acerbic right-wing comedian, who has been pushing for a Fetterman 2028 run since last year.

Maher isn’t the only conservative giving Fetterman a platform. Fox News hosted him more than 50 times in 2026 alone, according to the Washington Examiner, giving the senator the incentive to continue to make news by attacking fellow Democrats.

He’s taken to the role with gusto, recently attacking New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani for protecting Haitian migrants from the federal courts and scolding Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., for endorsing Michigan Senate hopeful Abdul El-Sayed.

Anything for attention — and Fox is smart enough to take advantage of that.

Don’t Negotiate

One might try to explain away this behavior by pointing to Fetterman’s well-publicized health struggles.

Last May, New York Magazine reported his behavior has become increasingly erratic since a stroke in 2022, shortly before he was elected to the Senate.

The article lists several serious claims, including that Fetterman reads news articles on his phone while driving at high speeds, got into a car accident that injured his wife, and bought a gun.

Putting this all on the stroke and subsequent health issues, however, is too easy. Fetterman’s affinity for Israel was enough of a selling point for Democratic Majority for Israel that the group celebrated his willingness to “lean into” the relationship in an April 2022 press release.

Related

Harlan Crow Maxed Out Campaign Donations to John Fetterman

And for all the progressive political rhetoric he relied on to make his pitch to voters, Fetterman has always prioritized the stingy approval of his hard-right Republican father, who now calls the senator to congratulate him whenever he appears on Fox News.

Whatever the case, the attention-seeking, left-punching Fetterman is who we have now.

The best way to handle a child who is acting out is to ignore them and not reward their behavior. As Jentleson put it, they “should not debase themselves by trying to negotiate with him.”

That’s the approach Democrats should take: Leave Fetterman to serve out the rest of his term as a marginal member of a bare majority, should it come to that.

The post Fetterman Might Leave Democratic Party Because the Only Thing He Loves More Than Israel Is Attention appeared first on The Intercept.

Tapper was pressing Abdul El-Sayed, a former public health official who could become the first Muslim U.S. senator, on a right-wing outlet’s story exposing that he had expressed a desire to tread carefully because of potential differences of opinion among his would-be constituents. On a leaked campaign call, El-Sayed had said after Ali Khamenei’s February assassination that “there are a lot of people in Dearborn who are sad today,” referring to the southeast Michigan city that is home to one of the largest Muslim communities in the country. Given the ayatollah’s brutality, Tapper’s question implied, how dare El-Sayed consider that possibility?

As Michigan’s August 4 Senate primary between El-Sayed and Democratic Rep. Haley Stevens draws near, he has faced a barrage of Islamophobic attacks ranging from thinly veiled policy critiques to outright racist caricatures. The two Senate hopefuls seem to embody the forked path facing the Democratic Party ahead of the 2028 presidential cycle, with 43-year-old Stevens representing the old guard thanks to her backing by the party establishment and the pro-Israel lobby, and 41-year-old El-Sayed representing an insurgent movement skeptical of long-standing U.S. foreign policy interests and corporate capture of American politics. With the latter vision comes a form of fearmongering that’s been endemic to American politics for decades.

Nancy Khalil, an anthropologist who researches Muslims in America at the University of Michigan, called Tapper’s interview “sloppy and offensive” and pointed out that the anchor’s questions implied an assumption that because El-Sayed is Muslim and Arab, “he needs to have an opinion on this, and the opinion needs to align with whatever the media wants it to be.” That assumption is “completely racist,” Khalil said.

It was only one example in a deluge of attacks El-Sayed has faced in recent weeks that peddle in Islamophobic tropes. The pro-Israel doxxing account StopAntisemitism shared a post in June claiming that a hijabi woman arrested by the Trump administration for allegedly making pro-Palestine graffiti was a former staffer of El-Sayed’s, prompting right-wing agitator Laura Loomer to reply: “BAN Muslims from holding office in the United States.” Replies to El-Sayed’s campaign account often call him a “terrorist,” “radical,” or “jihadist,” and deploy racist memes, including one, likely AI-generated, showing El-Sayed and Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., wearing vests strapped with explosives and green headbands to signify Hamas. The Michigan GOP has called El-Sayed “a terrorist sympathizer,” emphasizing his full name, Abdulrahman Mohamed El-Sayed.

The attacks aren’t limited to right-wing reactionaries and obsessives on the internet. Many are issued by one of the leading groups backing El-Sayed’s Democratic opponent, Stevens: the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, which has poured nearly $30 million into the race via its super PAC, the United Democracy Project. One UDP commercial alleges baselessly that El-Sayed “expressed sympathy for a terrorist,” and a mailer shared with The Intercept parrots the same. Others mention his decision to stump with political commentator and streamer Hasan Piker.

Scholars of Islamophobia and Muslim American communities told The Intercept that both parties and their allies were resorting to Islamophobic and anti-Arab tropes in a race where Israel and Palestine has remained an animating force. El-Sayed has committed to ending military aid to Israel, drawing a stark contrast to Stevens, who famously said: “Israel comes to me in my dreams.”

The attacks against El-Sayed reminded Hatem Bazian, a leading scholar of Islamophobia at the University of California, Berkeley, of a critical moment in 2008, when Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign was accused of leaking a photo showing Barack Obama wearing garb of a Somalian elder during a visit to Kenya, fueling conspiracies that Obama — who is Christian — was hiding his Islamic faith. Whenever an actual Muslim candidate is involved, especially if they oppose the Israeli government’s policies, Bazian said, their opponents try to associate them with terrorism. 

“In the election in Michigan, we’re seeing the same type of playbook being played out,” Bazian said. “And what you’re also seeing is that much of the Islamophobia gets to be expressed in the corners of the web.” 

Yet some prejudice has also been expressed in real life. 

At a meet-and-greet in Detroit with Stevens and Rep. Jim Clyburn, D-S.C., a school board member said she supports Stevens because she “represents all of us, not just one race.” When pressed by local reporter Sam Robinson, who recorded the viral remarks, the Farmington school board member elaborated: “The other candidate [El-Sayed] doesn’t work a room. … Don’t come out speaking only Arabic, don’t come out with your Arabic music on.”

The Stevens campaign has tried to distance itself from the most egregious attacks. When asked about the Smith remarks, a spokesperson for the campaign referred to a statement given to The Detroit News in which Stevens said she did not share Smith’s views and called her campaign “a diverse and multicultural best of Michigan coalition” She further claimed to have “repeatedly stood up for and defended our vibrant Muslim American community.” 

Yet Stevens’s campaign has also capitalized on bigoted rhetoric used by Mike Rogers, the Republican likely to face whichever Democrat wins next month. The campaign drew from a private call between Rogers and supporters during which he said of El-Sayed, “I don’t think he likes America, candidly.” The Stevens campaign sent out a parody of a news release designed to look like it was from El-Sayed campaign, claiming that Rogers had endorsed El-Sayed and reproducing the Republican’s quote: “I think he’s so radical. I think he’s going to lose big parts of the west part of the state. We think we can do well in part of the southeast part of the state. I think we’ll do well if he in fact is the nominee.” 

In a statement to The Intercept, a spokesperson for CNN defended Tapper’s question on El-Sayed and Khamenei’s killing, which Tapper asked regardless of “background or ideology.”

“In this case, he asked Dr. El-Sayed about his comments regarding Iran’s leader Ali Khamenei’s death because he believed they warranted explanation as part of the public debate,” the spokesperson wrote. “Providing interview subjects the opportunity to address and clarify their views is a fundamental part of responsible journalism, and we reject the implication that there was any malicious intent or bias behind the question.”

The El-Sayed campaign declined to comment on this story, but told The Intercept in April: “I am not running to be ‘the Muslim’ anything.”

“I’m running to be able to serve people in my role as a U.S. senator,” El-Sayed said at the time. “I want people to have healthcare. I want them to be able to work a dignified job that pays a living wage. I want them to have childcare and senior care. I want them to be able to know that the things that they need in their lives are affordable. So, at the end of the day it’s not about me. It’s not about my faith.”

Race and religion aren’t the only identity-related fault lines at play in the Michigan Senate race.

El-Sayed has “a long history of disrespecting women,” asserts another AIPAC-backed ad launched in early July. According to the Detroit Free Press, a mainstream local paper that fact-checked each of the ad’s claims, the TV spot misrepresented El-Sayed’s comments on figures like Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, whom he ran against in 2018, by framing his critiques of Whitmer’s ties to the healthcare giant Blue Cross Blue Shield as inherently misogynistic. Whitmer, who is serving her second governor term, endorsed Stevens’s Senate run on Friday with a little more than a week from the election.

Moms Demand Action founder Shannon Watts, a Stevens supporter known for going after critics of Israel online, called El-Sayed’s criticisms of Stevens and former opponent state Sen. Mallory McMorrow “sexist” with little evidence beyond their respective genders — a comment that has since appeared in another UDP ad. (Watts has said she didn’t give the super PAC permission to quote her public social media comments.)

Related

Who’s Spending in Your Congressional Election? We Tracked the Front Groups Fueling the 2026 Midterms.

The new ad began its run within days of Graham Platner suspending his U.S. Senate campaign in Maine after he was accused of sexual assault. Centrist and pro-Stevens operatives have also tried to link El-Sayed with the Platner campaign, implying a guilt-by-association with left politics. Rep. Hillary Scholten, D-Mich. recently told Semafor that “Abdul has a problematic record with women” without providing any evidence, then repeated the claim on Tapper’s show on Wednesday, parroting the Whitmer example from the AIPAC-funded commercial and saying his rhetoric carries “a uniquely sexist bent.” Scholten also claimed that El-Sayed and Platner campaigned and fundraised together, though the two never held a joint event and sent a total of two split-raise fundraising emails.

Khalil, the University of Michigan anthropologist, situated the ads as part of a long history of prejudiced tropes that paint Arab and Muslim men as controlling of women, and likewise stereotype Arab and Muslim women as subservient and docile.

“We’re seeing it come from within his own party,” she said, “reproducing tropes that have just been around for centuries.”

Earlier this month, El-Sayed called on his supporters to stop making “fun of my opponent for things that have nothing to do with her policies or politics,” likely a reference to superficial mockeries of Stevens’s voice, calling the comments “unkind and unhelpful.” Some journalists and advocates for Palestine observing the race wondered why El-Sayed made the request when Stevens had not done the same amid the wave of Islamophobia.

“Muslims are always labeled as terrorists, we’re always stereotyped, and our patriotism is always called into account,” said Adam Hamawy, a former Army surgeon who volunteered in Gaza and recently won the Democratic primary in New Jersey’s 12th Congressional District. Speaking to The Intercept, he recalled an episode while treating patients from the World Trade Center attacks on September 11 when one of his colleagues at the hospital blamed Hamawy for the attacks. When Hamawy ran for Congress this year, one of his Democratic opponents called him a “radical extremist” because he gave a brief testimony at the 1995 trial of Omar Abdel-Rahman, who was convicted of planning terror attacks. A series of articles in mainstream and conservative outlets also played up the connection. 

Because El-Sayed, like Hamawy, is Muslim, his opponents are pushing the notion “that he’s radical — they’re questioning his loyalty, they are not talking about issues,” Hamawy told The Intercept. “And that was the same thing here as well: They didn’t attack me on issues, they attacked me for who I was.”

In addition to their criticisms of the Israeli state, El-Sayed and Hamawy have both run on progressive agendas that vow to lower the cost of living and fight for Medicare for All, which both have cited as key priorities owing to their experience as medical professionals. The agenda has proven popular this midterm cycle — with insurgent candidates on the left toppling incumbents and establishment favorites in state after state.

In some ways, Islamophobic attacks can be seen as “a marker of success,” said Moustafa Bayoumi, an author whose books trace the experiences of Muslim and Arab Americans after September 11 amid the war on terror. “The more successful Muslim candidates become in American politics, the greater the degree of Islamophobia that we’re going to witness in attacks, trying to take them down.”

Bayoumi, who teaches English at Brooklyn College, City University of New York, also compared the attacks on El-Sayed to those against New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani. Despite — or perhaps because of — his popularity, Mamdani has been called a “terrorist lover” by one of his colleagues in City Council, while another local lawmaker compared his rise to the office as “Islamic conquest.”

“It’s not just an identity thing. It’s because those Arab Muslim candidates are representing the progressive ticket, and it does put some fear in a certain type of the establishment in this country, whether it’s Republican or Democratic,” Bayoumi said. “They tend to fall back on Islamomophobia and Islamophobic tropes.”

The fearmongering is amplified when it comes to Israeli policy. As Israel’s favorability has cratered globally and among U.S. voters since the start of its genocidal campaign in Gaza, the public relations battle has only intensified. The Israeli government this year approved a public relations budget of $730 million, nearly five times the budget compared to the previous year. A Drop Site News report shared polling in Europe and the U.S. commissioned by the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs that concluded that highlighting “Radical Islam” and “Jihadism” are most effective in reversing unfavorability toward Israel. 

Related

Abdul El-Sayed Becomes First Senate Candidate Backed by Pro-Palestine Jewish Group

“The reality of it is that you can’t divorce anti-Palestinian racism from Islamophobia,” said Khalil. “The anti-Palestinian industry is what fueled the emergence of the Islamophobia industry. They’re funded by the same sources.”

Stevens, meanwhile, has used El-Sayed’s proximity to Michigan’s Arab and Muslim community to question his loyalty to the Democratic Party. In 2024, El-Sayed supported the Uncommitted Movement, which started in Michigan and coordinated hundreds of thousands of protest votes in that year’s presidential primary to send a message to the Biden administration over its continued support for Israel and its genocide against Palestinians in Gaza.

“Make no mistake, Trump is an existential threat,” El-Sayed wrote at the time. “And that’s why we have to send a clear message to this administration that it is the height of folly to try to force people into choosing between innocent lives in G@za or our democracy here at home in November.”

He went on to endorse Harris one day after Biden dropped out of the race.

Discounting the Muslim and Arab voting population bears the risk of backfiring. Michigan, which swung for Trump in the last presidential election, was decided by just 1 percentage point. For the first time in two decades, a plurality of voters in Dearborn voted Republican. 

The post Abdul El-Sayed Faces Islamophobic Attacks From GOP and Democratic Establishment appeared first on The Intercept.

Despite Cuba being severely hobbled by in the throes of a humanitarian crisis engineered by U.S. sanctions and fuel blockades, the new report paints the country as a major threat.

The report appears to be the brainchild of Secretary of State Marco Rubio, a first-generation Cuban American who has made the overthrow of the Cuban government a top priority under the second Trump administration.

Published Monday without a listed author, the report says Cuba is the “capital of 21st century communism,” ideologically immovable, and a permanent enemy committed to the destruction not just of the U.S. but also of “Western civilization” through the spread of “Third Worldism.”

If that sounds like a throwback to the long-settled Cold War, that’s because it is — something critics of the report in Congress seized upon.

