Category: Full Text Articles – Audio Posts

Join Chris Cuomo, Bill O’Reilly and more big-name guests Wednesday for NewsNation’s CUOMO Town Hall with a live studio audience and virtual audience across America to discuss the first 100 days of President Donald Trump’s administration. Find out how to watch!

(NewsNation) — President Donald Trump has signed a record number of executive orders during his first 100 days in the White House, a tally that is more than half of the 220 orders he signed during the entirety of his first term.

The 141 executive orders signed by the president as of this week range from immigration to ending Diversity, Equity and Inclusion programs to creating new government programs, including the Department of Government Efficiency, which thrust tech billionaire Elon Musk into a new political spotlight.

On Monday, the eve of his 100^th day in office, Trump signed a pair of immigration-related executive orders. One directed the Justice Department and the Department of Homeland Security to identify jurisdictions that Trump considers to be “sanctuary cities” refusing to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement.

The order directed Attorney General Pam Bondi and DHS Secretary Kristi Noem to publish a list of sanctuary cities as the Trump administration considers legal action against those jurisdictions, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said.

“It’s quite simple,” Leavitt told reporters Monday. “Obey the law, respect the law, and don’t obstruct federal immigration officials and law-enforcement officials when they are simply trying to remove public safety threats from our nation’s communities.”

The second executive order is designed to “unleash America’s law enforcement to pursue criminals and protect innocent citizens.” The order authorized Bondi to create a mechanism that provides legal resources to police officers who unjustly incurred costs or liabilities for actions taken while doing their jobs. The order also provides excess military and national security equipment to state and local law enforcement agencies.

Here’s a look at other major executive orders Trump has signed during the first 100 days of his administration. The Associated Press reports that as of this week, dozens of lawsuits have been filed challenging executive orders and other actions taken by the Trump administration and DOGE.

Security of the US-Mexico border

Trump declares a national emergency at the southern border 

This order helps the secretary of Defense quickly and seamlessly deploy members of the armed forces to the border and free up more federal resources.

 Trump designated cartels as global terrorists

Under this order, certain international cartels and other criminal organizations will be designated as foreign terrorist organizations or global terrorists.

Trump changes the definition of birthright citizenship

Trump’s executive order changed the definition of birthright citizenship and declared that no government department or agency will issue citizenship documents to children whose parents do not meet specific guidelines regarding their own citizenship.

The economy

‘America first’ foreign policy

Trump signed an executive order calling for the secretary of state to issue guidance bringing the department’s policies, programs and personnel in line with a policy that puts “America first.”

Trump enacts 25% steel and aluminum tariffs

In February, Trump signed an executive order memorializing his plan to impose 25% tariffs on all steel and aluminum imports, including from Canada and Mexico. 

“This is the beginning of making America rich again,” Trump told reporters as he signed the document.

Trump regulates imports with reciprocal tariffs

In early April, Trump signed a series of reciprocal tariffs and threatened to unleash a global trade war on a day a day he deemed “Liberation Day.”

Trump announced a 25% tariff on all foreign-made cars starting at midnight. He also said the U.S. would be instituting reciprocal tariffs, including 34% on imports from China (on top of the previous 20%, making it a 54% tariff), 20% on imports from the European Union, 46% on imports from Vietnam, 32% on imports from Taiwan, 24% on imports from Japan, 49% on imports from Cambodia, 10% on imports from the United Kingdom and 30% on imports from South Africa, among others.

Roughly 60 countries are being singled out for the reciprocal tariffs, the majority of which are set at half of the tariff those countries place on U.S. goods. There will be a 10% baseline tariff on all countries where reciprocal tariffs are not specified.

On April 9, Trump announced a 90-day pause on reciprocal tariffs, but raised the rate on China’s tariff to 125%.

Diversity and inclusion

Trump signed an executive order ending funding for DEI programs in the government and directed the Office of Management and Budget and the Office of Personnel Management to end “illegal mandates and preferences.”

Trump limits definitions of gender identity

The order directs federal agencies to use sex, not gender, in federal policies and documents. The order will also limit the choice of gender identification to sexes assigned at birth.

Keeping men out of women’s sports

Trump’s executive order bans transgendered athletes from competing in girls’ and women’s sports and gives federal agencies wide latitude to ensure that agencies that receive funding abide by Title IX in alignment with the Trump administration that interprets “sex” as the gender a person was assigned at birth.

Education

Trump’s executive order ordered the ending of educational “indoctrination” that included “radical, anti-American ideologies.” The order also called for federal funding to be eliminated for schools that did not end “indoctrination,” including based on gender identity and discriminatory equity ideology.

Trump’s executive order authorized the closure of the Department of Education.

Military

Trump’s executive order reinstates military service members who were dismissed for refusing to get the COVID-19 vaccine and issues them full back pay and benefits and reinstates military members to their former rank.

The president signed an executive order that bans transgendered service members and that orders that all Department of Defense medical standards be updated to “ensure they prioritize readiness and lethality”. The order also ends the use of “invented and identity-based pronouns” within the Department of Defense.

Trump’s executive order eliminates the military’s Diversity, Equity and Inclusion programs, which comes after the president previously ordered all DEI programs across the government to be done away with. The order eliminates race and sex-based discrimination within the armed forces and bans sex-based preferences within the military, the Department of Defense or the Department of Homeland Security.

Department of Government Efficiency

Trump’s executive order establishes the Department of Government Efficiency, tol be overseen by tech billionaire Elon Musk.

Trump’s executive order implemented the DOGE workforce optimization initiative, which the president signed “to restore accountability to the American public” and commences a “critical transformation of the federal bureaucracy.”

Health

Trump’s executive order expands access to In vitro fertilization and more affordable treatment options. Doing so, the order states, provides more support, awareness and access to affordable fertility treatments that can help families “navigate the path to parenthood with hope and confidence.”

Trump’s executive order withdraws the United States from the World Health Organization, which the order stated “continues to demand unfairly onerous payments from the United States, which are far out of proportion with other countries’ assessed payments.”

The Associated Press contributed reporting to this story

Join Chris Cuomo, Bill O’Reilly and more big-name guests on Wednesday for NewsNation’s CUOMO Town Hall with a live studio audience and virtual audience across America to discuss the first 100 days of President Donald Trump’s administration. Wednesday at 8p/7C.

(NewsNation) — A lot has happened in the first 100 days of the Trump administration. While other networks and talking heads speculate from Washington, we’re heading back out on the road to communities across America.

