Politics

Digital footprints are affecting this new generation of politicians, but do voters care?

Political scandals are not new. Digital footprints are. How are political candidates adapting?

Watch: US Veteran helps lead DC protest against the Trump administration

Rig Madden has built a large social media following while protesting outside of Union Station.

Democrats respond to Trump’s disparaging remarks about Somali immigrants

Trump has drawn criticism for his comments about Somali immigrants in Minnesota in following fraud charges.

Exclusive: Rep. Jasmine Crockett discusses entry into race for Senate seat in Texas

Medill News Service met with Crockett for an interview about her upcoming Senate campaign.

Listen: Diaspora-led medical organizations are rebuilding care in Palestine and Sudan

“Diaspora are emerging as important actors in their way of work because that’s what they do. They are transnationally located, but they act locally through these networks,” Alaa Dafallah, a doctoral candidate at Oxford University said.

Supreme Court hears case on faith-based pregnancy center’s free speech subpoena challenge

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court heard a case Tuesday on whether First Choice Women’s Resource Center, a New Jersey faith-based pregnancy center, can challenge a state subpoena in federal court before it is enforced.

New Jersey issued a subpoena seeking 28 categories of documents about the centers’ practices, including a list of donors, as part of an investigation into whether First Choice was misleading potential clients about their services.

First Choice sued New Jersey in December 2023, alleging that the subpoena violated its First Amendment rights and created a chilling effect on donors. 

The subpoena at the heart of the dispute is non-self-executing, meaning that a court order is required for its enforcement. First Choice argues that the subpoena’s existence, even before it’s executed, is not without penalties. 

“It says that if you fail to obey the subpoena again — not a later court order — if you fail to obey the subpoena, you could be subject to contempt, you could lose your business license,” Erin Hawley, the attorney for First Choice, said. “Those are the death knell for nonprofits like First Choice.”

While the case is working its way through state court, First Choice went to federal court with a civil rights claim, but was told the case was “unripe”. A central legal question in front of the Supreme Court on Tuesday was whether the case was “ripe” enough to be heard in federal court. 

First Choice argued that the chilling effect of the subpoena was a “burden” on the center, which made the case “ripe” enough. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson questioned whether the subpoena had actually caused real harm before its enforcement. 

“Even if we agree that your constitutional rights are arguably burdened, is it really occurring at the moment of receipt of the subpoena?” Jackson said. 

New Jersey argued that First Choice’s claims are “tethered to a future downstream state court order” and not to the subpoena itself. Sundeep Iyer, the chief counsel to the New Jersey Attorney General, said that there was no evidence of actually being chilled by the subpoena over the last two years of litigation.  

Chief Justice John Roberts questioned how such evidence could be gathered in the first place.

“Well, how do you get that evidence? Somebody comes in and says, ‘I’m chilled, I don’t want to reveal my name, address, phone number, et cetera, and here is my affidavit,’” Roberts said. “That’s not going to  work, is it?”

Several nonprofits across the country have filed amicus briefs for First Choice, arguing that the case could majorly impact free association and speech in organizations nationwide. 

Grayson Clary, staff attorney at the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, said that several media outlets have received similar subpoenas, citing the Federal Trade Commission’s recent demands for internal records from watchdog nonprofit Media Matters. 

“It makes sources less willing to talk to you, if they worry that speaking to you is going to get them dragged into some kind of investigation like this, and so the consequences can be really chilling,” Clary said. 

However, Clary felt the oral argument was encouraging, noting how justices from both sides of the ideological spectrum were more skeptical of New Jersey’s claims.

“It’s always hard to read the tea leaves, but it sounded like a majority of the justices shared that attitude, and we certainly hope that’s the direction they’ll go in the ruling,” Clary said. 

In an amicus brief, the ACLU argued that such First Amendment cases are important so that state investigatory tools aren’t used for retaliation. 

“To ensure that these investigatory tools are not abused to retaliate against the ideological opponents of those in office, federal courts must promptly review claims that law enforcement subpoenas violate the First Amendment.”

In Photos: Former presidents, vice presidents gather in remembrance of Dick Cheney

WASHINGTON – Political leaders convened at Washington National Cathedral to honor former Vice President Dick Cheney on Thursday. Cheney, who was 84, passed away earlier this month from complications of pneumonia and cardiac and vascular disease.