Whatever truths the report contains, they’re largely overshadowed by a feverish paranoia about the alleged reach of Cuban intelligence into American civil society, according to Rep. Mark Pocan, D-Wis., days after returning from a fact-finding trip to Cuba.

“It may be the stupidest, most fantastical, most biased thing I’ve ever read from a governmental agency,” Pocan said in a statement Tuesday. “This report focuses on the 1960s & 70s with no clear connection to today. Yet somehow, the State Department uses this report to say that this impoverished nation is responsible for everything from Black Lives Matter to Antifa, the anti-ICE protests and more.”

Rep. Delia Ramirez, D-Ill., who went on the fact-finding mission with Pocan, said the report was aimed at manufacturing consent for an invasion of the island — and to crack down on dissent at home.

“This report was intentionally designed to instill fear of the Cuban people and to justify a military attack on Cuba,” Ramirez told The Intercept. “It’s hypocrisy at its finest, because while criticizing the regime in Cuba, it instead attacks Americans’ constitutional rights to free speech and free assembly.”

In sketching a broad, anti-American conspiracy in nearly dozens of left-wing social movements, organizations, and educational institutions, the report also functions as a broadside on civil society in the U.S — and hardly for the first time.

“Cuba is not a new cudgel,” said Miriam Pensack, a historian at Princeton University specializing in Latin America and the Caribbean. “The Cuban revolution was a galvanizing event for the way that the United States thought about its national security, really until the end of the Cold War. And it still has an ideological utility, even as the country is limping along.”

Center of Global Conspiracy

Running 100 pages, the report lays out what its authors describe as a decadeslong effort by Cuba to foment revolutionary movements throughout the world and to build a latter-day “axis of evil” by allying with other governments opposed to U.S. interests, including the current-day governments of Iran, Russia, China, and North Korea.

“Even as it expands and revitalizes its network within the next generation of American left-wing activists, it has also forged new partnerships — or deepened and repurposed old ones — with other foreign governments and movements around the world,” the report warns. “The regime continues to act as a force multiplier for a much broader anti-American coalition, positioning itself as a staging ground for a wide range of foreign adversaries to conduct operations against the United States.”

Cuba, the authors allege, is “less a nation-state than an all-encompassing intelligence and subversion operation, focused around its existential revolution against the United States.”

The report goes on to list a slew of left-wing groups and individuals as accomplices, both witting and unwitting, of this intelligence operation, including the Democratic Socialists of America, Code Pink, Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass, and leftwing streamer Hasan Piker.

Related

How Local Cops Are Running With Trump’s NSPM-7 Attacks on Antifa

In a section stretching nearly five full pages on the National Lawyers Guild, a long-standing right-wing bugaboo, the report’s authors describe the venerable progressive law association as “one of the most persistently relevant — and insidious — organizations in Cuba’s U.S. network.”

Posting to X for the first time since March, the organization quipped, “We have been called much worse, by much better.”

Academic Freedom at Home

The report took aim at universities in the U.S. for maintaining exchange programs and partnerships with Cuban universities, implying that such programs functioned as a feeding ground for Cuban agents looking to recruit spies and fellow travelers.

The report singled out Harvard University, pointing to trips by faculty to Cuba as recently as 2017.

If anything, however, the Cuban government has been wary of exchange programs with American schools, according to Alejandro de la Fuente, a professor of Latin American history and economics at Harvard who chairs the university’s Cuba Studies Program and took part in a trip to Cuba in 2017 that is mentioned in the report.

“They did their best to delimit those exchanges as much as possible because they understood that knowledge production requires freedom and a plurality of viewpoints — precisely what they do not allow,” de la Fuente told The Intercept in an email Wednesday. “Indeed, they would probably argue that it was U.S. universities that were trying to penetrate Cuban institutions and to foment subversion there!”

Related

How Florida’s Cuban Diaspora and the Israeli Lobby Came Together — and Are Coming Apart

Born in Cuba, De la Fuente is hardly an apologist for the Cuban government, at whose feet he laid the blame for the country’s collapse. He acknowledged that Cuban intelligence may have targeted American students and academics in the past, but scoffed at the underlying thesis of the report that Cuba continues to pose a grave threat to the U.S.

“The ineptitude and corruption of the regime have destroyed the country’s economy and society, to the point that the very existence of the nation is in danger,” de la Fuente said. “Can a country like this pose a threat to the national security of the United States today? The answer, any reasonable observer would agree, is emphatically no.”

“War on the Cuban People”

Cuba has made no secret of its support for revolutionary movements throughout the 20th century. And it was a vital partner to left-wing governments in Latin America in the 21st century.

With Cuba today crippled by sanctions and fuel shortages, however, Ramirez, the member of Congress, said the report’s notion of the country as a central node in some threatening conspiracy was a “fiction.”

Accusations about Cuba’s extensive reach into protests against U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, antifascist organizing, and Black Lives Matter don’t square with the reality of the severe crisis that has gripped Cuba. In early January, the Trump administration tightened its embargo of the country into a virtual blockade on all fuel arriving in Cuba.

Already weakened by internal tensions and by decades of economic sanctions imposed by the U.S., the island nation has in recent months been plunged into repeated, extended blackouts; its tourism-dependent economy has effectively collapsed; and its citizens face a daily question of where to find their next meal.

Her voice on the verge of tears as she described the humanitarian crisis she witnessed on the island, Ramirez forcefully rejected the notion that the U.S. has anything to fear from Cuba.

“Under no circumstances, at any moment during my trip, did I see anything to make me believe that Cuba poses an existential threat to the United States,” Ramirez said. “On the contrary, what I witnessed was a war on the Cuban people by the United States, and specifically by Donald Trump and Marco Rubio.”

The post Rubio’s Paranoid Cuba Report Designed to “Justify a Military Attack on Cuba,” Says Democratic Rep. appeared first on The Intercept.

The Low-T Issue

Self-styled War Secretary Pete Hegseth has a problem with low testosterone. It’s left him suffering from what you might call an acute crisis of masculinity. And I’m pretty sure that he caught it from Teddy Roosevelt.

Bear with me. I’ll explain.

Last week, the Trump administration’s preening, strutting, wanna-be he-man announced a new mandatory annual screening for troops age 30 and older, including women, for testosterone deficiency. Troops under 30 can volunteer to be screened, and anyone with low hormone levels will have the option to receive testosterone replacement therapy.

“It’s about restoring and optimizing your natural capability,” said Hegseth, by ensuring “you have the biological foundation required to sustain the fight” on the “brutal and unrelenting” modern battlefield. Like all Hegseth initiatives, he linked it to “lethality” — now the animating feature of his life. He called topping off troops’ testosterone levels a “sacred duty.” 

Anyone who has observed Hegseth for more than 15 seconds in the last 15 years could tell you the man is riddled with deep insecurities. His quest to fully transition the Defense Department to what he calls “The High-T Department of War” is just the latest manifestation of nagging anxieties about himself and the wheel-spinning, never-winning military he leads. 

Poor Pete’s woes have been piling up since he headed off to college at Princeton, if not before. Hegseth acts like he was drafted against his will by the Ivy League and escaped it by joining the Army National Guard as an infantry officer in 2003. He fondly recalls guarding “Islamic assholes” at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, alongside “hard-working, God-fearing, America-loving middle-class men” whom he contrasts with “millionaires at Princeton,” a school he derides whenever he can.

Stuffed in Hegseth’s Army-issue green duffle bag when he arrived at Gitmo was a sheet of plain white copy paper inside a black plastic frame with a quote from his hero, former President Teddy Roosevelt. This long love affair with TR has continued over the decades. Pete wrote a ridiculous 2016 book, “In the Arena,” based on the “timeless truths of Teddy Roosevelt’s iconic ‘Man in the Arena’ speech” from 1910. And he still references that speech to this day and routinely works Teddy into his public remarks whenever he can.

Last year, Hegseth wanted the Pentagon to cut ties with the Boy Scouts of America because, he believed, “the organization once endorsed by President Theodore Roosevelt” had strayed from their mission to “cultivate masculine values.” (He later bullied the Scouts into submission.) And just last month, he talked up TR to U.S. troops in Cuba — where Roosevelt fought during the Spanish-American War — using his hero as proof of America’s right to intervene “in the affairs of Latin American nations.”

No one more exemplified the anxieties of privileged men of his time than Teddy Roosevelt, who grew up in the swirl of post-Civil War America in which urbanization, industrialization, a new emphasis on “brainwork,” and new technologies led to a crippling novel condition dubbed neurasthenia: nervous exhaustion, or a deficiency of “nerve-force.” This affliction was “modern and originally American,” according to the then-most influential expert on the now-archaic medical diagnosis.

Rich, white Anglo-Saxon men like Teddy professed complete cultural, racial, and sexual superiority but grew extremely anxious it was being stolen from them. (Yes, you guessed it: Immigrants, radicals, and independent, unduly educated, or otherwise unruly “new” women were prime culprits.) Men were fast becoming feeble and feminized; only through manly endeavors like weightlifting, hiking, hunting, sports, horseback riding, and excursions into the wild could they counteract the debilitating effects of over-civilization. Roosevelt, for example, transformed himself from a frail, sickly weakling who was called a “sissy” by peers and “Jane-Dandy” by the press into a man’s man via boxing, shooting, wrestling, and travel out West, where he reinvented himself as a cowboy.

Related

As Teddy Roosevelt’s Statue Falls, Let’s Remember How Truly Dark His History Was

The scholar Yeonsik Jung summed up the neurasthenic age nicely, writing: “Channeled through the medical knowledge of neurology, it made American men’s racial, sexual, and spatial anxieties function to act out their racist, misogynist, nativist, and imperialist impulses which legitimized exclusionary political techniques toward the racial and sexual others such as the U.S. imperial expansion in the 1890s and 1900s.” These white American men had to win back, as another scholar put it, “the potency of their violent masculinity—their ability to out-savage the savage” on the American frontier before turning overseas to places like the Philippines, Haiti, and Nicaragua. Roosevelt’s own expansionist imperialism and his campaign against “race suicide” were firmly rooted in this toxic ferment. When the United States initially failed to annex Hawaii after a group of missionaries and pineapple plantation interests took over and set up their own government in the 1890s, for example, Roosevelt called the reluctance “a crime against white civilization.”

The framed quote Hegseth stuffed into that Gitmo duffle, which he also took to the forever wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, are lines from “The Man in the Arena” speech:

Am I striving valiantly?

Is my face marred by dust and sweat and blood? Am I spending myself in a worthy cause?

Am I daring greatly?

Am I in the arena?

“Spending myself” is an intriguing phrase here that’s key to my diagnosis of Hegseth. I’m not a medical doctor, but long ago I studied the intersection of medicine and masculinity in the late 19th and early 20th century en route to my Ph.D. A great panic of the era surrounded what historians came to call the “spermatic economy,” the belief that a man’s semen was a finite reserve of vital energy — like money in a bank account — and “spending” this essential life force through masturbation or excessive sex would leave him depleted, leading to nervous exhaustion’s below-the-waist variant: sexual neurasthenia. (President Donald Trump, who espouses pseudoscientific claptrap about good and bad “genes” also reportedly believes humans are closed-loop systems that, like a battery, have a finite amount of energy.)

Such fin de siècle fears of debilitation led to “rejuvenation” cures like French physiologist Charles-Édouard Brown-Séquard injecting himself and others with crushed guinea pig testicles — launching the field of “organotherapy” — and Austrian physiologist Eugen Steinach’s surgical procedure, a partial vasectomy to restore vigor which found favor with patients from psychoanalysis founder and noted head case Sigmund Freud to William Butler Yeats, the Nobel Prize-winning Irish poet. (“And what rough beast, its hour come round at last, Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?”)

Related

Hegseth Is Pushing Testosterone. The VA Has Already Struggled With the Treatment.

Hegseth is heir to this utter nuttery — obsessed as it was with limits on semen spending and banking one’s virility. His hysteria over the military becoming “effeminate” has led him to conclude that those who wish to “master the profession of arms” must have their testosterone tanks topped off. And he claims, without evidence, that pumping troops full of this hormone — which people of every sex and gender produce — will improve “combat readiness.” Hegseth also thinks his new policy will make troops “strong, resilient and capable.”

But while testosterone is tied to muscle mass, it isn’t linked with actual strength. A 2019 study found that men who received injected testosterone while engaged in intense exercise and a restricted diet — meant to mimic “strenuous military operations” — did not see gains in strength or endurance; a 2022 follow-up also found no increase in physical performance. Moreover, supplementing testosterone actually signals the body to shut down its own natural production, which can shrink the testicles and reduce one’s sperm count. (Paging Dr. Steinach!)

Hegseth appears to believe more is better, advocating for a “high T” fighting force. But high levels of testosterone — which is currently classified as a controlled substance with potential for abuse — can lead to acne, balding, breast tissue growth, impaired ability of the heart to pump blood, infertility, erectile dysfunction, and increased risk of death.

Of course, it’s hard to say what’s normal if you’re testing millions of healthy people. Testosterone levels can change depending on when a patient is tested, whether they have recently eaten, exercised heavily, or are sick, among other factors, Dr. Alvin Matsumoto, a professor emeritus at the University of Washington School of Medicine, recently told The Intercept. For example, in about a third of men whose testosterone initially tests low, a second test produces a normal result. Tests also have high inter-lab variability. On that front, doctors usually assess testosterone levels only when symptoms of low T appear, and less than 6 percent of men between 30 and 79 actually have a deficiency.

Last week, a group of senators called out Hegseth for his bizarre obsession with troops’ testosterone, noting his department “provided no evidence that this sweeping new policy will improve force readiness or health, nor has it explained the scientific basis, costs, or risks associated with implementing it across the force.” They also pointed to “recent repeated efforts to redefine military culture around an exaggerated conception of masculinity.”

Related

Women in the Army Are More Likely to Be Killed by Fellow Soldiers Than Enemy Combatants

Exaggerated masculinity is an apt description for Hegseth. In his 2024 book, “The War on Warriors,” he bemoaned a plot to manufacture “soft men, and a weak military.” He describes an effort to make the armed forces “fatter,” “slower,” and “effeminate” by those “obsessed” with “neutering our military,” and delves into the dangers posed by “Pentagon pussies.”

After 18 months of crackpot policies and puerile posturing at the helm of the War Department, Hegseth’s hysteria has only grown. Like Roosevelt, Hegseth is forever struggling to display his manhood through physical exertion — posting videos of himself engaging in humiliating fitness challenges. Similarly, he’s been propping up America’s long-sagging martial prowess by beating up on the likes of Venezuela, attacking elementary school kids in Iran, blowing up unarmed boats packed with civilians in the Caribbean Sea, and threatening tiny Cuba, where his hero Teddy won fame for a Spanish-American War charge up San Juan Hill.