In the four-part series “Drive the Vote” featured on “The Hill” and daytime shows, Brian Entin is meeting everyday Americans where they are, getting a peek into life 100 days into the new administration: What issues are driving their conversations, what they are celebrating, what they are frustrated by and what they are still hoping for.

On Monday, Entin revisited a Philadelphia barbershop to discuss voters’ thoughts on President Trump’s performance during his first 100 days in the White House.

“He’s protecting the border, I like how his policies are directed towards America first,” one man said. “The tariffs are very terrifying, but I see the necessity. It could backfire. It could be very, very bad. But risk is called risk. He’s a businessman. All business is risk.”

A barber told NewsNation the price of replacing clippers has increased by around 35%, but he refuses to place the cost on his customers.

When asked by NewsNation why many assume African-Americans don’t like Trump, a customer said he believes that is a media-made assumption.

“We all are hot and cold on different issues,” the man said. “I didn’t say I love him. I said that, you know, on certain issues, I’m in accord with him. I never loved every president… I mean, I didn’t love Barack Obama. Some things I like, some things I don’t like.”

The two Harvard University students who faced criminal charges for assaulting an Israeli classmate during an anti-Israel “die-in” protest will take an in-person anger management class and perform 80 hours of community service as part of a pretrial diversion program, court filings reviewed by the Washington Free Beacon show.

The two students, Elom Tettey-Tamaklo and Ibrahim Bharmal, sought the program, and a Suffolk County judge approved it during a Monday hearing. Their attorneys requested only 40 hours of community service, but the judge sided with the prosecutor Ursula Knight’s call for 80 hours. Knight also called for the anger management class as well as a statement from Tettey-Tamaklo and Bharmal admitting fault. The judge did not include the latter request in his order.

The development means that the long-running ordeal will soon come to an end, with Tettey-Tamaklo and Bharmal scheduled to appear in court for a “Pretrial diversion completion” hearing on July 25, according to court filings. That hearing will take place nearly two years after Tettey-Tamaklo and Bharmal were shown shoving and accosting an Israeli student at Harvard Business school in a video first reported by the Free Beacon. The Israeli student was attempting to walk through an Oct. 18, 2023, “die-in” protest assailing Israel’s retaliatory attacks on Hamas when keffiyeh-clad individuals surrounded him, shouting, “SHAME!”

The video prompted criticism from prominent Harvard Business School alumni, including former Utah senator Mitt Romney (R., Utah) and billionaire investor Seth Klarman, who cited the incident in a 2023 letter that accused Harvard of failing to protect its Jewish students. Harvard, however, remained quiet about the case, even as Tettey-Tamaklo and Bharmal faced charges last May. Both students remained in good standing with the school in the wake of the die-in, and both were expected to graduate in May 2025, Bharmal from the law school and Tettey-Tamaklo from the divinity school.

As their assault case progressed, Harvard did not say whether it would award Tettey-Tamaklo and Bharmal degrees if the proceedings were ongoing or if they were convicted. The school did not immediately respond to a request for comment. If Tettey-Tamaklo and Bharmal complete the pretrial diversion program, their records will not contain criminal convictions.

Bharmal, a former Harvard Law Review editor, received support from both Harvard Law School and the left-wing legal community as the case unfolded. Last June, around the same time he was charged, Bharmal worked as an immigration law clerk in the Washington, D.C.’s public defender’s office, the Free Beacon reported. Then, in April, Harvard Law School published a blog post in which Bharmal fondly reminisced on his time at the “Crimmigration Clinic,” a law school course in which students work on federal immigration cases.

The case may have concluded sooner if not for Harvard, which refused to cooperate with the Suffolk County District Attorney’s probe into the “die-in,” according to the DA’s office. The office requested Harvard’s police department conduct a “follow up investigation” aimed at identifying “any additional perpetrators” as well as “inculpatory/exculpatory evidence.” Harvard declined, the DA’s office told the Free Beacon last year, prompting county prosecutor Knight to admonish the school in court.

“Harvard police essentially refused to investigate,” she said during a September hearing, calling Harvard’s behavior “a shock to the commonwealth.”

The “die-in” came at a very different time for Harvard, one in which Claudine Gay was still the school’s president and Donald Trump was not yet the Republican Party’s 2024 presidential nominee. It has since become part of the Trump administration’s criticisms of Harvard and its response to campus anti-Semitism. The administration’s April 11 letter demanding a series of policy changes at the school included a call to permanently expel “the students involved in the October 18 assault of an Israeli Harvard Business School student.”

The post Harvard Students Ordered To Enter Pretrial Diversion Program Over Assault of Israeli Classmate appeared first on .

Join Chris Cuomo, Bill O’Reilly and more big-name guests on Wednesday for NewsNation’s CUOMO Town Hall with a live studio audience and virtual audience across America to discuss the first 100 days of President Donald Trump’s administration. Find out how to watch!

(NewsNation) — Much like the Trump administration, the Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE, has shaken up the political world in its first 100 days.

President Trump initially tapped Vivek Ramaswamy and Elon Musk to lead DOGE, but both have since stepped back, with Ramaswamy removing himself altogether in January.

The department has made cuts to various government agencies, which followed Trump’s promises during his presidential campaign.

What cuts did DOGE make?

According to the DOGE website, it has saved an estimated $160 billion, equating to $993.79 saved per taxpayer, at the time of writing. However, critics have argued that the savings are much less than claimed.

Per its “Agency Efficiency Leaderboard,” DOGE has saved the most in the Department of Health and Human Services, the General Services Administration, the Department of Education, the Department of Labor and the Office of Personnel Management.

DOGE has made cuts across a raft of agencies, including national parks and community service programs, while some, such as Yellowstone, remain unaffected.

Thousands of HHS employees were laid off, resulting in a suspension of a milk quality testing program.

DOGE has floated the idea of stimulus checks for Americans thanks to the reported savings made by the department; however, that could be some time down the line.

It also shuttered USAID, though a federal judge ruled in March that DOGE likely used unconstitutional authority in doing so.

In U.S. District Judge Theodore Chuang’s ruling, DOGE was ordered to reinstate system and email access to USAID employees and ruled in favor of present and former USAID workers to “delay a premature, final shutdown” amid litigation.

Various research grants have been culled, including a $699,000 grant for Ohio State researchers examining cannabis use among LGBTQ+ women.

Per the Associated Press, almost $900 million in cuts were made from a federal research agency that tracked the progress of America’s students.

What happened to Musk?

Musk said last week he would be largely decreasing his involvement with DOGE to spend more time focusing on Tesla.