All living former vice presidents attended, including Kamala Harris, Mike Pence, Al Gore, and Dan Quayle. Former Presidents Joe Biden and George W. Bush and first ladies Jill Biden and Laura Bush, also attended. 

Former Vice Presidents Kamala Harris and Mike Pence attended the services. (Riddhimaa L. Kodali/MNS)

President Donald Trump and Vice President JD Vance were neither present nor invited to the services. A fierce critic of the president in his final years, Cheney described him as a “coward” in a 2022 campaign ad alongside his daughter and former Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.). In the ad, Cheney said there has never been “a greater threat to our republic than Donald Trump.”  

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said at a press briefing on Nov. 4 that Trump was “aware” of Cheney’s passing, but the President has not publicly commented nor issued a statement on Cheney’s death. At a fireside chat hosted by Breitbart on Thursday, Vance addressed “political disagreements” with Cheney but offered his condolences to the family. 

Former Vice President Dick Cheney’s casket is prepared to be carried out of the hearse. (Katareena Roska/MNS)

Bush delivered a eulogy at the funeral, praising Cheney’s qualities as a leader during a career spanning over three decades. He described his partner in office as a “model of concentration, alertness, and composure.” 

Former President George W. Bush delivered a eulogy at the service. (Riddhimaa L. Kodali/MNS)

“This was a vice president totally devoted to protecting the United States and its interest,” Bush added. “There was never any agenda or angle beyond that.” 

In her tribute, Liz Cheney also described her father’s devotion to the country as “deep and substantive.” She did not directly address his condemnation of Trump but alluded to his decision to vote for Kamala Harris in the 2024 election. 

“He knew that bonds of party must always yield to the single bond we share as Americans,” Liz Cheney said. “For him, a choice between defense of the Constitution and defense of your political party was no choice at all.” 

Former Wyoming Representative Liz Cheney, daughter of late Vice President Dick Cheney, remembers her father’s personal and professional legacy. (Riddhimaa L. Kodali/MNS)

Cheney served under Bush from 2001 to 2009, becoming one of the most influential but polarizing vice presidents in history. He championed an expansive view of executive power and was a chief architect of the Bush administration’s War on Terror following the 9/11 terrorist attacks. 

Cheney was a leading proponent of the 2003 invasion of Iraq, a war driven by unsubstantiated claims about the presence of weapons of mass destruction. He faced widespread criticism for his unrelenting support of this decision, which became a defining feature of his legacy.

Liz Cheney alongside her mother, Lynne Cheney, and relatives exit the Washington National Cathedral. (Katareena Roska/MNS)

Before joining the Bush administration, Cheney rose through Washington as White House chief of staff, Wyoming representative, and secretary of defense. 

“You did not know Dick Cheney unless you understood his greatest concerns and ambitions were for his country,” Bush said at Thursday’s services. “Across 40 years, his service was consistent, faithful and noble.”

House lawmakers weigh negative implications of AI chatbot technology on mental health and data privacy

Note: This article includes mentions of suicide and self-harm.

WASHINGTON – The House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations debated the mental health impacts associated with use of AI chatbots on Tuesday, calling into question the technology’s responses to users experiencing mental health crises and suicidal ideation. 

The emerging technology has come under fire in recent months after high-profile lawsuits were filed against OpenAI and other AI companies. In September, plaintiffs Matthew and Maria Raine testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee after their 16-year-old son Adam took his own life following extended conversations with ChatGPT. Matthew Raine claimed that the chatbot offered to write his son’s suicide note. After a prolonged virtual relationship with a Character.AI chatbot, 14-year-old Sewell Setzer III died by suicide in early 2024. Character.AI is trained to emulate various personas, including therapists, friends, and, in Setzer’s case, fictional characters. His mother, Megan Garcia, filed a lawsuit later that year. 

Those suicides are among an exhaustive list of violent incidents associated with AI chatbots, which have come into national scrutiny as teenagers increasingly utilize AI technology.

Ranking member Yvette Clarke (D-N.Y.) said that AI chatbots are designed to emulate human conversations, creating a dynamic where young people develop unhealthy and addictive relationships with the technology. 