“Speak softly and carry a big stick” was Roosevelt’s foreign policy prescription. But from the war against the Houthis last year to the war on Iran today, Hegseth has found that his stick just doesn’t measure up. The resulting insecurity has led the emasculated War secretary to fire women and Black men from top leadership positions, block the promotion of women military officers, banish transgender service members, and denounce “fat generals and admirals” and “females” whom he believes “can’t meet the same combat arms physical standards as men.” He has now added low-T troops to the list of scapegoats for his department’s underperformance, instead of examining his failings as a leader.

Hegseth believes you can measure manhood by testing testosterone, the same way he believes you can kill your way to victory on the battlefield. It’s part of a mélange of flaccid fallacies and fantasies that seem to dominate the worldview of a man who paid $50,000 to a woman who accused him of raping her, whose former sister-in-law accused him of “abusive” behavior toward his second wife, and whose own mother once called out the fact that he “belittles, lies, cheats, sleeps around, and uses women for his own power and ego.” And as America’s wars go south, Hegseth has become ever more unhinged and his public tantrums more pronounced. “You have Trump derangement syndrome!” he snapped at Michigan Sen. Gary Peters this week, after failing to admit earlier claims about victory in the Iran war were premature. 

Hegseth is exactly where he wants to be — “in the arena” — even though it’s abundantly clear his crisis of masculinity is becoming a catastrophe for his department, the rest of America, and great swaths of the globe, from the Caribbean to Iran. All the testosterone in the world isn’t going to win America’s wars, achieve Hegseth’s dream of turning “soft men” hard, or transform “Pentagon pussies” into something more in line with his fantasies, much less cure the crushing insecurities swirling in the brain of America’s fragile war secretary and the deep deficiency that has long plagued him.

The post Pete Hegseth’s Crisis of Masculinity appeared first on The Intercept.

The directive was initially passed down through ICE field offices on the evening of July 13 — just hours after the Maine shooting — followed by an official agencywide memo that made the rounds the next morning.

Then, on July 15, President Donald Trump took to his social media platform Truth Social and directed ICE to resume its vehicle stops, presumably reversing the orders announced the day before by ICE internal leadership.

Despite Trump’s apparent reversal of the ICE directive, immigration enforcement officers in at least 4 so-called areas of responsibility — ICE’s regional jurisdictions — did not resume vehicle stops, according to officials who spoke with The Intercept.

“I follow policy that comes down the appropriate channels,” said one ICE official, who works in a southern regional office and requested anonymity to avoid retaliation. “The president says one thing but in reality we all follow established policy.”

A second ICE official, who operates in the Western U.S., told The Intercept, “Following the orders of the guys I’ve worked with in the field and have my back vs the head of an administration that treats me like a meme? It’s a no brainer.”

Three other ICE whistleblowers from areas of responsibility in the Midwest, South, and Northeast also told The Intercept that vehicle stops did not resume in their areas of responsibility over the past week. (ICE did not respond to a request for comment.)

Now, however, a new official vehicle stops policy has been passed down through the proper channels at ICE’s Enforcement and Removal Operations division.

An internal agencywide email, sent on July 22 and obtained by The Intercept, ordered the resumption of vehicle stops, with new guidelines that change how deportation officers will engage with vehicles moving forward.

“ERO law enforcement officers are authorized to conduct vehicle stops,” says the email. “Officers must continue to coordinate with their immediate supervisors regarding any enforcement activities.”

Killings in Maine and Texas

The pair of deadly ICE shootings, just six days apart in the second week of July, both involved officers traveling in and engaging with vehicles. The killings — of Lorenzo Salgado Araujo in Houston, Texas, and a Johan Sebastián Durán Guerrero in Biddeford, Maine — sparked nationwide outrage and catapulted ICE back in to the news cycle.

ICE quickly came under pressure from both the public and government officials to hold the officers involved in the shootings accountable and offer more transparency about ICE’s tactics when engaging with vehicles.

One glaring issue that arose was the fact that, according to the Department of Homeland Security, the officers involved in both shootings were not wearing body cameras.

Related

ICE Officers at Maine Shooting Scene Were Wearing Body Cameras. They Were Not Turned On.

In the case of the Maine shooting, The Intercept previously reported, officers on the scene were wearing multifunctional devices designed to work as body cameras, but they were unable to record video on the devices because they didn’t have a required cloud-based subscription service.

The new ICE vehicle stops policy addressed the apparent failure in Maine and Texas to capture the incidents on video. Now, according to the new policy, at least one officer involved in a vehicle stop must be wearing “an issued and activated body worn camera.”

The rollout for ICE body cameras, however, is proceeding slowly. About half of ICE officers have been issued cameras, according to DHS, with the other half to receive them in the next two months. Officers will then need to complete a training process with the body cameras before they can use them in the field.

Gutted Training Standards

Starting in summer 2025, in an effort to ramp up deportations, the Trump administration implemented an accelerated ICE training and hiring spree that lasted until June 30, 2026.  

During that time, ICE hired more than 12,000 new recruits and cut more than 40 percent of its basic training curriculum.

Among those new recruits, according to The Atlantic, was the ICE officer who allegedly pulled the trigger in the Maine shooting.

The new ICE policy distributed on Wednesday now lists training as a requirement for officers making vehicle stops.

“The officer or officers conducting the stop must have successfully completed an ICE-administered vehicle stop training,” the guidance says.

The policy guidance says that ICE officers may make vehicle stops in cases of criminal arrests or while executing search warrants, but only when a certified member of a Special Response Team — ICE’s equivalent of SWAT — conducts the stop.

The post Leaked Email Reveals New Requirements for ICE Vehicle Stops appeared first on The Intercept.

A person on testosterone therapy can’t just stop it abruptly. Dr. Adrian Dobs, a professor of medicine and oncology at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, told The Intercept testosterone therapy can suppress the body’s natural production of the hormone and sperm, as well as create medical needs that persist after treatment stops. “We’re sort of creating a dependency on testosterone,” she said.

Under Hegseth’s new initiative, service members age 30 and older are slated for annual testosterone screening, regardless of whether they have any symptoms, while troops under 30 may request screening during their periodic health assessments. Doctors and endocrinologists warned that this proactive screening could lead to overprescription of hormone-replacement therapy for people who don’t need it. This could affect their fertility in the short term, Dobs said, because “men who take testosterone will have a reduction in their sperm counts.”

And after a service member leaves the military, they may require continued medical care. That care could eventually fall to the Department of Veterans Affairs, which has previously struggled with the same treatment.

In a 2018 review of testosterone replacement therapy, the VA Office of Inspector General found that providers often started patients on testosterone without adequately documenting symptoms or confirming low testosterone levels and frequently failed to conduct recommended follow-up after treatment began. Approximately 2 out of 3 patients did not get a documented discussion of the risks and benefits of the treatment before starting.

Dr. Alvin Matsumoto, a professor emeritus at the University of Washington School of Medicine and former attending physician and associate director at the VA Puget Sound Health Care System, said the findings show why testing for low testosterone is not enough to determine whether someone should receive treatment. Matsumoto helped develop the Endocrine Society’s clinical practice guidelines for testosterone treatment, which the inspector general found the VA had routinely violated in its 2018 review.

Testosterone levels can change depending on when a patient is tested, whether they have recently eaten, exercised heavily, or are sick, among other factors, Matsumoto said. In about a third of men whose testosterone initially tests low, a second test produces a normal result.

That creates a risk under a program that will routinely screen otherwise healthy troops and make testosterone therapy available to those subsequently diagnosed with a deficiency.

“Initiating testosterone therapy in men who have a single low testosterone [test] but no clinical manifestations of testosterone deficiency will likely result in treatment of some men who do not have hypogonadism,” Matsumoto told The Intercept.

Medical guidelines instead call for doctors to establish that a patient has symptoms and repeatedly low testosterone levels before beginning treatment. Matsumoto said those steps would need to occur either while a service member remains under Pentagon care or after they transition to Veterans Affairs.

The question becomes particularly important when those patients move between the two systems. Matsumoto said a VA provider inheriting a patient already receiving testosterone should review why treatment was started in the first place, including whether the patient had symptoms and repeatedly low testosterone levels.

But he does not expect that reassessment to routinely happen. Usually, “the diagnosis will be assumed to be correct,” Matsumoto said.

It’s a similar problem to one the inspector general identified in its review of VA care. Some providers appeared to be testing patients for low testosterone without first documenting symptoms suggesting a deficiency.

The inspector general made seven recommendations to bring VA practices up to standards, including repeat testing and monitoring. According to the inspector general, the VA implemented all seven recommendations and closed them as implemented, as the VA noted in response to questions from The Intercept.

Among the changes the VA implemented was a requirement that providers establish signs and symptoms of testosterone deficiency before testing a patient’s testosterone level for confirmation — a higher standard than Hegseth’s call for annual testosterone screening based on age alone.

“I would be against universal screening, which is what we’re talking about here,” said Dobs, a position consistent with guidance from the Endocrine Society, which represents physicians and researchers specializing in hormonal health.

The Pentagon’s new initiative presents a different question: What happens when service members arrive at the VA already receiving testosterone treatment initiated while they were on active duty?

The Intercept asked the VA whether it has the clinical capacity to continue testosterone treatment for veterans who begin therapy under the Pentagon’s new initiative, whether those prescriptions would automatically continue after separation or require a new VA evaluation, and whether the VA and the Pentagon have coordinated on transitioning those patients between the two healthcare systems.

The Department of Veterans Affairs did not answer any of those questions.

“VA provides testosterone testing and replacement therapy when medically necessary,” VA Press Secretary Quinn Slaven told The Intercept.

Defense Department personnel data from 2024 show roughly 451,000 active-duty troops were age 31 or older, a conservative figure that excludes 30-year-olds, who would also fall under Hegseth’s screening requirement. More than 1 million of the military’s 1.27 million active-duty service members were men.

“Here we have men who are in their prime of reproduction, and we’re causing a drop in their sperm counts when there really may not be sufficient benefit,” Dobs said.

The Pentagon did not provide The Intercept with the scientific evidence behind the mandate, say whether it assessed the fertility consequences that can follow testosterone treatment, or address safeguards to prevent unnecessary treatment.

Screening asymptomatic patients is “sort of opening up a can of worms,” Dobs said, citing the difficulty of interpreting test results and determining when treatment is warranted. She was particularly concerned about treating otherwise asymptomatic men whose levels fall within a low or low-normal range — a likely risk in a military overwhelmingly composed of young adults.

The Endocrine Society also recommends against starting testosterone therapy in men who are planning to father children in the near term.

In response to The Intercept’s questions, Defense Department officials pointed to Hegseth’s health and human performance directives, statements from Pentagon officials, and the “High-T Department of War” video.

“It’s not about artificial enhancement,” Hegseth said in his video. “It’s about restoring and optimizing your natural capabilities, protecting your longevity and ensuring you have the biological foundation required to sustain the fight.”

But testosterone treatment can interfere with overall health. Patients placed on testosterone may require continued clinical monitoring to ensure they are not receiving excessive amounts of the hormone. Testosterone can also increase the proportion of red blood cells in a person’s blood, requiring additional monitoring during treatment. It introduces a complex treatment regimen with “very little real proven benefit in this healthy population,” Dobs said.

And there’s the financial cost.

“Who is going to pay for this testosterone while they’re in the service, and who is going to pay for it after,” Dobs asked, “if they require it for many years afterwards?”

Healthcare Replacement Therapy

The virility program Hegseth introduced also intersects with a long-running gap in military reproductive healthcare.

In May, a Congressional Research Service report identified testosterone exposure among the factors that can contribute to infertility. Yet TRICARE, the health insurance military members have, generally does not cover assisted reproductive technologies, including in vitro fertilization, intrauterine insemination, and cryopreservation, which can easily cost tens of thousands of dollars.

Congress nearly expanded that coverage last year. Both the House and Senate versions of the fiscal year 2026 defense authorization bill included provisions requiring TRICARE coverage of certain assisted reproductive technologies. Neither provision survived the final legislation.

The Pentagon is now preparing to routinely screen hundreds of thousands of troops and offer potentially unnecessary testosterone therapy even as TRICARE generally excludes treatments for infertility, one of its potential consequences.

And the plan gives scant consideration to another massive population.

“Nobody’s discussing women,” Dobs said.

Rep. Chrissy Houlahan, D-Pa., an Air Force veteran and member of the House Armed Services Committee, raised the same concern.

“Testosterone is important for both men and women,” Houlahan told The Intercept. “But when [Hegseth] says ‘biological foundation,’ clearly, he has only one sex in mind.”

Houlahan pointed to years of congressional efforts to expand access to fertility treatment for service members and their families.

“This administration not only has opposed efforts to expand access to IVF for service members and their families but has rolled back policies that enable them to take time off to get the full suite of health care they need,” Houlahan said.

Related

Women in the Army Are More Likely to Be Killed by Fellow Soldiers Than Enemy Combatants

She has pushed for research into how military service affects women entering perimenopause and menopause, including the potential effects of toxic exposure, combat, military sexual trauma, and post-traumatic stress disorder. “There is little to no research” on how those risk factors affect women’s health, Houlahan said.

Hegseth has repeatedly framed the testosterone initiative around military readiness and lethality. But “if Secretary Hegseth was truly looking to improve readiness, he would consider ways to support all service members, not just 49% of the population,” Houlahan said.

She was blunter about what she believes the testosterone initiative says about Hegseth’s priorities.

“This announcement about testosterone proves that Secretary Hegseth is only concerned about reproductive health when it serves his own political and misogynistic agenda,” Houlahan said.

The post Hegseth Is Pushing Testosterone. The VA Has Already Struggled With the Treatment. appeared first on The Intercept.

Within the span of a week, federal immigration agents shot and killed two people in Maine and Texas, and another was hit by a truck and killed in Florida after trying to avoid ICE agents. A fourth person recently died in ICE custody after reportedly being denied medication. 

Their deaths prompted yet another round of questioning as to how federal immigration agents have amassed so much power and so little accountability. This week on The Intercept Briefing, host Akela Lacy speaks with Naureen Shah, of the American Civil Liberties Union, and Nayna Gupta, of the American Immigration Council, on the consequences of allowing the government to build a national policing force that’s bringing Trump’s war on immigrants into communities across the country.

“The $240 billion injection that the Trump administration has given ICE and Border Patrol make these agencies — which already were the largest federal law enforcement agencies — make them far larger than anything that we’ve seen at the federal law enforcement level,” says Shah. “Their budgets are bigger than that of many, actually most militaries around the world.”

“It’s not really just about who they’re hiring and even the training that they’re getting — it’s the message that they get all the way from the top,” says Shah. “And of course, the message after the killings of Alex Pretti and Renee Good was, you have immunity in the conduct that you’re engaged in. It’s basically a message of, you’re going to get away with it. Don’t worry about it.”

“The signal from the very top of the administration is unmistakable: Arrest as many people as possible without regard for the actual impact on public safety, without regard for the killings that may result, the harm that results.”