The car company announced a 71% drop in first-quarter profits on Apr. 22, which followed backlash, violence and protests over Musk’s role in the Trump administration.

“Starting probably in the next month, May, my time allocation to DOGE will drop significantly,” Musk said on the investments call last week.

“So I think I’ll continue to spend a day or two per week on government matters for as long as the president would like me to do so,” he added.

May 30 is the end of Musk’s “special government employee” status, and dozens of Democratic lawmakers called on Trump earlier this month to confirm Musk will leave his role in the administration by that date.

BreachForums, a major data leak marketplace, shut down on April 15 after a MyBB 0-day exploit allowed law enforcement infiltration.

On April 15, BreachForums, one of the top marketplaces for stolen data, abruptly shut down, fueling widespread speculation. Rumors ranged from FBI raids and the arrest of the administrator.

In the aftermath, several alternative forums emerged, some demanded entry fees, fueling confusion and raising the risk of scams or government-run honeypots.

BreachForums was an English-language cybercrime forum that emerged in March 2022 as a successor to the dismantled RaidForums. It served as a marketplace for threat actors to buy and sell stolen data, hacking tools, and compromised credentials. The forum was founded by Conor Brian Fitzpatrick, known online as “pompompurin,” who had previously claimed responsibility for the 2021 FBI email hack. ​

After Fitzpatrick’s arrest in March 2023, the forum’s administration changed hands multiple times, including to the hacking group ShinyHunters and later to an individual known as “Baphomet.” Despite efforts to keep it operational, BreachForums faced repeated shutdowns and domain seizures by law enforcement agencies, including the FBI.

According to a statement published by BreachForums, the forum ceased operations after the discovery of a zero-day vulnerability in the open-source forum software MyBB that was used by the platform. Law enforcement agencies may have exploited the flaw to infiltrate the forum. For this reason, the operators behind the platform shutdown it to start the incident response procedure.

“In or around April 15, we received confirmation of information that we had been suspecting since day 1 – a MyBB 0day. This confirmation came through trusted contacts that we are in touch with, which revealed that our forum (http://breachforums.st) is subject to infiltration by various agencies and other global law enforcement bodies.” reads the statement. “Upon learning of this, we immediately took action by shutting down our infrastructure and initiating our incident response procedures.”

Administrators pointed out that no data compromise occurred.

“Our findings indicate that, fortunately, our infrastructure were NOT compromised, and no data was infiltrated.” continues the statement. “Subsequently, we began auditing the MyBB source code and we believe we have identified the PHP exploit.”

BreachForums signed the following message just a short time ago. breachforums[.]st.

Thoughts?

—–BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE—– Hash: SHA512 Hello everyone, We would like to provide an update on recent events over the past two weeks. In or around April 15, we received… pic.twitter.com/NUZvc2Ekj0

— Dark Web Informer – Cyber Threat Intelligence (@DarkWebInformer) April 28, 2025

The administrators confirmed no arrests and that their infrastructure is intact. They warned users that emerging clones are untrustworthy, likely honeypots set up to lure users. They urged caution, advising users to verify trusted sources and avoid engaging with fake sites.

Follow me on Twitter: @securityaffairs and Facebook and Mastodon

Pierluigi Paganini

(SecurityAffairs – hacking, data leak forum)

For years, California Democrats have defended their landmark program to put ethnic studies classes in high schools across the state.

In the face of national right-wing media attacks and local critics, the state’s governing supermajority passed a law in 2021 making ethnic studies a graduation requirement, which supports school boards to develop their own curricula for the courses.

But one particular area of study threatens to unravel the Democratic consensus: Palestine.

In the past year, state lawmakers have teamed up with community groups and the lobbying coalition Jewish Public Affairs Committee of California, or JPAC, in a push to regulate the ethnic studies program. They’re aiming to pass a law that curbs local school board control over ethnic studies curricula in response to classwork focusing on the history of Israel and Palestine that they say has promoted unprecedented bigotry against Jewish students. 

The bill’s backers are framing the effort as a way to ensure that ethnic studies “will combat all forms of hate,” as one of the bill’s authors, Assemblymember Dawn Addis, wrote in a March 30 op-ed. “At a time when the federal government is trying to rewrite American history by banning diversity initiatives, California must persist in elevating the lived experiences of everyone in this country,” wrote Addis, whose office did not respond to inquiries from The Intercept.

But as right-wing groups oppose the bill and ethnic studies more broadly, a coalition of critics warn that the new controls could lead to the same type of state censorship in schools that has been put into law in conservative states like Texas and Florida.

“This language goes far beyond supporting culturally-responsive education in a general sense, and echoes educational gag order legislation we’ve seen in other states nationwide,” said PEN America spokesperson Suzanne Trimel in a statement. “This could result in state officials forcing a school or educator to pull certain materials they believe aren’t “fair” or don’t provide enough variety of perspective, concepts that are difficult to define.”

Assembly Bill 1468 introduced in February, would create new state standards for the ethnic studies classes that California schools must offer by the beginning of this coming school year. 

The discipline has its roots in California’s college student strikes of the 1960s and was codified into state education law after years of deliberation in 2021. In that legislative process, teachers and scholars advocating for a more explicitly anti-imperialist approach in line with its radical origins lost out: Lessons on Palestine were excised from the law before it passed, and the left wing of the ethnic studies movement was sidelined from the process.

But still, the law required schools to begin offering an ethnic studies course by the fall of 2025, and schools teaching the course had the choice to develop curricula on their own, working with consultants and local communities or drawing upon guidance from the state.

Under the new law, standards will be written by a panel of academic experts in a specific subset of disciplines — African American studies, Latinx/Chicanx studies, Asian American/Pacific Islander studies, and Native American studies — with additional input from representatives of communities most frequently impacted by hate crimes according to state law enforcement. 

The bill’s author has also promised more “traditional” scholars will be chosen by the governor. The state’s current model curriculum on human rights and genocide, within the history and social science category, briefly characterizes the Nakba as an event in which “Palestinians left Palestine.”

The California Department of Education would also receive all materials approved by local districts by 2026 and post their curricula online, with an eye for avoiding “abstract ideological theories” and focusing on the “domestic experience.”

On a call in March, the bill’s backers gathered on a webinar to discuss the game plan.

State Sen. Josh Becker, a Silicon Valley Democrat co-authoring the bill, said the bill “doesn’t ban anything.” He told the audience that his 12th-grade son received a presentation in an ethnic studies class that had a puppeteer’s hand holding strings and said, “Israel is a country created on Palestinian land. The United Nations says this is illegal.” 