“In the past few years, we’ve seen that users, especially younger users, are finding themselves deeply dependent on these bots and even struggling with differentiating between human relationships and what they perceive to have with the Chatbot,” she said. 

New York-based psychiatrist Marlynn Wei said that younger teens are more vulnerable to developing an overreliance on AI. Nearly 3 in 4 teens have used AI companions, according to a July report from Common Sense Media. According to another study, 1 in 8 teens use generative AI tools for mental health support. 

Wei also sounded the alarm on individuals using AI chatbots as a tool for mental health support, arguing that they were not originally intended to function as therapy bots.  

“These systems are a useful sounding board and nonjudgmental space for many people. However, individuals who are isolated, vulnerable or less familiar with AI and its limitations may face greater risks,” she said. 

According to Jonathan Cantor, Professor of Policy Analysis at RAND School of Public Policy and an expert on mental health, further exploration is necessary to uncover why teens are drawn to these platforms.

“I think that if we’re finding one in eight kids aren’t using these services, we really need to understand why,” he said.

He added that much of the existing research on generative AI has been tailored to corporate usage, rather than casual use among young people and everyday individuals.

“We’re collecting really good data on AI used by firms and businesses, but we aren’t doing the same for kids, adolescents and adults and what they’re using [chatbots] for,” he said. 

This summer, the GOP attempted to include a provision banning states from regulating AI development for a decade in the Republicans’ One Big Beautiful Bill, but it was removed from the bill after public pushback. 

In a press release last week, Committee Chairman Brett Guthrie (R-Ky.) and Congressman John Joyce, M.D. (R-Pa.) expressed concern about recent stories highlighting dangerous interactions between chatbots and users, referencing stories about suicide and violence associated with the chatbots. 

“The rapid advancement of AI holds tremendous promise for the future, but recent stories about AI chatbots’ interactions with users have raised serious concerns about the potential impact of chatbot use on the health and wellbeing of those who engage with these platforms,” they said. 

In his opening remarks on Tuesday, Joyce said that the technology can bear negative outcomes when unregulated. 

“Without the proper safeguards in place, these chatbot relationships can turn out to be disastrous,” he said. 

Critics of chatbot technology also highlight the industry’s lack of transparency in disclosing how user data is filed. 

Jennifer King, private data policy fellow at Stanford, told the committee that the use of AI technology for mental health inquiries has the potential to compromise user data. 

“The agreeable nature of chatbot interactions can encourage users to disclose in-depth personal details about physical or mental health concerns. This is concerning because large platforms are already contemplating how to monetize this data,” she said. 

According to Forbes, social media companies currently monetize user data to train AI models, licensing said data to outside businesses. 

King said that AI companies are not transparent with their users on how their data is handled.  

“Companies are not being clear about what measures they are taking to protect consumer data at this point,” she said. “As we interact with these chatbots, the concern again is that we are disclosing far more personal information in these exchanges than we may have in web search,” she added.

Wei voiced concern over “AI psychosis”— a term coined to describe delusions and paranoia some users have experienced after using AI chatbots.  

“It’s not a clinical diagnosis at this point, it was reported cases in the media of adults and teens who start to have a break from reality while using AI chatbots, and we don’t really know whether AI chatbots are causing this or that they just happen to be worsening, fanning the flames of psychosis,” she said.

Cantor said AI companies are attempting to find ways to boost transparency around mental health issues associated with the chatbots.

“I think that the firms themselves are doing as much as they can to try and understand this problem and to provide transparency to some degree about how they’re responding,” he said. 

Lawmakers also weighed whether prioritizing innovation could coexist with protecting children.

Rep. Erin Houchin (R-Ind.) emphasized that limits should be implemented on AI tools that young people have access to, adding that parents should have “confidence” over their children’s AI usage.

“Innovation can only succeed when families have confidence in the tools their kids are using. We can support American innovation and still put common sense guardrails in place to protect children,” she said. 

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) said she was concerned about the industry’s monetization of sensitive data.