Congressional funding for those agencies has outpaced any action on comprehensive immigration reform. And with Republicans pushing to strip voting rights from millions of Americans while campaigning against immigrants, says Gupta, the solution is to neutralize their argument by creating a path to citizenship — a proposal with broad bipartisan support. 

“There’s no question that the immigration enforcement agenda that this administration is pursuing ties to voting rights. Now, the question is, given that, how do we still make sure we’re offering solutions and reforms that can be viable and build a broad enough coalition of support to overwhelm that far-right base and the way they’ve weaponized this issue?” Gupta says. 

“I think those kinds of conversations are a more effective antidote to the far right’s effort to weaponize the immigration system, not only to hurt immigrants, but to hurt core democratic rights like the right to vote.”

For more, listen to the full conversation of The Intercept Briefing on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, YouTube, or wherever you listen.

Transcript

Akela Lacy: Welcome to The Intercept Briefing, I’m Akela Lacy, senior politics reporter at The Intercept.

Jessica Washington: And I’m Jessica Washington, politics reporter at The Intercept. 

AL: Jessie, the big news this week has been the ongoing fallout from the most recent killings by federal immigration agents in Texas and Maine, along with two other deaths in relation to immigration enforcement within the last month. What did we learn this week about those deaths? And is Congress responding?

JW: We’ve continued to learn more about the ICE officer, David Brouillette, who shot Johan Sebastián Durán Guerrero at a traffic stop in Maine two weeks ago. His ex-wife, Ashley Brouillette, said that he called to ask her to vouch for his character, which she refused to do. Instead she’s been speaking publicly about the violence she said she endured during their marriage and his apparent racism, which she believes may have been a motive in the shooting.

Ashley Brouillette: He’s like, well, I need you to lie about my character because this is what it comes down to, like my character. I don’t want you talking about any of the abuse in our relationship, like, this is literally about me actually. I told him that I was not going to lie for him, that I’ve waited years to speak my truth. I’ve been silenced long enough and now I need to come out with everything because a man lost his life. 

JW: I think for many, this story is highlighting the kinds of people, and the caliber of people who are being hired at ICE as the agency rapidly staffs up.

There was some additional news The Intercept broke recently. Last Thursday, Intercept contributor Karl Loftus reported that the ICE officers who were on the scene at the Maine shooting were actually wearing body cameras but they just weren’t turned on. 

We also learned more about the man who was killed fleeing from ICE agents in Florida. According to Mexican officials, the man who was struck by a truck after fleeing into traffic to avoid ICE, Juan Coronilla Durán, was in the United States legally on a tourist visa and was visiting family.

I want to preface this by saying there are still more details to come about why ICE targeted that vehicle and about the people inside. But so far, the incident does bolster claims that ICE is targeting people based on their race and ethnicity, not a sophisticated calculation about their immigration status, or as Juan Proaño, the CEO of LULAC, the oldest Latino civil rights organization in the United States, put it when describing the other recent ICE shooting on Democracy Now!:

Juan Proaño: ICE was casing Magnolia Park, which is a 97 percent Hispanic community. They were hunting for Latinos.

JW: As for Congress, there really isn’t much to report. Last week, Democrats sent a letter to the Department of Homeland Security demanding new restrictions on ICE after the fatal shootings in Maine and Texas. Democrats also attempted to add enforcement guardrails to a new sweeping immigration bill in the House but were shut down. 

There is some noise, but the closer we get to the possibility of Democrats regaining control of Congress in November, the clearer it becomes that there isn’t an appetite from leadership, or frankly much of the caucus, to come up with a Democratic solution to do anything but tinker around the edges of a broken, violent system.  

AL: While those shootings were all over national news the last two weeks, the Trump administration has been busy all over the map. Officials froze more than $1 billion in Medicaid funds to California and Minnesota as the president and his allies attack blue states with claims of fraud. The president has also been laying the groundwork to contest the outcome of the 2026 midterms — continuing to push Republicans in Congress to pass an unpopular and unprecedented voter ID law. And on Tuesday, the Justice Department announced the monitoring of polling sites in Arizona.

Meanwhile, the House approved $1.1 trillion in military funding on Wednesday and another $95 billion budget blueprint with $70 billion in funding for the Iran war. The House also passed another war powers resolution directing the president to withdraw the U.S. military from Iran on Thursday. The Pentagon had requested $67 billion to make up for spending on the Iran war, which has already cost $37.5 billion, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth told senators in a hearing on Tuesday. 

Sen. Dick Durbin: Do you have a new estimate about what the war has cost us so far in this, the fifth month of the first year of this war in Iran?

Pete Hegseth: Senator, the estimate we have as of today is $37.5 billion. 

AL: Trump has continued to escalate the war on Iran and promised to strike an Iranian bridge or power plant for every U.S. service member killed as that number continues to climb. Our colleague Nick Turse also reported this week on the unraveling of the administration’s efforts to cover up the number of U.S. military casualties. 

We’re talking about cutting all this money from social services while simultaneously pumping tens of billions of dollars into federal law enforcement and the military. These are some of the hallmarks of a country shifting to an authoritarian form of neoliberalism. Is that what’s happening?

JW: Short answer: yes. Longer answer: It does feel pretty clear that the Trump administration is employing classic authoritarian tactics. Step one, focus the country’s attention on a marginalized group with little political power who are already being scapegoated. In this case, immigrants. Step two, use that group to deflect from the fact that you are pillaging all of the resources, privatizing everything and concentrating enhanced military and police power in your control. Step three, which I think we’re all familiar with, crush all dissent. 

The administration is really using alleged and unfounded, by the way, fraud by immigrants, whether that be claims of voter fraud, or Medicare and Medicaid fraud to enact policy goals that either enrich or empower them, or enrich and empower their allies.

We don’t need to go back to the Nazis to see authoritarianism in action. For example, In the 1970s and ’80s, former President Ronald Reagan deployed the myth of the “welfare queen.” So this was a woman, typically Black, who defrauds and abuses the welfare system. And he did this in order to push draconian rollbacks in the social safety net. And you can’t divorce that from the Cold War politics and militarism, and rapid wealth and income disparity growth, that was also a key feature of that administration. 

So, yes, this is a march to authoritarianism, but it’s a march we’ve been on before.  

AL: This is something that came up in my conversation this week with Nayna Gupta, the policy director at the American Immigration Council. And she says, “We have over the many months of this administration seen them use the immigration system as the tip of the spear in their attack on democracy and core democratic institutions.”

JW: To her point, we are really seeing the administration use immigrants as a way to come after democracy writ large. I’m really interested in hearing that conversation between the two of you.

AL: I get into all that and more with Nayna Gupta, who also leads the Council’s legislative, administrative, and policy portfolio, and Naureen Shah, the director of government affairs, equality division at the American Civil Liberties Union, where she leads the ACLU’s immigration policy and advocacy work.

Naureen Shah, welcome to the Intercept Briefing.

Naureen Shah: Thanks for having me.

AL: Nayna Gupta, welcome to the show. 

Nayna Gupta: Thanks so much for having me. 

AL: Within the span of six days, federal immigration agents shot and killed two people — 52-year-old Lorenzo Salgado Araujo in Texas and 25-year-old Johan Sebastian Durán Guerrero in Maine. That brings the total number of people fatally shot by immigration agents in Trump’s second term to at least 11. Two more people died in connection with ICE within the last month. A third man — identified this week as a Mexican man on vacation in the U.S. — was struck by a truck after fleeing an encounter in Florida. A fourth man died in [ICE] custody in Georgia after his family says he was denied medicine, reported by our former colleague José Olivares at The Guardian. 

Their deaths are not isolated incidents. A new analysis from the ACLU that documented 1,200 ICE incidents last year across eight states finds a pattern of federal immigration enforcement that consistently flouts civil liberties.

Naureen, one of the report’s findings that struck me the most was the emphasis on these most recent killings and deaths not being an aberration but part of a broader systematic pattern. And that the way the U.S. government is conducting immigration enforcement is moving us further away from a liberal democracy and toward authoritarianism. Can you tell us more about that finding and others from the ACLU report?

NS: Again and again, ICE and immigration agents that work for ICE are resorting to violence. They are using the threat of violence and actual physical violence in their interactions with people — not because they are facing a specific threat, but just as a default tool, as a way to compel immediate obedience, as though that is the main tactic they have in understanding how they engage with the public. What we saw was that they weren’t doing so in a professional way. It wasn’t calibrated. It wasn’t specific, as though they were following a carefully designed protocol. 

Let me give you an example. There was a situation not far from where I live in Maryland — in Hyattsville, Maryland — where a man was pulled from his car. He is in the traffic intersection being held down. He’s being pinned down by the neck by an ICE agent, and that agent fumbles his gun. His gun falls while he’s doing this. He grabs the gun, picks it back up, and points it at the crowd that has gathered to watch this. A second agent then moves in on the crowd with his weapon raised as well. So you’re seeing them act as careless as they are reckless. 

Related

ICE’s Unseen Toll in Minneapolis: Suicide Helpline Calls More Than Doubled During Surge

That is really dangerous. Because the other thing we found in the report was that ICE is now on our streets, at our grocery stores, at our parking lots, even at school playgrounds. That presence there in masks, in street clothes, with that kind of aggression is changing the nature of daily life in this country.

When you have to be afraid that when your 15-year-old is waiting for the bus and they are brown, that they may be accosted by a masked agent, that they may be questioned about their citizenship. I’ve heard about people wearing their identification around their necks because they’re so afraid.

That is a change in our country; it’s a change for the worse.

AL: I want to back up a little here and just remind people of the arc of this mass deportation project from the beginning of Trump’s second term, although it was a feature of his previous administration. This attack has reached an unprecedented scale since 2025 when Trump entered office for the second time.

We saw, as you mentioned, Naureen, masked and unidentified ICE agents descend on our cities attacking pro-Palestine students. We saw, as the report notes, the president send the military to cities run by his political opponents, first deploying the National Guard to California to suppress anti-ICE protests, where we also saw a surge of masked federal agents targeting Latinos and grabbing people off the streets at gas stations, grocery stores, churches, and so on.

Related

Trump’s War on America

We started the year with immigration agents flooding Minneapolis and killing two protesters and shooting another who survived. Although the killings of those protesters, Renee Good and Alex Pretti, really drew national attention to this issue in a new way, you all documented just how widespread this kind of action from immigration agents has been over the past year.

While we’ve covered a lot of that at The Intercept, namely the targeting of pro-Palestine students by ICE, ICE has been doing this kind of thing in ordinary neighborhoods across the country. Fifty-two people have also died in ICE custody since Trump reentered the White House, putting the mortality rate of deaths in ICE custody at its highest level in over a decade, more than doubling that rate since he started his second term. That’s according to a new report from Physicians for Human Rights and Human Rights Watch.

Nayna, can you talk a little bit about why you think January was a turning point in terms of people paying attention to this?

NG: I’ll just start by saying, the Trump administration right now may have moved away from the more theatrical displays of force that characterized those earlier operations in places like Minneapolis and Chicago.

But just as you say, the basic objective has not changed — and that is a fixation on increasing detention and deportation simply for the sake of numbers. This is an administration that has made clear that sheer volume is their goal. What we saw in January was a lot of Americans waking up to the fact that this is the first time in U.S. history that we are seeing the immigration system taken to its extreme and sometimes beyond its legal limits within American communities against long-standing immigrant neighbors and those that stand up for those neighbors.

In other words, while in the past we have had harsh, or punitive or restrictive immigration policies at our border, this is the immigration enforcement system used to the extreme within the interior of the United States in our communities. Folks seeing that in their streets — this indiscriminate enforcement driven by sheer quotas and numbers — is a wake-up call. That includes for folks who voted in support of this president and mass deportation. We’ve heard stories reported early on of communities in places like Missouri that voted in large numbers for the president who are suddenly out on the streets calling for the return of their favorite local business owner and soccer mom who was swept away by arrest and detention.

Related

Two-Thirds of People Arrested by ICE in Minnesota Surge Had No Criminal Records, New Data Reveals

In other words, a lot of the protests and pushback we’ve seen is both because of the extreme nature of this agenda, but also who it’s targeting — and those are long-standing members of our communities who pose absolutely no public safety threat. We’re seeing a lot more Americans than ever before say, “Wait a minute, why do the laws subject these people to this kind of extreme response? That doesn’t make sense.”

AL: This is for both of you. I want to talk about the people who have been dying in ICE custody, which often does not get as much attention as the shootings. What is happening to people when they enter these facilities?

NG: Look, the immigration detention facility had a record of endemic abuse long before the Trump administration. And now what we’re seeing is the administration sweeping in, again, people who largely pose no public safety threat, who have no prior criminal convictions, who are being put into a system that no longer records where they are in the system so that family members and lawyers are unable to locate or find their loved ones.

Related

ICE Said They Were Being Flown to Louisiana. Their Flight Landed in Africa.

We’re talking about a system where now under the Trump administration, the vast majority of people locked up in these inhumane facilities don’t even have a right to a court hearing in the immigration system to make a case for their release. The administration is rapidly expanding the use of mandatory detention so that people who would have a good case for release don’t get to make that. That means that then folks are stuck inside, and sometimes when U.S. citizens or folks with lawful status get swept into these detention facilities, it can take weeks before they’re able to show that they shouldn’t even be there — because they don’t have access to that basic kind of due process. 

Then finally, again, the endemic, abusive conditions of this system predate the Trump administration, but this administration has taken that to an all-new extreme.

At this point, we’re seeing an average of one death every eight days out of the immigration detention facilities across the country, and the kinds of conditions we’re hearing about include starvation; not just medical neglect but intentional medical abuse; people not being able to receive life-saving medical treatments; pregnant women not being given the support they need.

This is extreme inhumanity, and that is what folks are facing when they go inside. And it’s a lot harder to shine a light on those abuses because we don’t have viral video footage like we do when we see some of these shootings and killings in our streets.

NS: If you’ve ever been to one of these detention facilities, you get a sense of the geography that’s at play. The geography of a detention facility is that sometimes you’re driving hours from the nearest city. These are in the woods. They are in areas that no one is supposed to be able to reach. 

The Trump administration has a design. They have a plan. They want to put people in detention sites that are remote, where lawyers have a harder time getting access, where journalists are not going to visit, and they don’t want people to be knocking on the doors and finding out what’s going on inside.

Related

Trump Is Prosecuting a Congressional Democrat for Doing Her Job. The Media’s Response: No Big Deal.

They don’t want congressional staff and members of Congress to be there either because what’s happening inside is truly frightening. It is straight out of the most dystopian novel, which is that you go inside these detention facilities, and you have no ability to reach back out into the world and get that lawyer to help you navigate the system — or even talk to an ICE officer and say, “I have no idea what’s going to happen to me.”