“We all knew the U.N. created Israel, and there was no Palestine before that, and Gaza was controlled by Egypt,” Becker said, in remarks that were cut from the final video posted on Youtube. “And we all know the history, this was not that.” Becker’s office did not respond to requests for comment, but he later posted on social media on the comments: “I don’t mean and haven’t meant to say or imply anything minimizing the Palestinian connection to the land.”

David Bocarsly, executive director of JPAC, explained to hundreds of listeners why he saw a new state law as a necessary step. “District-by-district outreach became a game of whack-a-mole, and we knew that we needed a statewide solution,” he said. 

Part of PEN America’s criticism is that A.B. 1468’s compliance provisions take a “one-size-fits all approach to education” that “could amount to educational intimidation.”

But a large segment of California’s Democratic establishment is lining up behind this bill. Thirty-one state Democrats, including all but one member of the California Legislative Jewish Caucus, have already signed on as co-authors of the bill. 

The state superintendent of public instruction, Tony Thurmond, who plans to run for governor in 2026, has endorsed an earlier version of the bill that was held by the author in an August committee hearing. And his office recently investigated a San Jose ethnic studies teacher, finding that they violated Jewish students’ rights by failing to intervene with another perspective during a student project on genocide with a slide titled “Genocide of Palestinians.” (The investigation notes no students complained, and the district told The Intercept it will be responding to the state’s findings.)

Two candidates running to replace Thurmond in 2026 have also indicated support for JPAC’s efforts on ethnic studies. One of them, Assemblymember Al Muratsuchi, chairs the committee where the bill will face its first hearing. His office did not respond to questions from The Intercept.

The current movement to clamp down on teaching Palestine in ethnic studies curriculum coalesced around a story out of Orange County. The Santa Ana Unified School District, adjacent to one of the nation’s largest Arab American communities, approved two world history ethnic studies courses in April 2023 that briefly taught about Israel and Palestine, including content about the Nakba and settlements. After pro-Israel organizations objected, the district’s superintendent vowed not to remove any group’s narrative in May 2023.

But in September of that year, an Anti-Defamation League-backed coalition sued on procedural grounds. During the messy litigation, lawyers pressed district staff and board members for their thoughts on Zionism and Hamas, and in August 2024, they uncovered text messages indicating senior district officials sought to avoid scrutiny by passing courses on a Jewish holiday. Two congressional Republicans subsequently called for the district to undergo a federal investigation.

District leaders, meanwhile, responded by shelving the contested courses as part of a February 2025 settlement, inviting the litigants to provide input to the course process while denying claims of discrimination. The agreement also promises not to include several references to the oppression of Palestinians from a book about ethnic cleansing by a British sociologist.

A few days after the Santa Ana settlement, A.B. 1468 was introduced in the California legislature, and JPAC published five examples of what it called “examples of antisemitism and harmful rhetoric” in ethnic studies classrooms.

But JPAC didn’t provide any sources for their claims, and in some situations it’s unclear exactly to which materials they are referring. Bocarsly, the executive director of JPAC, did not respond to requests for comment or more information on the list.

JPAC included the Fort Bragg Unified School District on the list for its lesson with a map of Palestinian dispossession and land loss. Superintendent Joseph Aldridge said that he first learned of JPAC’s allegation from The Intercept and is now removing the lesson from the unit, which has not yet been taught and also includes a lesson on Middle Eastern Jewish communities.

Aldridge said that he wished that JPAC had gotten in touch to discuss the issue before putting the district on the list. “I was a little disappointed to see our district’s name out there without at least some chance to have a conversation about it,” he said.

A spokesperson for another district on the JPAC list, San Francisco Unified, responded “we are looking into this,” when contacted by The Intercept. Following up, its spokesperson later said that the district was in alignment with state law. Maria Su, the district’s superintendent, did not respond to inquiries. 

Janet Schulze, the superintendent of Pittsburg Unified School District, told The Intercept she was “very surprised and puzzled” to see JPAC’s claim that the district used a biased definition of the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement in its course, and said that they had been working with the curriculum consulting firm Community Responsive Education for years. 

“We have not received any negative feedback or reports of anti-semitism from our community regarding this course or any of the other courses we have that meet the Ethnic Studies requirement,” she said in a statement. A representative from the national pro-Israel group StandWithUS, a member of JPAC’s coalition, did however criticize the contract with Community Responsive Education in a 2024 school board meeting.

The push to clamp down on ethnic studies curricula picked up political momentum in the wake of the October 7 attacks in Israel and the subsequent anti-war movement in the U.S., but one of the bill’s authors has made it clear that the fight stretches back to the late 2010s.

Los Angeles Assemblymember Rick Chavez Zbur has called opponents to A.B. 1468 advocates who have been “peddling” radical curricula to school districts. “They have a big presence in the Cal State system, they’re organized, there are liberated ethnic studies adherents within the teachers unions,” he warned listeners on the JPAC webinar in March. His office declined an interview request and did not respond to questions from The Intercept.

After losing out in the legislative wrangling over the original ethnic studies bill, the spurned left wing of the expert body convened by the state Department of Education created a consulting firm in 2020 called the Liberated Ethnic Studies Model Curriculum Consortium, with the goal of helping school districts interested in the more radical vision of the discipline construct their courses. The group has been in the crosshairs since, while similar firms and coalitions have popped up nationwide.

A federal judge in November threw out a lawsuit alleging that LESMCC covertly spreads antisemitism and bias throughout Los Angeles and California schools, writing in his decision, “It would be of great concern for the educational project and for academic freedom if every offended party could sue every time they did not like a curriculum or the way it was taught.” The case is being appealed.

None of the districts cited by JPAC have contracts with the group, though CRE, which works with the Pittsburg district, was co-founded by Allyson Tintiangco-Cubales, an Asian American studies professor at San Francisco State University who is on the LESMCC leadership team. 

Theresa Montaño, an LESMCC founder and California State University, Northridge professor of Chicano/a studies, said that lawmakers “seem to want to label” all the material they dislike as “liberated ethnic studies.” She said that school districts and teachers choose to work with her group’s teacher training or classroom materials of their own volition. What they choose to teach “is their sentiment, and it’s the sentiment of a lot of their students,” Montaño said.

But she noted that her group is just a small part of a larger movement in education, and many districts arrive at curricula that some consider controversial on their own. “When you’re engaged in a movement, it’s organic, it’s dynamic, it’s ever changing, it’s created from the grassroots up,” she said. “Nobody controls that movement, not liberated ethnic studies, not community responsive education, not any consulting group around ethnic studies.”