She also said that the high value of AI companies conflicts with the protection of users, citing a Financial Times study that found that AI companies account for 80% of stock gains this year. She also highlighted how economic incentives for the industry to create high profits motivate companies to compromise their users’ privacy rights and encourage an “unethical” relationship with AI.

“When we talk about why AI models are going to such extremes and some of the extreme outcomes that we are seeing in terms of how people are using AI in terms of emotional companionship, to extreme cases of suicidality and psychosis, this also tracks with the pressure these companies have to turn a profit that they have not yet proven. 

“People’s deepest fears, secrets, emotional content, relationships, can all be mined for this empty promise that we’re getting from these companies to turn a profit,” she added.

HOUSE REPUBLICANS RAISE CONCERNS OVER “SOFT ON CRIME” POLICIES IN DEMOCRATIC RUN CITIES

Note: This article includes mentions of violence and sexual assault.

WASHINGTON — Republicans in the House Judiciary Committee furthered an ongoing GOP campaign to spotlight criminal activity in Democratic-run cities on Wednesday. In a Subcommittee on Oversight hearing, witnesses from the New York police department and experts on crime testified about crime rates, policing and repeat offenders in major cities.

President Donald Trump has spent his first year in office targeting crime in Democratic run cities by sending in National Guard, often against the wishes of local officials, and escalating the use of Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids. 

Chairman Rep. Jeff Van Drew (R-N.J.) opened the hearing by saying that Democrats have enabled violent crime by prioritizing “ideology over good public safety.” 

“Crime just didn’t rise and come about on its own, it happened because leaders chose that,” Rep. Van Drew said. “Leaders in the Democratic-run cities have made political choices, choices that were radical ideology for safety politics.” 

Witness Dr. Nancy La Vigne, Dean of Rutgers School of Criminal Justice, cited contradictory statistics to the GOP’s claims of crime being on the rise. 

According to a 2024 Federal Bureau of Investigation report, murder rates declined 14.9% from 2023, along with a 5.2% decrease in rapes. Aggravated assaults also fell 3%.

“Nationwide crime is down 50% from its peak in 1991,” La Vigne said. “We’re clearly doing something right, and to that I say, ‘if it’s working, don’t break it.’ That’s precisely what this administration is doing,” she added.

Subcommittee ranking member Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-Texas) condemned the increased militarization leveraged by the Trump administration, claiming that these tactics are more harmful than helpful..

“In Donald Trump’s America, you are at increased risk of experiencing militaristic operations in your home, increased risk of being subject to detainment by masked thugs and wannabe vigilantes and increased risk of suffering injuries due to reckless and illegal acts by rogue federal agents,” Rep. Crockett said. 

Judiciary Committee ranking member Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) said that Democrats have been driving a recent decline in violent crimes. He also condemned the ideology that Democrats have enabled violent crime through lenient policies.

“This is an odd proposition to me, given that Democratic-led cities today are now driving a historic nationwide decrease in crime,” Rep Raskin said. 

He added that Trump’s blanket pardoning of January 6 rioters contradicts his tough-on-crime stance. Holding up a statement made by Sgt. Aquilino Gonell, a former Capitol Police officer who was critically injured at the January 6 insurrection, Raskin claimed that Trump’s pardon of these rioters threatened public safety.

“Trump, his attorney general, and his FBI director talk tough about cracking down on violent crime…you would think they would want those who committed one of the most spectacular acts of public violence in living memory held accountable,” Gonell said.

While Democrats condemned the presence of federal agents in American cities, some claim that the National Guard is needed to promote safety in high-crime cities. 

Tina McKinney, the mother of a Memphis Police Department Officer killed in the line of duty, told lawmakers that she condemned violent crime in major cities. She said that crime in cities like Memphis warrants a robust response from the federal government. She added that her son’s death was part of an ongoing crisis of failed policies.  

“This wasn’t just a tragedy,” she said. “It was a failure of leadership and a failure of accountability. My son was a police officer, but he was also a victim…of failed policies and failed leaders.”

Supreme Court weighs whether inmates can sue prison officials for religious rights violations

WASHINGTON – Supreme Court justices appeared skeptical of allowing prisoners to sue government officials for damages during oral arguments Monday.