The most tragic cases are the ones where people need something as basic as their heart medication, and without it they will die, and they can’t get answers. They can’t get seen by a doctor. There is just no way to reach out to people to say, “This is happening to me.” That is why we’re seeing the record number of deaths in ICE detention because once you go in, you are stuck there in the most nightmarish kind of way.

We hear from people, not as much as we would if people actually had working phones in all these detention facilities. The ACLU just published a report with Human Rights Watch about Camp [East] Montana, the largest detention facility that’s on a military base. The conditions there are appalling. It really just strikes at your conscience to think that people are living in this kind of nightmarish condition where they don’t think they’re ever going to make it back out of these facilities — and that, again, is what the Trump administration wants to do.

Related

ICE Prison’s 911 Calls Overwhelm a Rural Georgia Emergency System

There was an ICE official who last year said we’re going to create the “Amazon Prime” of deportations. They want to treat people like they are not human beings, and that is partly why they put them in these detention sites; it’s to be able to get them out of public view quickly and deported quickly. 

That is just anathema to our Constitution, our entire system. Under our laws, detention is not supposed to be used as widely as it is being used; it’s meant to effectuate a final order of removal. That doesn’t mean that it’s meant to be used as punishment or to deter people from coming here or to terrorize people into self-deporting, but we know that’s the Trump administration’s aim.

AL: I just want to mention while we’re on this note, the case of Mohsen Mahdawi, a pro-Palestine student targeted by Secretary of State Marco Rubio, whose arrest by ICE I reported last year. In his case, on Tuesday, a panel for the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned a ruling that had released him from ICE custody. He told me that, though, that he was “in good spirit, unshaken, and determined and hopeful.” 

[Break]

Turning back to the most recent shootings in Maine and Texas — neither of those men were the people ICE was “supposed to be targeting.” The shootings also renewed criticism of ICE having slashed its training standards for new recruits, including cutting the amount of time that they had to go through training. They actually instituted new training in June in response to backlash, though they said it was to protect ICE agents from “coordinated campaigns of violence against them.” 

The AP reported that David Brouillette was the officer who shot Guerrero in Maine. Brouillette was an Army veteran with a history of mental health issues and domestic violence, according to relatives.

Naureen, what do we know about how ICE is screening officers, and does that really matter when even vetted agents are also carrying out these policies or involved in misconduct?

NS: A number of members of Congress have been asking questions about ICE’s vetting and hiring standards, as well as their training standards. What they have heard from the new DHS secretary, Secretary [Markwayne] Mullin, was meant to assuage them, meant to assure them that things are going back to the way they were before and that standards are going to be increased, that the training is going to go back up to its full level. But as you say, it’s not really just about who they’re hiring and even the training that they’re getting — it’s the message that they get all the way from the top.

And of course, the message after the killings of Alex Pretti and Renee Good was, you have immunity in the conduct that you’re engaged in. It’s basically a message of, “You’re going to get away with it. Don’t worry about it.” Even now, after these latest shootings, when Secretary Mullin said OK, we’re going to pull back on vehicle arrests, the very next day, the president was out there saying yes to vehicle arrests.

The signal from the very top of the administration is unmistakable: Arrest as many people as possible without regard for the actual impact on public safety, without regard for the killings that may result, the harm that results. And we’ve still got an ICE arrest quota, and we still have ICE officers out there who are being told to just get it done.

Related

ICE Recruitment Tweets Are So Racist That Cops Feared They Could Incite Neo-Nazi Violence

As Nayna was saying, it doesn’t matter for them how many U.S. citizens, how many green card holders, or how many kids. One of the things our report documents is how many kids have been caught up by ICE and other immigration agents. We identify more than 200 kids, including 32 U.S. citizen kids, who were subjected to misconduct and targeted by ICE. 

They just keep going and you don’t see any accountability for the missteps — the clear missteps — that they have made, let alone, real investigations into these killings that result in people being held accountable.

AL: Yeah, talking about not taking accountability — I remember listening to Tom Homan when he went to Minneapolis in January, effectively blaming the shootings of Good and Pretti on “hateful rhetoric” toward ICE.

NG: It is important to talk about some of these political players at the top. Again, this is an enforcement agenda, as Naureen is alluding to, that rewards volume and scale.

Just before these most recent shootings, there was reporting on how the White House was doubling down again on a quota. We have heard reports from law enforcement leaders who engage directly with people inside the administration that Stephen Miller himself was on the phone with ICE field offices around the country asking them why arrest numbers weren’t higher.

When you combine that kind of pressure from the White House with a workforce that has grown exponentially very quickly with relaxed training, vetting, and hiring standards, and a slush fund from Congress that has no meaningful accountability and oversight — these killings are no surprise. They are not isolated incidents. They are inevitable results of the combination of all of these factors that are at play. So even with more training and vetting, so long as Stephen Miller is on the phone, and Homan is backing him up, pushing for higher arrest numbers, I don’t think we can expect to see much difference on the ground.

That being said, in the immediate term, it is incumbent on members of Congress to push for training, vetting, and hiring. This is an administration that marketed this agenda as being focused on the “worst of the worst,” that has used public safety as a pretext to advance mass deportation — when they themselves are hiring people with questionable criminal records that underscore an inability to manage tense situations like the kind of enforcement that they are being thrown into, and like what we’ve seen out of Maine from the officer there.

AL: I also just want to mention before we move on to the next question that The Intercept recently reported on ICE adopting a new dress code after the deaths of Araujo and Guerrero and a botched raid in Las Vegas. An ICE official who spoke to us anonymously, citing the Las Vegas incident where a man was tackled to the ground by two plainsclothed people, said, “What an embarrassment the Vegas video was. Those two fucking clowns should’ve been immediately fired. Half these fucking new DOs” — that’s deportation officers — “don’t even know the basics of immigration law or how to process an alien. They hired a bunch of fucking clowns and they look sloppy as shit.”

Naureen, we spoke last year for a story about ICE rapidly expanding its cooperation with state and local police departments, even with wildlife and gaming commissions, and I remember you describing this dystopian image of a nationalized police force dispatched to do Trump’s political bidding. Does that match up to what you’re seeing now? Is it not quite there, or is it worse?

NS: We are at a really dangerous point with this national deportation policing force, which is what we call the cannibalization of federal law enforcement and state and local law enforcement to serve the mass deportation agenda. What we see all around the country is that law enforcement agencies, sometimes the entire law enforcement agency, are deputized to work for ICE. There’s a huge financial incentive for them to do so. They can get performance bonuses. They can get people’s salaries paid for, new cars, new phones.

What it means is that you have signed up to work for ICE. And so we see, for instance, highway patrols in some states just posting up. Their weekend duty is to set up checkpoints and have ICE in cars nearby, and they stop people for the purpose of funneling people to ICE. 

You’ve got local police who are in Florida. They’re seeing people and saying, “Hey, you’re walking your dog in the wrong part of the beach. No dog walking here. And by the way, where were you born? You seem to be speaking with an accent. Oh, I’ve gotta call ICE.” So what we have now is local police doing ICE’s bidding. From a democracy perspective, what’s so dangerous about that is that ICE is not just a law enforcement agency, it is a political tool of the White House.

They’ve made no bones about it during the funding shutdown last year. The president threatened to deploy ICE to the airports and did so really in a blatant political stunt to try to put pressure on Congress and say, “Look, I’ve got ICE and I can send them after you if I don’t like what you’re doing. If you’re putting the squeeze on me, I’ll use ICE to put the squeeze on you.”

So if you look not very far into the future and you think about, well, there’s more than 50,000 law enforcement agents that are now working for ICE — with ICE directly from another federal law enforcement agency, as you’ve reported, from the FBI, from state and local police, they’ve got more than 50,000.

Every day there’s even more law enforcement agencies signing up to work for ICE, and now they can be deployed by the president, by Stephen Miller, to go after dissent. That’s not a hypothetical. That’s not a hypothetical because we’ve seen it in states all around the country.

In our report, which was just looking at 2025, we identified more than 780 people who were engaged in First Amendment-protected activity. They’re documenting ICE’s behavior, they’ve got their cellphones on recording. They’re not trained legal observers, they’re just people. But there’s also members of the clergy, elected officials, journalists — more than 780 of them who were targeted or subjected to misconduct by immigration agents.

I think that should scare all of us when ICE is tear-gassing people. We documented 132 times when immigration agents were directly targeting people with chemical irritants, like spraying them in the face. That is brazen. Again, thinking about that as a politicized force, concentrated power at the beck and call of the president, not just here in Washington, D.C., but in states all around the country, it is truly frightening from the perspective of our democracy.

AL: You mentioned the reporting that I did in May on the FBI redirecting a quarter of its staff — over 9,000 personnel — to target immigrants. And at the state and local level, cooperation between federal immigration agents and local police has exploded under Trump. In his first year alone, the number of local and state police departments partnering with ICE to do immigration enforcement increased by 600 percent. As of July, ICE has partnered with more than 2,100 such agencies. Naureen, you touched on this a little bit, but Nayna, I wonder if you can elaborate on how those specific partnerships are making this deportation machine possible.

NG: Let me start with the diversion of resources from other federal agencies. One thing here that’s important to talk about on both fronts is public safety. These are agencies — federal agencies — that have typically focused on core public safety priorities like political violence, domestic terrorism, human and drug trafficking. Instead, these are now officers that are focused on low-level immigration enforcement with very little understanding of the immigration system altogether. That is a way to supercharge this mass deportation agenda at the federal level, but also a way in which it undermines safety for all Americans, not only immigrant communities. 

Related

Mahmoud Khalil Won His Freedom Despite the Best Efforts of ICE’s Intelligence Unit

At the local level, this expansion of partnerships between local sheriffs and the federal government absolutely, as always, can serve as a force multiplier for ICE. That means police officers out on the street using routine traffic stops that can turn into detention, deportation, family separation, or even death. There was the young 3-year-old boy who died because his mother had been deported; and she had been picked up by a local police officer during a traffic stop. That is an example of how these partnerships have real human harms.

Now on the public safety front, what we know is that when local police are deputized to work as ICE agents, of course they lose the trust of community members because communities become afraid that reporting crime or contacting public government services will result in deportation and detention.

Earlier in the administration, we saw a public post from a sheriff in Tennessee who said that a baby died in the care of a non-citizen caretaker who was too scared to call 911 in Tennessee because of recent raids that had just happened at the hands of Tennessee State Police officers and federal agents.

So those public safety implications are real, and at the [American Immigration] Council, we have been talking to sheriffs around the country who do not want to enter into these partnerships because of how it erodes their credibility and how it works against public safety. These are sheriffs in places, including North Carolina, who say, “We can’t investigate homicides in immigrant communities if we’re in bed with the Trump administration and ICE.”

We’ve seen the most conservative sheriffs in Florida who cozied up to this agenda saying, “Wait a minute, why are we going after people who pose no safety threat for these kinds of arrests?” So this kind of collaboration, as Naureen said, it obviously has implications for our democracy. It’s growing our federal police force. But it also has terrible negative effects for actually protecting public safety and maintaining public trust of public institutions. 

We can expect the kind of violence we’re seeing, not only at the hands of federal agents, but also local police officers if we continue to see the administration expand this kind of collaboration.

AL: I’m not really sure people grasp just how unprecedented the amount of federal money we’re giving to ICE and CBP is compared to when those agencies were created after 9/11. Congress just gave ICE and CBP another $70 billion on top of the money allocated in Trump’s economic bill last year, which allocated $170 billion over four years for federal immigration enforcement.

Naureen, can you put in perspective for our listeners that explosion in funding, and how is that money shaping what federal immigration agents are doing, what resources and the kinds of weapons that they have?

NS: The $240 billion injection that the Trump administration has given ICE and Border Patrol make these agencies — which already were the largest federal law enforcement agencies — make them far larger than anything that we’ve seen at the federal law enforcement level. Their budgets are bigger than that of many, actually most militaries around the world. So most militaries around the world are funded less than ICE and Border Patrol at this moment in our nation’s history. 

Related

“Terrorist”: How ICE Weaponized 9/11’s Scarlet Letter

If you think about where ICE even comes from, like how it came into being, it came into being after the 9/11 attacks and the creation of the Department of Homeland Security. It’s a pretty young agency as they go, less than 25 years old. And even after 9/11, which spawned a lot of legitimate concern and also a lot of hysteria about terrorism and immigration. Even after that, we didn’t see this kind of funding. Nothing near this kind of funding.

We’ve actually got a bar chart that shows just how enormously, like a staggering amount of money this is in comparison to anything ICE and Border Patrol got before. Even if you compare it to the first Trump administration, even if you look at several years combined, it does not meet $240 billion. So what can they do with this money?

I mentioned that they want to create the “Amazon Prime” of deportations. It means that they can not only expand ICE’s footprint directly in terms of hiring, but they can do more of what we’ve been talking about, which is incentivizing state and local police to join their ranks through a program called 287(g).

They’re going to spend billions of dollars on that, billions of dollars on detention, and detention not to make it more safe. It will be deadly. It will be large facilities where people are just left to suffer all kinds of abuse and all kinds of medical neglect, and of course, just to deport as many people as they can.

Related

Deportation, Inc.

It’s worth remembering that their ambition is to deport 100 million people. That’s what they’ve said on their social media platform. 100 million, which is about a third of the country, that’s how many people they want to get rid of. And they’ve got a lot of ideas about how to do it. So they will be spending that money unless Congress takes it back, and we will certainly be looking for members of Congress now to make that commitment that they will take that money back because it is just too large a sum.

AL: I want to end on how immigration is coming up in the midterms. There’s been an intractable debate on immigration reform in Congress for as long as I can remember. Congress could create a path to citizenship for people. We saw efforts to that effect under President Joe Biden, which were then used to attack him and the eventual nominee, Kamala Harris, in 2024 as a preview of what Trump would do in office.

Meanwhile, Republicans are campaigning in this midterm cycle on attacking immigrants and taking advantage of anti-immigrant sentiment among their base. We also have Trump basically trying to hold the GOP hostage until they pass his SAVE Act bill that has previously failed and is even unpopular among Republicans and would require people to prove their citizenship to vote with a birth certificate or a passport, documents that more than 21 million Americans already lack access to, according to the Brennan Center.

I wonder if you could talk about how the war on immigrants is tied to the war to strip people of their right to vote. Nayna, I’ll start with you.

NG: The challenge of advocating and pushing to reform and fix the immigration system has always been that so many of the people impacted are quite obviously the most politically disenfranchised. They’re non-citizens. They don’t have a right to vote. That means that pathways to permanent status and citizenship could wake up new constituencies that would be a threat to the far right, given the far right’s anti-immigrant sentiment. That is always a backdrop in the fight for advancing reform.

We have, over the many months of this administration, seen them use the immigration system as the tip of the spear in their attack on democracy and core democratic institutions. Once again, we’re seeing the administration use immigration and the authorities they’ve been given in the system to attack fundamental voting rights — whether that’s using immigration agents at polling locations, whether that’s pushing back against these efforts to provide folks pathways to permanent status and protect them from the arm of ICE.