Opposition to CRE’s work in the Pajaro Valley Unified School District, which covers a majority Latino farm area south of Santa Cruz, sparked a year-and-a-half long fight over whether to renew the group’s contract. That came to a close just last week, when the board voted to renew the CRE contract on the grounds that they found no antisemitism in the actual curriculum. But the ADL California and StandWithUs have continued to push back, demanding school board members apologize for statements that they say drew on antisemitic tropes, which drew an official warning from the superintendent of Santa Cruz County Schools.

Other small, diverse California communities are speaking out against the new bill. Cudahy, a 96 percent Hispanic city of just 21,000 in Los Angeles County, unanimously passed an April 15 resolution saying the bill “undermines local control.” “This is clearly a way to manipulate the narrative of the genocide in Palestine. If we read the language of the text of the bill, it’s pretty evident,” said Councilmember Daisy Lomeli at the meeting. 

Though some are reevaluating their courses, hundreds of California districts are moving forward with the ethnic studies program in the face of significant political pressure, and without the over $200 million in funding the state estimated was necessary for developing their classes.

The bill is set to be heard on April 30 in the Assembly Education Committee in what is expected to be a lively hearing, unless lawmakers vote to extend the deadline in advance. “Those pushing to inject harmful content into our classrooms are loud,” reads one message from JPAC to supporters. “We need to be louder.”

The post Dems Push for “Educational Gag Order” Over Palestine Lessons in California appeared first on The Intercept.

Despite officially claiming neutrality, China is in practice a key enabler of Russia’s war effort against Ukraine. Through massive exports of critical dual-use materials like nitrocellulose — vital for ammunition production — Beijing supports Moscow’s military industry. This policy reflects China’s broader geopolitical ambitions to counterbalance the West without direct confrontation. However, the strategy carries serious risks: increased Western sanctions, damage to China’s international image, potential economic losses in European markets, and growing distrust among global actors. China’s “neutrality” is becoming increasingly unsustainable as evidence of its indirect involvement mounts.

China consistently proclaims its neutral stance regarding the Russia-Ukraine war. Official statements from Beijing emphasize a commitment to peace and the avoidance of supplying lethal weapons to either side. However, real-world evidence tells a different story. Export records, Western intelligence reports, and expert analysis indicate that China plays a significant role in supporting Russia’s military production through the supply of critical components. 

China’s Material Support to Russia: The Case of Nitrocellulose

Recent customs data reveal an explosive growth in Chinese exports of nitrocellulose to Russia — a key ingredient in manufacturing gunpowder and explosives:

• Between 2015 and 2021, Chinese exports of nitrocellulose to Russia were negligible.
• Following Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, the situation changed dramatically:
  • In 2022, about 700 tons were exported.
  • In 2023, exports more than doubled to 1,300 tons — enough to produce over 200,000 152mm artillery shells.
  • In early 2024 alone, China supplied an additional 110 tons.

This surge in exports occurred precisely as Western nations tightened restrictions on the transfer of raw materials to Russia’s defense industry. The timing and volume suggest that China is deliberately filling the supply gap left by Western sanctions.

The Official Chinese Position

Chinese officials maintain that they do not supply lethal weapons to either side. In April 2025, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Lin Jian reiterated that China “has never provided lethal weapons to parties involved in the Ukraine crisis” and stressed Beijing’s commitment to a peaceful resolution.

Similarly, Chinese diplomats in Washington asserted that trade with Russia “is not directed against any third party” and emphasized that “China does not sell weapons to sides involved in the Ukraine conflict” (Times of Central Asia).

Yet, the provision of strategic materials like nitrocellulose — even if not classified as “weapons” — effectively supports Russia’s warfighting capabilities.

Parallel to Chinese support, part of Russia’s military production is shifting to Belarus, aided by Chinese technologies:

• Belarusian factories are ramping up ammunition and missile component production.
• Modernization of Belarusian Polonezand Bukair defense systems now involves Chinese parts.
• Belarus is emerging as a logistical hub for Russian forces, circumventing sanctions.

In response, the European Union expanded its sanctions against Belarus in June 2024, banning direct and indirect arms and dual-use goods transfers to Minsk, and mandating “anti-Belarus clauses” in export contracts.

Technical and Safety Risks

China’s nitrocellulose is reportedly of questionable quality. Experts warn of:

• Instability due to poor nitration processes.
• Higher risk of accidents, including chemical fires and explosions at ammunition plants.

For example, a major explosion occurred at the Perm Gunpowder Plant in Russia in March 2025, linked to either safety violations or low-quality raw materials, possibly Chinese-sourced. Russian authorities initially denied the incident, further raising concerns about industrial safety linked to Chinese exports.

Regional Threats to Central Europe

The build-up of military production in Belarus, assisted by Chinese technologies, poses direct risks to neighboring countries:

• Poland and Lithuania have raised alarms over increased risks of industrial accidents near their borders.
• Military cargoes moving through Belarus present additional hazards.
• Investor confidence in Belarus is collapsing, with many Western firms exiting the market.
• The EU introduced compensation mechanisms for companies affected by sanctions and expropriations in Belarus.

Overall, the expansion of Chinese-backed military industries in Belarus threatens to destabilize Central and Eastern Europe.

Geopolitical Context and Global Implications

China’s support for Russia, though carefully obscured behind the facade of neutrality, undermines its efforts to be seen as a responsible global power:

• The U.S. has already sanctioned Chinese companies involved in supplying nitrocellulose and warned that aiding Russia’s war machine could cost access to American markets.
• Europe is actively seeking to reduce its defense industry’s dependence on Chinese-supplied materials.
• Awareness is growing across Europe that China’s proclaimed neutrality is an illusion, and that Chinese supplies significantly prolong the conflict.

Additional Conclusions

• China is Betting on Strategic Ambiguity:
  By supplying critical materials but avoiding direct weapons shipments, Beijing tries to balance between supporting Russia and avoiding full Western backlash. However, this balance is increasingly fragile.
• The Cost of Supporting Russia is Rising:
  As Western awareness and documentation of Chinese support grow, the probability of broader sanctions and economic retaliation against China increases.
• Impact on Future Conflicts:
  China’s behavior in the Ukraine war serves as a signal of how it might act in future crises, particularly concerning Taiwan. The precedent of indirect but vital support to an aggressor will shape future Western military and diplomatic planning.