The case involves Damon Landor, a devout Rastafarian who vowed never to cut his hair as a part of his faith, a promise known as the Nazarite vow. Landor was serving a five-month sentence at a Louisiana prison on a drug charge. When he was transferred to a new facility, Landor’s hair was shaved against his will by two guards who carried him to another room and handcuffed him to a chair, according to records.

He handed guards an appeals court ruling that shaving a Rastafarian inmate’s dreadlocks violates the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA), but the guards threw it in the trash and shaved him anyway. Landor sued the warden and the guards under RLUIPA, which prohibits federally funded state prisons from placing a “substantial burden” on prisoners’ religious exercise.

RLUIPA is a sister statute to the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA). In a 2020 decision, the justices unanimously ruled that RFRA, which has nearly identical language to RLUIPA, does allow people to seek damages against federal prison officials acting in their individual capacities.

The United States filed an amicus brief in support of Landor, pivoting from the position it took in the RFRA case.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett said the facts of this case “are egregious.” But, she argued, it was unclear there was any precedent for a non-recipient of federal funds to be held individually liable under a federal statute.

Louisiana takes the same position. According to the state, RLUIPA operates like a contract between the federal government and the state. Louisiana claims that the warden and guards cannot be sued under RLUIPA “because they are not recipients of federal funding.”

All prior federal appeals court rulings have agreed that RLUIPA doesn’t authorize damages.

“Every circuit had said there were not damages actions available against non-recipients under RLUIPA,” Barrett said. “So it’s hard to see how it could be clear to the states that were accepting the money or the prisons accepting the money.”

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit unanimously affirmed the lower court’s decision to dismiss Landor’s claim under Fifth Circuit precedent. Because RLUIPA was enacted under Congress’s Spending Clause, the Fifth Circuit argued “only the grant recipient—the state—may be liable for its violation.”

Lawyers for Landor, however, argue that RLUIPA authorizes suits against individuals under the precedent set by the Supreme Court on RFRA. 

The two laws “clearly mean the same thing,” according to Zachary Tripp, Landor’s attorney. “The whole point of individual capacity is to have damages… and without damages, officials can literally treat the law like garbage,” he said.

Under RLUIPA’s cause of action, a person may obtain “appropriate relief against a government” for violations. The Supreme Court’s conservative majority seemed unconvinced the law was clear enough to authorize suits.

“The hard part, as I see it for your case, for me, is that you need a clear statement,” Justice Brett Kavanaugh said. “And ‘appropriate relief’ is not as clear as it could be in encompassing damages.”

The Supreme Court’s liberal justices seemed more inclined to support Landor’s case. They heavily questioned Jorge Benjamin Aguiñaga, lawyer for the Louisiana Department of Corrections. 

Justice Sonia Sotomayor said, “you’re saying at the same time that the warden, who is cutting the individual’s hair, should know that that’s a violation of the state, for which an injunction should be liable, but he shouldn’t know that he’s liable for personal damages too?”

Aguiñaga responded, “that’s what 10 federal courts of appeals have said.”

The National Sheriffs’ Association is the only organization to file an amicus curiae brief in support of Louisiana in the case.

Sheriff Greg Champagne, chair of the National Sheriffs’ Association’s legal affairs committee, said that while the facts of the case were “egregious,” a ruling for Landor could enable excessive lawsuits that would strain the prison and court systems. 

“We’re concerned about that, kind of open in the floodgates, that it would be expensive, it would be burdensome… it would burden not only government agencies, it would burden the courts,” he said.

Former federal prison aid and Rastafarian Charles Price said employees at state and local prisons are often unaware of prisoners’ religious practices, and the case could place an important check on rights violations.

“If you give incarcerated people the opportunity to sue for individual damages, and they have the evidence for a case, that should have a chilling effect on prison officials misbehaving,” the anthropology professor said. “I do think it would kind of ratchet up the rights of individuals to protect themselves in instances of abuse.”

The Supreme Court is expected to decide the case by next summer.

Dems question “highly partisan” inspector general nominee

WASHINGTON — Democrats probed inspector general nominees about their partisan connections at a confirmation hearing on Wednesday. 

Thomas March Bell, President Donald Trump’s pick to be the Inspector General for the Department of Health and Human Services, serves as the general counsel for House Republicans and has worked for GOP politicians for decades, fueling concern over his fitness to serve in an oversight role.