Related

ICE Poses a Real Threat to Our Elections

So there’s no question that the immigration enforcement agenda that this administration is pursuing ties to voting rights. Now, the question is, given that, how do we still make sure we’re offering solutions and reforms that can be viable and build a broad enough coalition of support to overwhelm that far-right base and the way they’ve weaponized this issue?

At the Council, what we’ve observed is that while we’ve done a great job at talking about what we don’t want — we don’t want this many dollars, we don’t want an immigration detention system to enforce civil immigration rules — it’s been harder to explain to folks how do you get rid of those harmful parts of the system but still have a system of rules.

We still have to enforce immigration laws in the United States. And what we’ve been doing is talking to members of Congress, talking to the public about what that can look like, that you can have penalties for violations of civil immigration law. But deportation should not be this one-size-fits-all punishment, and that is the system that we have right now.

When we talk in those terms, there are many Americans who are increasingly uncomfortable with what they’re seeing, given the killings of people like Renee and Alex, but who still believe in a system of rules and are worried about an America that welcomes anybody and everybody. And so what we’re really saying is, you can enforce rules and have a system, but no, it doesn’t have to mean that any person in violation of civil immigration law could be subject to arrest and mass incarceration. What does that look like? Those kinds of conversations are a more effective antidote to the far right’s effort to weaponize the immigration system, not only to hurt immigrants, but to hurt core democratic rights like the right to vote.

NS: Most Americans still support citizenship as a pathway. More than 80 percent of Americans support a path to citizenship for Dreamers, people who came here as kids. That includes 54 percent of Republicans, according to a Gallup poll from July. [Editor’s note: 56 percent of Republicans support Dreamers’ citizenship in the Gallup poll.]

So even with years and years of anti-immigrant scapegoating, Republicans, Democrats, Independents, all support a path to citizenship. I think it gets to what Nayna is speaking to, which is a value of fairness, a value that cuts across a lot of different parts of our political spectrum — a sense that people ought to have a fair shot.

When we talk about the rules of the system, we are talking right now about if you were playing this, if you were explaining this as a board game to a child, there would be no way for most people to win that board game. They would just keep landing on go directly to jail, do not pass go, just go to jail.

That is how our immigration system is set up. It’s a game with rules, and the rules are rigged so that people will fail, and they will be punished, and they might even lose their lives, and they might even be torn from their small children. And of course, we’ve seen heartbreaking cases like that. So the ACLU is seeing this moment as a moment for policymakers to call for transformative change to an immigration system that has long been cruel, and has long not served anybody’s interest.

Right now, that system is on overdrive. We are seeing that cruelty on display, and it means that we just need to transform this entire system. How do you turn a broken, upside-down system right-side up? The first thing is that people in this country, millions and millions of them, need a path. They need a path to being here with legal residency and ultimately with citizenship.

But if we continue to have a system where more than 10 million people — who are our neighbors, our loved ones, ourselves, people who are working, who keep this country going — if those people are stuck in this game that they just cannot win, we’ll never have a system that works. Enforcement will always be broken.

It will always mean people being put in detention because they just never had a chance at any kind of alternative where they could live freely and openly and with legal authorization. And, just say also, that’s really terrible for our democracy. I think about, I’ve got little kids, I think about the country they’re going to grow up in.

If Stephen Miller has his way, the undocumented people in this country and their U.S.-born children are not going to have the same right to education. They won’t have the same right to free speech. So two decades from now, if we were having this conversation and one of us was undocumented or one of us was the child of an undocumented person, Stephen Miller’s pipe dream is that some of us would have the right to speak our minds on this, in this conversation, and some of us would be afraid. That’s where we’re headed to unless we have transformative change to this broken immigration system.

AL: We’re going to leave it there. Naureen Shah and Nayna Gupta, thank you so much for joining me on The Intercept Briefing.

NS: Thanks for having me.

NG: Thanks so much.

AL: We want to hear from you. Tell us what you’re following or want to see more coverage of. Email us at podcasts@theintercept.com or leave us a voice mail at 530-POD-CAST that’s 530-763-2278

That does it for this episode of The Intercept Briefing. 

This episode was produced by Laura Flynn. Ben Muessig is our editor-in-chief. Maia Hibbett is our managing editor. 

Fei Liu is our product and design manager. Nara Shin is our copy editor. William Stanton mixed our show. Legal review by David Bralow.

Slip Stream provided our theme music.

This show and our reporting at The Intercept do not exist without you. Your donation, no matter the amount, makes a real difference. Keep our investigations free and fearless at theintercept.com/join. 

And if you haven’t already, please subscribe to The Intercept Briefing wherever you listen to podcasts. And leave us a rating or a review, it helps other listeners to find us.

Let us know what you think of this episode, or If you want to send us a general message, email us at podcasts@theintercept.com. 

Until next time, I’m Akela Lacy. 

The post Trump’s National Killer Police Force appeared first on The Intercept.

On Wednesday, when he saw someone posting on Reddit that they had received sudden approval for a loved one’s initial application for permanent residence, he wondered if he and his wife had gotten lucky.

Miranda quickly went to check the application status on the website of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, the agency that oversees visas and naturalization.

To his delight, the portal showed that their application had also been approved to move on to the next step in the process. Yet he had a nagging suspicion: Was this coming too soon? Wait times for approval of just the first step in the process can stretch more than two years, so could his wife’s application really be getting moved along so quickly?

When he called the agency’s helpline Thursday morning to confirm the approval, his suspicions proved correct. Miranda said the employee answering his call told him that his wife’s application status was unchanged.

And they weren’t the only people affected: According to Miranda, the employee acknowledged that USCIS was aware of a glitch affecting numerous applicants.

“It was heartbreaking,” Miranda told The Intercept of learning that their application status had not in fact changed. “I get that there’s technical stuff behind the scenes, but at the same time, what kind of glitch causes these mass approvals?”

The apparent glitch resulted in dozens or more applicants for green cards receiving false notices of approval for a key step in the process, according to multiple people who received the false approvals and accounts of similar approvals posted online. (USCIS did not immediately respond to a request for comment.)

In addition to Miranda, The Intercept spoke with two other green card applicants who received false notices of approval for the I-130 form, the first major hurdle in the process for obtaining a permanent residency visa for relatives of a U.S. citizen.

Dozens more people on Reddit and a user on an immigration-related Discord server reported experiencing the same false approval notices when they checked their application status on Wednesday and Thursday.

Related

Trump Wants Immigrants on U.S. Soil to Hand Over Social Media Accounts to Apply for Citizenship

People began to report on immigration forums on Wednesday that they’d received approval the I-130 form, but elation turned to devastation as they came to understand the notices as an error.

On Thursday, the USCIS site appeared to be down for a time. When it came back up, accounts for applications of at least two of the people who spoke to The Intercept still showed their loved ones’ green cards as being “approved.”

Americans’ Loved Ones

The I-130 form is just the first step in applying for a green card for the spouse or relative of a U.S. citizen.

Wait times for the form’s approval range, on average, between 10 and 20 months. Often, however, they stretch out to two years or more. During that time, the applicant is unable to live or work in the U.S.

Approval, then, is the first sign that couples or families are one step closer to living their lives together in the U.S.

“This feeling of not having your partner here is already painful enough,” Miranda said. “It’s even more painful when you have that approval waved in your face, only to have your dreams crushed.”

Related

Trump’s National Killer Police Force

Kate, an American citizen whose spouse and stepchild have applications pending, told The Intercept she saw an erroneous approval notice for her case on the USCIS website on Thursday after reading online posts about a flurry of approvals overnight.

Kate, who spoke with The Intercept on the condition that her surname and certain identifying details be withheld for fear of affecting her spouse’s immigration process, said she and her partner and stepchild had applied for the I-130 nearly a year ago and are living apart from one another as they await approval. 

She happened to be visiting her spouse’s country of origin, and they were thrilled to be able to celebrate the milestone of being one step closer to a green card together. When she got back from their celebratory lunch, however, she checked the site again and found that none of the usual signifiers of an approval were showing up, including an approval notice that would usually appear in the site’s documents tab.

She said she had not yet told her spouse that the approval appeared to be the result of a glitch.

“It’s just devastating,” she said. “I don’t know how I’m going to tell him. He’s going to be devastated.”

“Straight Up Unfair”

On a Reddit forum dedicated to the pain and suffering of the I-130 process — called “r/I130Suffering” — dozens of people reported similar experiences with the glitch, starting with sudden elation and ending more demoralized than ever.

And on Track My Visa, a Discord where applicants swap advice and gripes about the immigration process, numerous users reported the same. On Thursday, the moderators of the forum suspended a channel dedicated to celebrating approval notices lest people celebrate prematurely.

The glitch is just the latest frustration for Miranda, who said the process to bring his wife to the U.S. has been so fraught that it’s forced a reassessment of long-held political beliefs.

The son of Mexican immigrants who immigrated legally and ultimately received citizenship, Miranda said he had long considered himself a Republican and felt that tough immigration policy was necessary to ensure a fair shot to people immigrating legally.

Now, he said, seeing how difficult it is to immigrate legally, even as the spouse of a citizen, he’s wondering if he had it wrong.

“I always thought ‘they’re just going after illegals,’” he said. “But this is affecting legal immigration to the point where it’s almost stopped. You can have a million dollars and get a green card, but if you’re trying to process a loved one and you can’t — that’s just straight up unfair.”

The post U.S. Website Gave False Approval to Green Card Applicants — Then Blamed Glitch and Took It Away appeared first on The Intercept.

Seven Democrats issued a statement Wednesday night lamenting that they cannot vote for the latest draft of the bill, citing weak provisions aimed at tamping down Donald Trump’s crypto self-enrichment, among other issues. In a joint statement, they pledged to keep working with Republicans to “get this over the finish line.”

Other Democrats say they have had enough of crypto, however. The problems with the bill run much deeper than Trump’s corruption, Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., said at a Wednesday speech, and it is time for Democrats to openly break with the industry and its $189 million in campaign funds.

“This bill is in front of the Senate because the industry paid for it,” Murphy said. “We should, in this election, make crypto’s purchase of our political process, AI’s purchase of our political process, a major campaign issue.”

The two sides staked out their position as Republicans released a draft text of the far-reaching bill known as the Clarity Act, which would create an industry-friendly regulatory structure for cryptocurrencies.

Critics say there are many problems with the bill, including lax consumer protections and loopholes that would enable money laundering. Nothing in the monthslong fight over the legislation has generated as much controversy as Trump’s self-dealing, however.

Between the $TRUMP meme coin and other ventures, Trump profited at least $1.4 billion off crypto last year. Democrats have proposed requiring Trump to divest himself of his crypto ventures and put enforcement in the hands of Democratic state attorneys general.

Instead, Republicans issued a proposal, with Trump’s blessing, that would prevent him from issuing new meme coins and put enforcement in the hands of his own Department of Justice and would not be enforceable after he leaves office.

Related

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand Wants to Save Crypto — But Trump Windfall Is a Political Obstacle

No matter what’s in the legislation, the bill is meaningless if it leaves enforcement to Trump’s own administration, said Mark Hays, the associate director for cryptocurrency and financial technology at Americans for Financial Reform and Demand Progress.

“I don’t think anybody who is following the DOJ seriously thinks they will do that,” he said. “That is just not how this administration works.”

Even Sen. Adam Schiff, a California Democrat who has often sided with crypto in the past, said he opposes the language in the bill addressing Trump. Schiff told reporters at the Capitol that that text gives the appearance it applies to Trump and his family without actually doing so.

“It’s a complete nonstarter,” he said.

The bill’s flaws led the seven mostly centrist Democrats to issue a statement hours after the release of the draft text saying that they could not vote for it in its current form.

“Key provisions including those addressing ethics for elected officials, consumer protection, illicit finance, conflicts of interest and market integrity must be strengthened. We have been working in good faith with our Republican colleagues for the past year and will continue doing so to get this over the finish line,” said the group, which included Sen. Angela Alsobrooks, D-Md., one of the top negotiators on the bill.

The time for Democrats and Republicans to reach a compromise is slipping fast, however. The Senate goes into recess on August 7, and few observers expect Congress to take the measure up again as the midterms approach.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune said that he hopes to put the measure to a vote before senators leave town.

Related

Who’s Spending in Your Congressional Election? We Tracked the Front Groups Fueling the 2026 Midterms.

Democrats are nervously eying the industry’s war chest if they are put on the record as opposing the Clarity Act. Companies including Coinbase, the largest publicly traded crypto company, have contributed $189 million into super PACs and candidate campaign funds to influence the midterms.

In the past, some of the spending has benefited Democrats such as Sen. Ruben Gallego, D-Ariz. Yet it may have also contributed to Democrats losing the Senate in 2024.

Murphy, in the Wednesday speech at the Center for American Progress, said it would be better to attack the industry than try to work with it.

“They are spending money in order to get a pro-crypto bill passed through the United States Senate and House of Representatives,” Murphy said. “And there are, I guess, two approaches that the Democratic Party could take. One approach is to just do what the crypto industry wants and then cross our fingers and hope they don’t spend money against us in the next election. Good luck with that strategy. The second approach is to make the industry’s brazen attempts to buy our political process a campaign issue.”

The post Trump’s Crypto Corruption Puts Centrist Democrats in Bind appeared first on The Intercept.

“It started with this hilltop,” he said, referring to the current settlement push that has crept ever closer to al-Mughayyir. “We ended up putting the area in Jewish hands. There are no Arabs here.”

Netanel was speaking on a tour aimed at English-speaking Jews, some of whom expressed interest in moving to the settlements. He described his “mission” to support his fellow settlers and shepherds in their return to “Judea and Samaria,” the biblical name Israeli settlers and the Israeli government use for the West Bank.

The settlement movement is accelerating, recruiting outsiders to join and bringing in reinforcements from the military’s Hagmar battalions, regional defense units staffed largely with settlement residents that have exploded in size since October 7, 2023. The government has issued thousands of rifles to civilian security squads, at times distributed personally by Israel’s far-right national security minister, Itamar Ben-Gvir. Israeli watchdog groups describe the push as an unprecedented state-backed land grab, one that settlers are carrying out with an odd combination of tools: government-supplied rifles alongside herds of sheep and goats.

Reservist settler-soldiers like the Hagmar battalions “are not simply self-organized militia groups,” said Marko Milanovic, a professor of public international law at the University of Reading. “In essence, they should be treated in the same way as IDF soldiers as a legal matter.”

Established in 2025, the Metzudat David is illegal, even under Israeli law. It is one of 10 Israeli outposts that now surround al-Mughayyir as settlements expand at a rapid clip in the Israeli-occupied West Bank. At one stop on the tour, a group of Israeli youths could be seen building a new housing unit for a family slated to move into the settlement.