Inside China, political support for helping Russia in the Ukraine war comes mainly from three interlocking forces rather than any single “party faction” openly advocating war:

1. Chinese Military Establishment (“PLA Hawks”)

• Senior officers in the People’s Liberation Army (PLA), especially within the General Staff Department and certain think tanks tied to the military (like the Academy of Military Sciences).
• • They see Russia as a critical partner in counterbalancing the United States and NATO.
  • A weakened but surviving Russia is strategically useful: it draws Western attention and resources away from Asia-Pacific.
  • They believe sustaining Russia’s fight prevents an immediate Western “containment” pivot fully against China.
  • It also offers “combat data” — by observing modern warfare in Ukraine, China gains valuable lessons for future potential conflicts, particularly concerning Taiwan.

 For the PLA, helping Russia is about keeping the U.S. overstretched and learning how great-power wars evolve under modern conditions.

2. “Left-Nationalists” and Neo-Maoists

• • Intellectuals, party cadres, bloggers (like those on Weibo and Zhihu) who promote Maoist-style hardline nationalism.
  • Certain parts of the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference (CPPCC) and state-linked media like Global Times.
• • Ideologically, they see the war as part of the broader “anti-imperialist struggle” against the U.S.-led world order.
  • They view Russia as a fellow victim of Western “containment” and pressure.
  • They believe the war weakens U.S. global dominance, which they consider good for China’s rise.

For these groups, supporting Russia is an ideological battle against the liberal Western model they despise.

3. State-Linked Economic and Industrial Interests

• Managers of major Chinese state-owned enterprises (SOEs) in energy, defense manufacturing, and strategic materials (chemicals, microchips, rare earths).
• Policy planners tied to the National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) and Ministry of Industry and Information Technology (MIIT).

• Russia is now economically dependent on China for energy exports, tech imports, and critical industrial cooperation.
• These groups profit from the cheap acquisition of Russian resources (oil, gas, minerals) at discount rates.
• They also see the opportunity to strengthen China’s industrial independence by exploiting the Russian market vacated by Western companies.

Bottom Line: Their interest is less ideological and more economic — securing dominance over Russian sectors and tightening Eurasian supply chains under Chinese influence.

• Xi Jinping himself leads a policy of strategic ambiguity — officially neutral, practically supportive.
• He does not fully unleash public support for Russia because he still wants to prevent secondary sanctions from the U.S. and Europe.
• Therefore, active support is happening below the surface — coordinated quietly through dual-use exports, technology transfer, and diplomatic cover.

Summary Table

Which Chinese Political Groups Support Active Participation in Russia’s War Against Ukraine and Why

1. Chinese Communist Party (CCP) “Hardliners” and Security Apparatus (Ministry of State Security, PLA hawks)

• Who they are:
  • Senior figures within the Chinese Communist Party’s conservative faction.
  • Top leadership in the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) and the Ministry of State Security (MSS).
  • Influential members of the Central Military Commission.
• Why they support active indirect participation:
  • Strategic Rivalry with the West: They view the Russia-Ukraine war as part of a broader U.S.-led effort to contain China. Supporting Russia weakens the West without committing China to a direct confrontation.
  • Preserving an Ally: They believe Russia must not be allowed to collapse or be defeated, because a weakened Russia would leave China more isolated globally.
  • Testing the West’s Responses: Indirect participation via component supply lets China study Western sanction tactics, which is critical for future planning regarding Taiwan or South China Sea scenarios.
  • Expanding Chinese Influence in Eurasia: A dependent and weakened Russia would become even more reliant on China economically and politically, fitting Beijing’s long-term Eurasian strategy.

2. Nationalist Intellectuals and Media Influencers

• Who they are:
  • Writers, retired generals, and influential figures active in state-controlled media (e.g., Global Times editors, nationalist think tanks like the China Institutes of Contemporary International Relations – CICIR).
  • They don’t hold direct political power but shape public and elite opinion.
• Why they support active involvement:
  • Ideological Alignment: They frame the war as a confrontation between Western liberalism and Eastern traditionalism/authoritarianism.
  • Historical Grievances: They view supporting Russia as “revenge” for past Western humiliation of China.
  • Public Mobilization: Maintaining a narrative of “China and Russia standing together against U.S. imperialism” helps stoke nationalism and distract from domestic economic problems.

3. Military-Industrial Complex and State-Owned Enterprises (SOEs)

• Who they are:
  • Executives and bureaucrats tied to China’s defense industries, including arms manufacturers and dual-use technology companies.
  • Examples include NORINCO (North Industries Group), China Poly Group, AVIC (Aviation Industry Corporation of China).
• Why they support active involvement:
  • Profits: Supplying dual-use goods like nitrocellulose and electronics generates huge revenues, especially when Western competitors exit Russian markets.
  • Geopolitical Leverage: Strengthening ties with Russia opens opportunities for privileged contracts, mining concessions, and Arctic cooperation.
  • Strategic Preparation: Working with Russia’s war industries allows Chinese defense companies to gain practical experience, refine logistics, and prepare for potential future military mobilizations.

Important Clarifications

• Xi Jinping himself tries to balance between these internal pressures.
  • He is ideologically closer to the hardliners but remains cautious of openly provoking Europe or risking major economic sanctions.
  • Hence, the Chinese approach remains deliberately indirect: supplying critical materials without formally sending “weapons.”
• Opposition inside the CCP?
  • Some more economically-focused technocrats (especially in ministries dealing with foreign trade and finance) are reportedly worried about the consequences for China’s access to European markets.
  • However, their influence has weakened since the purges of technocrats from 2022–2023.

Summary

It’s easy to forget this now, but, not so long ago, Florida governor Ron DeSantis appeared poised to win the Republican primary. Mega-donors were lining up behind him. The New York Post, on behalf of Rupert Murdoch’s media empire, dubbed him “DeFuture” on its front page. Polls showed him neck-and-neck with the scandal-plagued Donald Trump. DeSantis had, apparently, figured out a way to stuff Make America Great Again into a sleeker, less objectionable package, one that appealed to both traditional Republican business interests and the newly influential far right.

[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]

Then DeSantis bombed on the national stage. He was a terrible retail politician, his utter lack of charisma a death knell in the early-voting primary states. He dropped out in January 2024 after blowing at least $160 million without a single victory to show for it.

Something similar looks set to befall Pierre Poilievre, the leader of Canada’s Conservative Party. Canadians head to the voting booth today, and, if the polls are accurate, the country will elect a Liberal government for a fourth consecutive term. Just a few months ago, this would have been unthinkable. The Conservatives enjoyed a 25-point lead over a Liberal Party led by Justin Trudeau. But then Trump started talking about annexing Canada, the deeply unpopular Trudeau resigned, former banker Mark Carney took his place, and a trade war got underway. Suddenly, Poilievre—who has spent the last several years remaking himself, and his party, in Trump’s image—started sounding like the enemy. Now he’s found himself in the very same predicament that DeSantis once did. The two men are an object lesson in the pitfalls of trying to do Trumpism without Trump.

Their similarities begin with their personalities. Neither man is exactly likeable. Both Poilievre and DeSantis look and sound like overgrown children, and that has made them vulnerable to ridicule. During his primary campaign, DeSantis was variously accused of wearing lifts in his cowboy boots, eating pudding with his fingers, and wiping his snot on other people. For his part, Poilievre appeared to stop wearing glasses after being compared to Milhouse from The Simpsons. (Unfortunately for him, Poilievre without glasses still looks like Milhouse without glasses.)

At the same time, both men struggle to talk like normal humans, especially when it comes to their pronatalist obsession with other people’s bodies and sexual proclivities. Poilievre, for example, can’t stop talking about women’s “biological clocks,” prompting a rival leader to quip, memorably, “I don’t think any woman wants to hear Pierre Poilievre talking about their body.” It would be petty to focus on their appearance and disposition were cruelty not so central to their political brands. Poilievre and DeSantis, both infamously thin-skinned, are the epitome of being able to dish it out but not take it.

Which brings us to another challenge both men face: they can’t stand up to Trump. Even as they copied his language and playbook, they couldn’t predict, control, or outdo the man himself. The basic premise of DeSantis’s primary candidacy—that Republicans wanted Trumpism without Trump—fell apart once the former president started hoovering up media attention and gained a wide lead in the polls. He was especially brutal with DeSantis, making fun of his height and name, and baselessly accusing him of being a pedophile.

Poilievre’s predicament might be worse. Even more so than DeSantis, he cribbed Trump’s talking points, railing against woke ideology and globalist elites so often that the Liberals, in an attack ad, intercut clips from Poilievre’s and Trump’s speeches, just to drive the point home. But his campaign has struggled amid resurgent Canadian nationalism and voters’ deep dislike of the president.

Over the past decade, the far-right resurgence around the world has prompted a lot of comparisons between Trump and other leaders. But most of these politicians—Hungary’s Viktor Orban, France’s Marine Le Pen, Italy’s Giorgia Meloni, and so on—speak in their own vocabularies and draw on their countries’ deep-rooted traditions of reactionary populism. DeSantis and Poilievre, on the other hand, are mere imitators. This was especially egregious in Poilievre’s case; he imported culture-war dogma from the U.S. even as the Canadian government slapped actual U.S. imports with reciprocal tariffs. There has never been a worse time for a Canadian politician to sound American.

In some ways, both DeSantis and Poilievre are pitiable. They’re classic Napoleon-complex figures: minor men with big dreams and a self-regard at odds with the limits of their talents. Like DeSantis, Poilievre was thought to be the face of conservatism’s future; he’s reportedly told allies he has no right to lose this race. But it looks as though he will.

Of course, it’s possible that the polls are wildly inaccurate, and that Canada’s Conservative Party will somehow eke out a win tonight. But, right now, Poilievre, like DeSantis, looks an awful lot like one of Trump’s favorite insults: a loser.

The possibility of resuming Russian gas supplies to Europe as part of a cease-fire agreement in Ukraine is being actively discussed. Technically, this would be feasible—Ukraine’s gas transmission system is still capable of transiting up to 100 billion cubic meters (bcm) per year of Russian gas to Europe.  

Nearly three months of zero gas flows have shown that Europe can manage without the volumes of Russian gas that previously transited Ukraine—only 15 bcm in 2024, compared to 84 bcm in 2019. Nevertheless, rumors of possible restoration of Russian gas deliveries to the European Union (EU)—either via Nord Stream or through Ukraine—continue to circulate in the press. Resuming this trade could be a potential Russian condition for halting hostilities as Russia desperately needs gas export revenues. If that is the case, resumed flows might be a necessary step to create peace. But they must be routed through Ukraine and under conditions that will ensure energy security and full transparency. 

STAY CONNECTED

Sign up for PowerPlay, the Atlantic Council’s bimonthly newsletter keeping you up to date on all facets of the energy transition.

Russia is extremely interested in resuming supplies to the premium European gas market. Since 2021, Russia has lost more than 100 bcm per year of gas exports to Europe, undermining Gazprom’s financial stability. Desperate attempts by Gazprom to redirect exports to Central Asia and China have not brought significant financial returns, as prices there are two-and-a-half times lower than European prices. Moreover, pipeline export capacity to those markets is very limited. Russia’s direct pipeline export capacity to China currently stands at 38 bcm per year via Power of Siberia. This infrastructure is not connected to the large gas fields historically used to supply European markets. Additionally, Russia’s ability to export liquefied natural gas (LNG) faces significant constraints due to US sanctions. To cushion the loss of the European market, the Russian government has been forced to raise domestic prices, an unusual and very unpopular move in the country.  

Additionally, the Kremlin is eager to maintain its political influence over Europe, including through export revenues. Hungary and Slovakia are clear examples of how this influence manifests—both nations have repeatedly opposed or diluted EU sanctions against Russia and blocked critical financial and military support for Ukraine. 

The Russian government and several members of the German far right regularly raise the issue of resuming Russian gas supplies to Germany via the surviving branch of the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, which has a capacity of 27.5 bcm per year. However, German authorities categorically rule out the possibility of such a resumption. Other Northern European countries, as well as Poland and the Baltic states, also strongly oppose restoring transit through Nord Stream, fearing increased militarization of the Baltic Sea and the potential reversion to EU dependence on Russian gas. Resuming transit through Poland is also unlikely, for both political and technical reasons, as the Yamal–Europe pipeline has now been almost fully integrated into Poland’s domestic gas system and can no longer handle flows from Russia. 

This leaves Ukraine as the most feasible route for resuming Russian gas deliveries to Europe.  

EU officials and most member states officially do not support the idea of resuming gas transit through Ukraine. However, the EU has not imposed sanctions on Russian pipeline gas or LNG, allowing Russia to retain a significant market share in Europe. The European Commission continues to reaffirm its commitment to phasing out Russian gas completely by 2027, and this month plans to present a detailed roadmap for this process. 