“The ultimate goal is for people to leave their homes and villages. But the settlers aren’t acting alone, they’re backed by the Israeli government, which uses them as instruments to get what it wants,” Amin Abu Alia, the council head of al-Mughayyir, told The Intercept.

Settlers have taken over more than 38,000 dunams of al-Mughayyir’s grazing and farmland, the equivalent of nearly 9,400 acres. Across the West Bank, settlers living in farm outposts now effectively control roughly 1 million dunams — nearly a fifth of the entire territory — according to a report published this month by the Israeli watchdog groups Peace Now and Kerem Navot. The report found that roughly 750,000 of those dunams were seized since the current Israeli government took office in late 2022.

Related

Armed Israeli Settlers Detained Ro Khanna. He Wants Their Illegal Outposts Demolished.

Of al-Mughayyir’s roughly 41,000 dunams, Palestinians today have practical access to only 1,200 to 1,500, Abu Alia said. The village’s eastern gate, which opens onto the Alon Road, has been closed by the Israeli military since 2023.

In response to questions from The Intercept, COGAT, the Israeli defense body that administers the West Bank, said the outposts “are known to the Civil Administration and are unauthorized.” The COGAT spokesperson added that the body had already demolished other unauthorized settlement structures. “Additional enforcement measures will be taken in accordance with enforcement priorities, the operational situation assessment, and the approval of the political echelon,” the spokesperson said.

“Once [the Metzudat David] outpost went in, it effectively closed off the village’s access to land to the east, displacing the community from that land,” Dror Etkes, the head of the Israeli settlement watchdog Kerem Navot, told The Intercept. Residents describe a growing sense of foreboding, a feeling that their time is running short before life in al-Mughayyir becomes untenable. And that fear has only grown. On Saturday, a 17-year-old resident, Fadi Naasan, died of wounds he sustained when he was shot during a raid on the village earlier that month, according to the al-Mughayyir village council.

Only a handful of settlers like Netanel oversee the Metzudat David outpost. Otherwise, dozens of animals fan out across the land to claim as much space as possible, requiring very little manpower.

On the tour in June, Netanel showed off the more than 100 sheep and goats that do the settlers’ work for them. The herds graze out Palestinian crops, and their steady, intimidating presence — backed by the threat of settler violence — pushes farmers off land they can no longer safely use, clearing the way for the outpost to absorb it.      

These outposts now control at least 786,000 dunams, roughly 14 percent of all land in the West Bank. Some 70 percent of the land seized by grazing outposts was taken in the past few years, according to Kerem Navot and Peace Now.

For now, the settlers don’t make any money from the livestock, Netanel said. The milk and meat aren’t profitable, but “the other work they do,” he said, “is invaluable.”

Palestinians living in al-Mughayyir are unable to enter the Alon Road, the main artery connecting the eastern half of the West Bank, and must exit through the western side of the village, via Khirbet Abu Falah. Residents say this adds at least an hour to any trip.

Even the fallback route is under threat. One of the new outposts, built inside Area B on al-Mughayyir’s northwestern lands, also encroaches on the very villages the detour runs through, according to the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs.

“If you go through the IDF checkpoint, it’s a gamble. They can arrest you, beat you, steal your money, steal your belongings,” Omar Mohammed, who lives in al-Mughayyir, told The Intercept. “They can do whatever they want. You can’t do anything about it.” The Israeli military did not respond to questions about mistreatment of residents at checkpoints.

Hodaya, who led the tour and knew a reporter was present, gave only her first name, like Netanel. “On the other side of two hills, there are also another settlement,” she said. “So now, you know, the [farms] are surrounded by Jews, and that helps to make the place more safe.”

Related

Trump’s Sanctions Against the ICC Are Unconstitutional, Rights Groups Say

During the tour, an Israeli military armored personnel carrier was stationed at the village’s yellow gate — the kind that has become a distinct marker of movement restrictions across the West Bank since October 7, 2023 — was shut.

When one of the participants on the tour asked whether Palestinians resisted attempts to confiscate their land, Hodaya answered, “They don’t accept it and say, ‘Oh, very nice, we’re going away.’ Of course they’ll fight. They’re on the land, and they were permanent … but they understand that there’s a change.”

There was a sense of excitement on the tour about a Jewish return to what participants called Judea and Samaria, and an explicit recognition that doing so would require displacing Palestinians from their land.     “The assumption is that ‘We cannot get rid of [the roughly 3 million] Palestinians right now in the West Bank,’” Etkes, of the watchdog group Kerem Navot, said, describing the settler thinking. “‘So what we have to do is isolate them and take from them their means of livelihood.’”

Al-Mughayyir was the village most affected by settler violence in the West Bank in 2025, when there were more than 70 recorded settler-related incidents, according to Nasser Khoudr, Middle East assistant research manager at the Armed Conflict Location & Event Data, known as ACLED. It is on track to earn the same distinction in 2026.

“One of the main reasons behind this is the expansion of nearby settlements and farming outposts, especially since 7 October,” Khoudr said. “This expansion has gone together with Israeli government policies that gave more power to settler security structures.”

In April, a settler shot and killed Aws al-Naasan, a 14-year-old student, and Jihad Abu Naim, a 32-year-old parent, at the boys’ school in al-Mughayyir, according to the United Nations and village officials.    

Video of the attack, verified by multiple news outlets, shows a man in military fatigues advancing on the village and firing repeatedly toward the school.

Related

American Nurse Who Tried to Save “No Other Land” Activist Was Detained and Deported by Israel

The Israeli military said the shooter was a reservist traveling in a car with other Israeli civilians who exited the vehicle and opened fire at “suspects in the area,” alleging that they had thrown stones at the car. The military said the reservist was dismissed from reserve duty and his weapon confiscated, and that military police are reviewing the killings. No one has been arrested for the shooting.

Mohammed was one of the first to reach his friend’s body after the settler-reservist shot Aws in the head. “They come in half uniform, wearing the green pants, but not the shirt,” Mohammed said. “We can’t tell if they are a settler, a soldier, or, well, both.”

The distinction has dissolved. Even in regular army units, settler ideology has taken root. In March, reservists detained CNN correspondent Jeremy Diamond and his crew in the village of Tayasir while guarding an illegal outpost, telling the journalists on camera that the entire West Bank belongs to Jews and that they were avenging a settler’s death.

According to the U.N., no Israeli soldier has served prison time for killing a Palestinian in the West Bank since at least 2017, and the Israeli rights group Yesh Din found that 93.6 percent of investigations into settler violence between 2005 and 2025 were closed without indictments.

Last August, after a Palestinian gunman allegedly opened fire on a settler grazing his sheep on al-Mughayyir’s land, the Israeli military declared a closed military zone and uprooted olive trees across roughly 74 acres of the village’s land — at least 3,100 trees by the military’s own count, and far more according to village officials who spoke with The Intercept.

The military said that the clearing was necessary because vegetation near the road obstructed “the identification of enemy movement.” But the head of the army’s Central Command, Maj. Gen. Avi Bluth, told troops the village would “pay a heavy price,” prompting two Israeli human rights groups to demand a criminal investigation into him, suspecting he was ordering collective punishment. None ever occurred.

Netanel described participating in the uprooting. He said it was sad to see the olive trees die, but “it is for security, security of this outpost. We need a clear line of sight into the land.” As Netanel spoke, the roots of the trees still pointed up into the air.

“It’s a process, a process that we are progressing,” Netanel said. “That’s what’s happening here.”

Update: July 23, 2026, 12:16 p.m. ET
This story has been updated with a comment from COGAT, the Israeli defense body that administers the West Bank.

The post On a West Bank Eviction Tour, Israeli Settlers Advertise “No Arabs Here” appeared first on The Intercept.

The 216–212 vote on the fiscal year 2027 National Defense Authorization Act passed mostly along party lines after lawmakers were denied a separate vote to remove Section 219, which would create a permanent initiative to merge U.S. and Israeli defense tech.

“Codifying the integration of our military technology and supply chains with those of any other country is dangerous,” said Massie, one of seven Republicans to buck party lines and vote against the NDAA. He was joined by Reps. Josh Brecheen of Oklahoma; Tim Burchett of Tennessee; Eli Crane of Arizona; Harriet Hageman of Wyoming; Anna Paulina Luna of Florida; and Chip Roy of Texas.

Six Democrats voted for it: Reps. Henry Cuellar of Texas; Don Davis of North Carolina; Jared Golden of Maine; Vicente Gonzalez of Texas; Adam Gray of California; and Marie Gluesenkamp Perez of Washington.

Related

Congress Is Trying to Permanently Integrate U.S. and Israeli Defense Tech

Section 219 would establish a United States–Israel Defense Technology Cooperation Initiative and require the defense secretary to designate a Pentagon executive agent responsible for coordinating bilateral defense research, development, testing, evaluation, and industrial cooperation.

Massie, who sought to remove the provision alongside Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., told The Intercept ahead of the vote that institutionalizing the relationship would create long-term national security risks.

Doing so with Israel would create “a lopsided arrangement” in which American national security is unnecessarily compromised, he added. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., similarly referred to the provision as “an existential threat to American sovereignty and democracy,” in a statement on social media.

Massie also pointed out that codifying the initiative would make it more difficult for future presidents to withdraw from the arrangement.

“Enshrining this broad agreement and the permanent position it creates in legislation removes the flexibility of future Presidents to withdraw from such an arrangement,” Massie said. He further argued that it “requires a treaty to effect, not an amendment buried in a law as presented here.”

The provision, previously numbered Section 224, has generated controversy since The Intercept reported on it in June. The Intercept found that it closely resembled the U.S.–Israel FUTURES Act, introduced by Reps. Ronny Jackson, R-Texas, and Davis, with companion legislation from Sens. Ted Budd, R-N.C., and Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y. All four lawmakers have received substantial campaign support from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee and other pro-Israel groups, while the FUTURES Act itself received public backing from AIPAC and the neoconservative foreign policy think tank FDD Action. Massie lost his primary for reelection to his Kentucky House seat in the spring, after President Donald Trump and AIPAC both backed his opponent.

The standalone FUTURES Act did not advance, but many of its core concepts subsequently appeared in the NDAA.

Massie and Khanna later led an amendment to strike Section 219, joined by Democratic Reps. Jim McGovern of Massachusetts; Jesús “Chuy” García of Illinois; Rashida Tlaib of Michigan; Don Beyer of Virginia; Jill Tokuda of Hawaii; Derek Tran of California; and Joe Courtney of Connecticut. The amendment was not made eligible for floor consideration. Luna, the Florida Republican, separately sought to strike Section 219, but her amendment was also denied a vote.

Rep. Marlin Stutzman, R-Ind., rejected Massie’s sovereignty concerns.

“There is no world that the United States government gives away our most elite military weaponry or technology to our allies, including Israel,” Stutzman told The Intercept. “Just because we are collaborating with our allies to work towards a common goal of safe citizens doesn’t mean we are giving away American sovereignty.”

Related

Trump’s Formula for Forever Wars

Stutzman’s office previously told this reporter that Section 219, then numbered Section 224, originated with Jackson’s office. Stutzman separately told Responsible Statecraft that his own proposal to replace direct U.S. military assistance to Israel with trade and defense cooperation grew out of conversations with Israeli contacts.

Also on Wednesday, House Republicans passed a $95 billion budget plan to fund the war on Iran and impose new restrictions on elections.

House passage does not make Section 219 law. The Senate’s version of the NDAA, which has yet to pass, contains its own version of the defense technology initiative, leaving the proposal’s ultimate fate dependent on further Senate action and negotiations between the chambers.

The post GOP Rep. Called Israeli–U.S. Defense Tech Integration “Dangerous.” The House Passed It Anyway. appeared first on The Intercept.

William Lawrence is running a very different campaign.

In a purple congressional district in Michigan, Lawrence, a co-founder of the progressive Sunrise Movement, is calling for a moratorium on new data centers and labeling Israel’s war in Gaza a genocide.

The approach mirrors that of Michigan Democratic Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed, who has endorsed Lawrence.

Both men are making strong showings in the polls, and now the centrists are fighting back. A shadowy group is running misleading ads that question Lawrence’s progressive bona fides.

The line of attack is telling, Lawrence told The Intercept.

“People are sick of the status quo,” he said. “We have seen this in many cases in other elections this cycle — that corporate centrists are attacking progressives for not being progressive enough. And it shows you what voters are hungry for is change.”

An unabashed progressive, Lawrence breaks the mold of the typical candidate to run for a seat like Michigan’s 7th Congressional District, which is centered around the state capital of Lansing and the college town of East Lansing.

The district was previously represented by centrist Democrat Elissa Slotkin, who now serves in the Senate, and is currently held by Republican first-term Rep. Tom Barrett.

Related

Democrats Are Desperate to Flip an Arizona House Seat. They’re Rallying Around a Former Republican.

The other two candidates running in Michigan’s August 4 primary hew closer to Slotkin’s mold. Bridget Brink is a former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine who quit in protest of President Donald Trump’s policies on the war with Russia, and Matt Maasdam is a former Navy SEAL who served as a military aide to President Barack Obama.

Unlike Lawrence, both declined to call Israel’s war on Gaza genocide at a debate.

Lawrence also comes from a starkly different background: While Brink and Maasdam traveled the corridors of power in Washington, Lawrence focused on building grassroots power, first through his role co-founding the youth-led Sunrise Movement, which backed the Green New Deal, and more recently helping found the Michigan Rent Is Too Damn High coalition.

Mutual Endorsements

On July 7, Lawrence and El-Sayed announced that they were endorsing each other. Like Lawrence, El-Sayed is running in the progressive lane in his primary while arguing that it will not hurt his electability in the general.

“We have a lot of people who want to back both of us,” Lawrence said. “Given that the two of us both prioritize having a very robust, grassroots campaign rather than just relying on tens of millions of dollars in dark money like our respective opponents, it is especially beneficial for us to be able to integrate our grassroots operations.”

Although no independent polls of the race have been released, Lawrence’s campaign commissioned one showing him leading the pack. Another commissioned by Brink’s campaign showed her ahead.

Now that Lawrence has demonstrated that he has a shot at winning, the attacks have begun.

The Congressional Black Caucus is targeting him over a podcast episode in which Lawrence remarked to a Black anti-war activist during a conversation on organizing that he was frustrated with the position of some older Black political leaders backing “capitalist, imperialist American power.”

Lawrence says his comments have been misrepresented while apologizing for his choice of words.

Related

Who’s Spending in Your Congressional Election? We Tracked the Front Groups Fueling the 2026 Midterms.

Meanwhile, a super PAC called the Crush MAGA PAC is targeting Lawrence, rather than the Republican holding the seat. The group has plowed more than $500,000 into a highly misleading ad that accuses Lawrence of investing in “Wall Street, big oil, and data centers” and campaigning against Democrats for supporting the 2024 Uncommitted movement, which sought to pressure party candidates over Israel’s war on Gaza.