Unfortunately, the European Commission has been unable to fully ban Russian gas imports. Combined pipeline and LNG imports from Russia accounted for less than 19 percent of total EU gas inflows in 2024. However, there may be concern that a complete ban could significantly impact gas prices in Europe. Given that the Commission has outlined a plan—not a binding commitment—to fully phase out Russian gas by 2027, it might opt to delay sanctions on Russian gas until then in exchange for peace. The anticipated influx of new LNG volumes from the United States, Canada, and Qatar between 2026–28 could mitigate EU concerns about price volatility during this transitional period. 

The position of the United States will be determinative. On one hand, the Trump administration consistently demands that EU countries increase purchases of US LNG and may not welcome significant increases in Russian gas imports to Europe. However, for the sake of a peace deal, Trump may agree to limited imports of up to 15 bcm annually—a volume that flowed via Ukraine in 2024 and would have only a minor impact on US exports to Europe. 

As for Ukraine, estimated annual revenues of $400–600 million from Russian gas transit are a miniscule contribution to the economy. Therefore, the question of resuming transit should be considered in a broader context of cease-fire agreements and establishing long-term peace. Continued transit of Russian oil and renewed gas transit through Ukraine could allow Russia to earn up to $12 billion annually. Accordingly, Ukraine is entitled to expect not only transit fees of around $200 million for oil and an estimated $400–600 million for gas, but also significant additional concessions from Russia. 

These concessions should include Ukrainian control over the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant, which can produce 6 gigawatts of electricity annually, but was occupied by Russia in 2022. This would help balance Ukraine’s power system, large parts of which have been destroyed by Russian missile and drone attacks, and eliminate the need to import electricity from the EU. It is worth noting that Russian control over the plant has little economic sense, as Russia cannot restart the plant without restoring the Kakhovka Reservoir, which is unlikely without Ukrainian cooperation. 

Additionally, Ukraine has the right to demand 15–20 percent of Russian oil and gas exports—either in monetary terms or in kind—as a transit tax. These funds should go into a special fund for the restoration of Ukraine’s energy production, which has been destroyed by Russian attacks. The proposed percentage is reasonable, given the existing discounts on Russian oil and gas which, as sanctions are lifted, should disappear.   

In order to limit Kremlin’s influence on the European gas market and on political processes within Europe, the EU should place red lines on its reengagement with Russian energy. 

First, import volumes of Russian gas should be capped, both for the entire EU and for individual member states, to prevent any renewed dependency on Russian energy supplies. 

Second, gas purchases should be carried out collectively through the AggregateEU initiative, with the delivery point for European buyers located at the Russia–Ukraine border. This would eliminate Gazprom’s ability to offer politically motivated pricing to more loyal countries and energy companies. 

Finally, the EU and Ukraine should create an international consortium to manage Ukraine’s gas transmission system. This idea was explored in 2018, and its revival could increase European traders’ confidence in transit reliability through Ukraine.  

Conclusion

If a cease-fire necessitates resuming Russian gas flows to Europe, it must flow via Ukraine and be conditional on key concessions from Russia. These must include safeguards to ensure that the EU does not become dependent on Russian gas again and that Moscow can no longer use gas as political leverage. Ukraine should also regain control over vital energy assets like the Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant and secure a substantial transit tax for reconstruction of its energy infrastructure. Policymakers in Kyiv, Brussels, and Washington must remain resolute in demanding these terms to ensure any peace agreement reinforces, rather than undermines, regional stability and energy security. 

Sergiy Makogon is a non-resident senior fellow at the Center for European Policy Analysis and the former CEO of GasTSO of Ukraine (2019-2022).

EnergySource

EnergySource is the Global Energy Center’s (GEC) online publication providing commentary and analysis on developments in the energy and climate sector from a wide-array of thought leaders, politicians, and experts.

Read more

RELATED CONTENT

OUR WORK

The post If Russian gas returns to Europe, it must go through Ukraine appeared first on Atlantic Council.

The progressive group that helped elect the Squad is looking to rebuild after two members were taken out by $30 million in spending from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, or AIPAC.

On Monday, Justice Democrats endorsed Michigan state Rep. Donavan McKinney in the 2026 Democratic primary against Detroit’s Rep. Shri Thanedar, D-Mich. — the group’s first primary challenge since AIPAC’s onslaught. 

Thanedar, first elected to Congress in 2022, is a multimillionaire with support from two of the biggest sources of outside spending on U.S. elections: pro-Israel lobby groups and the cryptocurrency industry. 

Three political action committees linked to the AIPAC spent $2.3 million against Thanedar’s challenger in the Democratic primary last year. AIPAC previously opposed Thanedar in 2022, but their relationship grew closer after he went on one of the group’s congressional junkets to Israel. 

As part of his campaign launch, McKinney has said he is running on bringing working-class representation to Congress, criticizing Thanedar for using taxpayer money to fund his campaign expenses and neglecting his constituents.

“I’m not running for Congress because I’m a millionaire or a billionaire. I’m running because I’m not,” the 32-year-old McKinney said in a press release announcing his campaign launch. “I’m running because our community deserves to have someone fighting back against the Trump-Musk administration who knows our struggles.”

In a campaign video accompanying the launch, McKinney said constituents in the 13th Congressional District deserved a Democratic Party that leads the fight against billionaire elites and corporate PACs. McKinney attacked Thanedar for buying his seat in Congress and “having more in common with Donald Trump and Elon Musk than people like us.” (Thanedar did not immediately respond to a request for comment.)

The primary campaign is the first primary challenge against a party incumbent launched by Justice Democrats since 2021, and its first efforts since losing Reps. Jamaal Bowman, D-N.Y., and Cori Bush, D-Mo., after AIPAC and other outside groups spent close to $50 million against the Squad members in last year’s election.

In a statement, Justice Democrats noted that support for Democrats in Congress is lagging while voters are looking for candidates who will fight harder than the people they see in office. 

“Last election cycle, Justice Democrats focused their resources on protecting our incumbents against the threat of AIPAC and other right-wing lobbies promising — and delivering — on spending $100 million in our elections,” spokesperson Usamah Andrabi said in the Monday press release. 

“As a result of their outsized spending, we lost two of the most working class members of Congress in the most expensive Democratic primaries ever, but out-organized and beat them in every other Squad seat,” he said. “Those losses have only fueled our mission to expand our bloc in Congress and elect more working class champions to Washington.”

The post Down Two Squad Members, Progressives Come for an AIPAC Democrat appeared first on The Intercept.