The investments highlighted in the anti-Lawrence ad make up a small portion of the $11,000 Lawrence has invested in a mutual fund; the mutual fund, not Lawrence himself, chose them. And, for his part, Lawrence eventually supported Kamala Harris in the 2024 election.

The source of the ad campaign against Lawrence is unclear, but he has speculated that it may be powered by pro-Israel donors.

Crush MAGA PAC is affiliated with another group called the Save Democracy PAC, which has received money from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee’s super PAC, United Democracy Project. United Democracy Project, however, denied getting involved in the Michigan congressional race. (Neither Crush MAGA PAC nor Save Democracy PAC responded to requests for comment.)

If Lawrence succeeds in the primary, he will have to win in a general election in a purple district. He believes he can show that progressive candidates can win in split districts, pointing to the election and reelection of Congressional Progressive Caucus member Rep. Chris Deluzio in a swing district in Pennsylvania.

“He’s not throwing people under the bus, and he has joined the progressive caucus, and he has now turned that into a more comfortable district. He has been winning with healthy margins,” Lawrence said. “That is what I hope to be able to do as well.”

The post William Lawrence Is Running in a Purple Michigan District — on His Pro-Palestine Credentials appeared first on The Intercept.

The disclosure came one day after a U.S. official told The Intercept that recent attacks by Iran had wounded “far more” personnel than the Pentagon had acknowledged, with “dozens” receiving medical attention. 

After ranting that reports of a Pentagon effort to withhold news of dozens of U.S. casualties were “baseless and malicious,” Sean Parnell, a Pentagon spokesperson, admitted on Monday that “nearly 100 service members were deemed to have some degree of injury since July 7.” But as of early Tuesday morning, the official Pentagon database tracking U.S. casualties continue to show no U.S. forces were wounded in action during July.

The U.S. official, speaking on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss American casualties, called this “official ineptitude” in the service of the Trump administration.

The disclosure comes after three Army soldiers were killed in ballistic missile attacks on Muwaffaq Salti Air Base in Jordan over the weekend. Pvt. Isabella Gonzales, 19, of Carrollton, Texas, and Lt. Tyler James Feehan, 25, of Ewa Beach, Hawaii, were killed in action. The third soldier is provisionally listed as missing, but the official said that “unidentified remains” found after the attack were “certainly” those of the missing soldier. A second official confirmed this assessment and said the soldier’s body was so badly disfigured that a “complete investigation” had to be conducted in order to confirm the identity.

In Iraq, Army Sgt. Michael Emmanuel Swinton, 30, of Fayetteville, North Carolina, was killed and another soldier was wounded over the weekend “during a controlled detonation” of an Iranian attack drone at Erbil Air Base.

U.S. bases across the Middle East suffered “significant” damage over the last week, according to the official speaking on the condition of anonymity. In addition to attacks in Jordan and Iraq, Iran struck U.S. military installations in Bahrain, Kuwait, and Syria according to the semi-official Tasnim News Agency, which is associated with Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. The attacks came after the U.S. failed to achieve any of its war objectives and April and June ceasefires crumbled. The official said Iran had learned how to defeat U.S. air defense systems by overwhelming them using a mix of ballistic missiles and attack drones.

Both Central Command and the Office of the Secretary of War failed to respond to detailed questions from The Intercept about the attacks and U.S. casualties.

Parnell said on X that further casualty updates would be posted to the Defense Casualty Analysis System, which tracks “deceased, wounded, ill or injured” service members for Congress and the president. Prior reporting by The Intercept found DCAS is missing hundreds of dead and wounded personnel. DCAS was also previously adjusted downward by 15 casualties without explanation. For months, the Pentagon has ignored requests by The Intercept for comment or clarification.

Parnell said on Monday morning that “casualty information is publicly available and regularly updated online on the Defense Casualty Analysis System for everyone, including the media, to review.” But DCAS was, uncharacteristically, not updated on Monday morning and instead offered outdated figures posted on Friday. On Monday afternoon, the count of wounded on some DCAS webpages rose from 427 to 447, but the Pentagon’s official tally of troops “wounded in action” during July remained at zero as of early Tuesday morning.

Related

“Casualty Cover-Up”: The Pentagon Is Hiding U.S. Losses Under Trump in the Middle East

The U.S. official called the Pentagon’s confused casualty count “official ineptitude” that “serves the interests of this administration.” The source said errors, conflicting information, and disappearing data were tolerated because it “floods the zone” with misinformation and adds to confusion among the press and public.

Parnell claimed that the “vast majority of injuries experienced [this month] were minor concussions,” and that 96 percent of personnel have returned to duty. But blast symptoms — like traumatic brain injuries — can take time to manifest, if the military even bothers to assess them.

The Trump administration has often discounted head trauma. President Donald Trump himself has long dismissed brain injuries as “headaches” and “not serious.” After an Iranian missile attack on Al-Asad Air Base in Iraq in January 2020, Trump said, “We suffered no casualties.” The Pentagon would later acknowledge casualties resulting from the attack and proceeded to adjust the figure upward at least five times, with Central Command ultimately admitting that 110 troops suffered traumatic brain injuries. A November 2021 inspector general report indicated that the number of brain injuries may have been even higher, because “DoD cannot determine whether all Service members are being properly diagnosed and treated for TBIs in deployed settings.”

Alyssa Farah, a former Pentagon spokesperson, later revealed on a podcast that the Trump White House pressured the military to downplay those troops’ injuries. “We did get pushback from the White House of ‘Can you guys report this differently? Can it be every 10 days or two weeks, or we do a wrap-up after the fact?’” said Farah. “The White House would prefer if we did not give regular updates on it.” She added, “And I think that it ended up glossing over what ended up being very significant injuries on U.S. troops after the fact.”

The post “Cover-Up” Unravels as Pentagon Admits Nearly 100 Injured in Iran Strikes appeared first on The Intercept.

The nationwide policy, shared with The Intercept by a Department of Homeland Security whistleblower and confirmed by multiple ICE officers, details a new set of appearance standards aimed at making it easier for the public and fellow law enforcement officials to recognize ICE officers in the field.

“Law enforcement officers performing field operations shall wear readily identifiable ICE attire, including a ballistic vest during high-visibility operations,” says a guidance memo signed by Acting ICE Director David Venturella. “Appropriate field attire includes khaki or coyote brown tactical type pants, paired with an ICE polo, or dark blue or black polo.”

The memo adds, “Clothing such as jeans, sweatshirts, hoodies, non-collared shirts, or apparel displaying graphics or screen prints is not authorized during field operations.”

The new directives for ICE’s Employee Code of Conduct came in the wake of a botched arrest last week in Las Vegas by two ICE officers wearing hooded sweatshirts, with one attempting to pull a hood down over his face as onlookers recorded video. (ICE did not respond to a request for comment.)

The officer attempting to make the arrest “looked like a kidnapper,” said one ICE official who spoke to The Intercept on the condition of anonymity to protect their livelihood.

“Ending the era of ICE agents making arrests in hoodies and unbranded street clothes is a long-overdue admission that unidentifiable immigration enforcement is dangerous, instills fear, and erodes public trust,” Nick Wilson, the senior director of public safety policy at Center for American Progress, told The Intercept. “Real public safety requires holding federal agents to the exact same standards of visibility, training, state and local oversight, and independent investigations of civil rights violations as local law enforcement.”

Along with the use of masks, ICE officers’ failure to clearly identify themselves amid arrests and other enforcement actions have drawn criticisms from the public and raised the ire of elected officials. Attorneys general have pleaded with Congress to pass legislation requiring that ICE officers wear identifying insignia, and members of Congress have themselves urged ICE to require officers better identify themselves to the public.

Botched Las Vegas Arrest

The new dress code, two ICE officials told The Intercept, came in direct response to the recent fatal ICE shootings in Texas and Maine and the botched arrest attempt by two plainclothes ICE officers on July 13 at Harry Reid International Airport in Las Vegas.

“It’s because of the incident that happened in Las Vegas,” said the ICE official.

Video of the Las Vegas airport incident, recorded by a bystander, shows two people in hooded sweatshirts tackling a man in the middle of a busy terminal. After passersby draw near, the officers abandoned the arrest but left the man handcuffed on one hand. The man tackled in the video, later identified as Phu Nguyen, a 57-year-old Australian national who allegedly overstayed his visa, was arrested by ICE the following day at Los Angeles International Airport.

“It blew all our minds,” the ICE official said. “It didn’t look professional. They didn’t present a badge when they initiated.”

The new ICE dress code policy mandates that all arresting officers must clearly display an ICE badge while conducting arrests.

“During low-visibility operations, the ICE badge must remain visible at the time of arrest.” the policy says.

Another ICE official, who also cited the Las Vegas airport incident, said a wave of new ICE recruits and relaxed training standards had contributed to the lack of professionalism.

“What an embarrassment the Vegas video was,” said the second ICE official, who also requested anonymity. “Those two fucking clowns should’ve been immediately fired. Half these fucking new DOs” — deportation officers — “don’t even know the basics of immigration law or how to process an alien. They hired a bunch of fucking clowns and they look sloppy as shit.”

In a statement to the press, a Department of Homeland Security spokesperson blamed bystanders for the botched arrest in Vegas.

“As officers attempted to arrest Nguyen, a crowd of anti-ICE agitators surrounded officers,” the statement said. “To de-escalate the situation and for officer safety, officers did not proceed with the arrest.”

According to ICE officials who spoke to The Intercept, the new dress code could be the first step toward a major shift in ICE’s long-standing status as a plainclothes agency.

“I would say the writing’s on the wall,” said one ICE official. “I wouldn’t be surprised if we go to a uniformed agency.”

The post ICE Mandates Dress Code After Killings and Botched Arrest appeared first on The Intercept.

Connie Chan, a progressive member of the San Francisco County Board of Supervisors, already has the backing of establishment Democratic figures such as Pelosi and Sen. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., along with influential local labor groups. But the endorsement from Citizens Against AIPAC Corruption, the political advocacy offshoot of TrackAIPAC, is a notable move to further differentiate Chan from her opponent, state Sen. Scott Wiener. Wiener came out 11 percentage points ahead of Chan in California’s June primary election, sending the two to a general election runoff that excluded Saikat Chakrabarti, then TrackAIPAC’s preferred candidate. 

“In Congress, we will oppose any aid to Israel and do everything in our power to stop their government’s genocidal actions against the Palestinian people,” Chan said in a statement to The Intercept. “We are proud to stand with groups like End Citizens United and Citizens Against AIPAC Corruption to fight to fix our democracy.”

Israel and Palestine have featured heavily in the race to replace Pelosi, who is retiring at the end of the current congressional term. Days after Chakrabarti’s defeat, he dedicated his remaining campaign funds to form a PAC to support Chan, citing her position on sending U.S. weapons to Israel and her vow to “vote to end all military aid to Israel – offensive and defensive.”

To earn TrackAIPAC’s endorsement, Chan filled out the group’s questionnaire, in which politicians seeking the group’s backing swear off money from pro-Israel lobby groups like the American Israel Political Affairs Committee, agree that Israel’s war in Gaza amounts to a genocide, and promise to oppose all U.S. weapons transfers to Israel, consistent with positions Chan had taken earlier in the race.

Last week, the majority of House Democrats voted in favor of cutting military aid to Israel from the National Defense Authorization Act legislation, which sets the budget for Pentagon spending. The measure failed, but the vote marked a dramatic shift in a Congress that has long granted military aid to Israel with scant opposition. With the recent endorsement and arms embargo pledge, Chan signaled her position among the changing tides in the party. She also is against U.S. involvement in Israel’s invasion of Lebanon and said on her website that she would have voted in favor of the failed House resolution calling for the withdrawal of U.S. support for the war. 

Related

How Does TrackAIPAC Actually Track AIPAC?

“We heard from many of Connie’s constituents in San Francisco, as well as supporters around the country, who wanted a clear statement of her positions on Gaza, Lebanon, and America’s role in both,” a TrackAIPAC spokesperson told The Intercept in a statement. “We were proud and pleased to offer her that opportunity through our endorsement questionnaire, an opportunity her opponent, state Sen. Scott Wiener, has not taken.”

For his part, Wiener makes a distinction between offensive and so-called defensive weapons to Israel. He says that he would vote in favor of the Block the Bombs Act in the House, which seeks to halt arms transfers of certain munitions to Israel, but that he backs providing U.S. support for Israel’s missile interceptor systems Iron Dome and David’s Sling. Earlier in the race, Chan had taken a similar position, telling Mission Local in January that offensive weapons should be banned while U.S. support for defensive weapons should be paired with humanitarian aid to Gaza. In recent months, she has shifted toward an arms embargo on all U.S. weapons to Israel.

Positions Wiener held earlier in his political career, such as opposing local resolutions calling for a ceasefire in Gaza and supporting state legislation that free speech advocates have said censors pro-Palestine expression in schools, continued to follow him on the campaign trail. Wiener has remained an opponent of the Palestinian-led Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement, while Chan’s platform calls for sanctions on Israel over the genocide in Gaza and its expansion of West Bank settlements and asserts the free speech right to boycott. The TrackAIPAC endorsement pledge also opposes efforts to pass laws that punish people who participate in the BDS movement.

Last month, Wiener was chased out of the San Francisco Trans March by attendees who called out his record on Palestine, with one attendee yelling, “I think your policy on genocide in Gaza is terrible — you do not belong here anymore.” Days earlier, another person filmed his confrontation with Wiener at a bar during a World Cup match, calling him out on his support for Israel and his housing policy. 

Related

Democrats Are Split Over What It Means to Block Israel Weapons Deals

Wiener decried the incidents as harassment, a line that both Chan and Pelosi also held, condemning both confrontations. Chan said she understood the role of public disagreements, but added, “As someone who has been a target of hate and threats of violence I stand firm and threats of violence and hate speech.”

Chan also came under fire just days from the primary election for supposed connections with the pro-Israel lobby. Reporting from Drop Site News revealed that Chan had received support from Pro-Choice Majority Action, a PAC with funding ties to AIPAC’s super PAC and Democratic Majority for Israel, formed as an alternative to AIPAC amid Democratic disillusionment with the flagship pro-Israel group. At the time, Chakrabarti used the revelation to claim that AIPAC had attempted to keep him out of the general election because of his support for Palestinian human rights. Chan rejected the claims and said she encouraged any groups supporting her to reject funds tied to AIPAC.

Now, with support from both Chakrabarti and TrackAIPAC, which made a name for itself by running fierce social media campaigns against lawmakers who received money from the pro-Israel lobby, Chan is trying to put allegations of coordination with the pro-Israel giant to rest.  

“Big corporations, billionaires and special interest groups are using their money to try and buy our elections,” Chan said. “But we know San Francisco is not for sale. We have never taken money from AIPAC or their affiliates, because we serve San Francisco and no one else.”

The post Nancy Pelosi’s Pick for Her SF House Seat Takes Anti-AIPAC Pledge appeared first on The Intercept.