“As the administration continues to undermine independent oversight bodies, it’s more important now than ever that we have qualified, nonpartisan individuals to serve in these roles,” said Sen. Gary Peters (D-Mich.). “Given Mr. Bell’s highly partisan record, I am concerned that he will instead use the IG’s office to pursue political aims.” 

Peters went on to list Bell’s partisan pursuits, including his alleged role in limiting women’s access to reproductive care as chief of staff of HHS’ Office of Civil Rights during Trump’s first term.

Bell largely shook off these concerns, insisting that his work for political campaigns was distinct from his work in congressional oversight. 

“My record speaks for itself,” Bell said. “Just because a product offended some interest of some group does not mean it didn’t follow the highest standards of investigations.”

Bell’s nomination previously went before the Senate Finance Committee in October, where Democrats voiced similar worries. They penned a letter urging the chairman of the committee to table Bell’s nomination, arguing Bell had been nominated to fill a position that was not vacant.

Mere days into his second term, Trump began a widespread firing of inspectors general across multiple federal agencies, including HHS IG Christi Grimm.

These inspectors general were notified of their dismissal in an email from the White House Office of Presidential Personnel, which cited “changing priorities” as the reason for their firings. 

Critics say that these firings violate the 1978 Inspector General Act and a 2022 amendment that requires presidents to give a “substantive rationale” for removing IGs. In September, a federal judge agreed, ruling that these firings were illegal while declining to reinstate the fired officials. 

Still, these guardrails are intended to preserve the political independence of inspectors general, who serve as internal watchdogs conducting investigations to prevent waste, fraud and abuse inside federal agencies. Without those protections, experts and lawmakers warn that the oversight system becomes vulnerable to political pressure.

Kathryn Newcomer, a professor at George Washington University, cautioned that the dismissals could lead to a “very unfortunate chilling effect” in the aggressiveness of investigations into federal actions. 

“There is a concern that the agencies be in line with Trump policies across the board, but that is not appropriate,” Newcomer said. “These are supposed to be independent of political influence or partisan influence to just simply ensure accountability within the executive branch — accountability to the law.” 

Some Democratic lawmakers, including Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), have since introduced legislation designed to reinforce the independence of IGs across the federal government. 

In an October statement explaining the proposed act, Blumenthal lamented the “draconian firings” of inspectors general.

“As the principal federal watchdogs against fraud and abuse — now trademarks of this Administration — their independence urgently needs these protections,” Blumenthal said. “They must be real watchdogs, not lapdogs.”

On Wednesday, Blumenthal and other committee Democrats pressed Bell as to whether he would defy direct orders from Trump. 

Peters asked whether Bell would stand up to the president if asked to drop an investigation. Bell dodged the question. 

“I don’t have any experience in my time in the previous administration, nor do I know anyone who’s served in that administration or this one, who’s been asked by the president to do anything that’s unethical or illegal,” Bell said. “I don’t believe he would do that.”

A “marriage of convenience”: Pro-Israel conservatives confront antisemitic factions in their coalition

WASHINGTON — The National Task Force to Combat Antisemitism, a conservative-led initiative previously housed at the Heritage Foundation, met Tuesday to confront what members say can no longer be ignored: antisemitism within the conservative coalition.

The shift in priorities follows the task force’s break from Heritage after its president, Kevin Roberts, declined to condemn Tucker Carlson for hosting Nick Fuentes — a far-right livestreamer, who has publicly praised Adolf Hitler and denied the Holocaust — on his podcast. Roberts defended the interview, saying Fuentes’ several million followers “ideologically, philosophically, are on our side.”

Scholars who study the New Right say the dispute exposed a deeper tension within the conservative movement, where pro-Israel groups have been operating alongside nationalist factions historically associated with antisemitic ideas. The task force’s split from Heritage, they note, now forces a reckoning over how that arrangement held together for so long — and whether it is approaching a breaking point.

“You need to be able to call balls and strikes on both sides,” said Mark Goldfeder, a Jewish civil rights attorney who resigned from the task force following the Heritage controversy. “If you can’t recognize antisemitism when it happens, quote, ‘on your team,’ that’s a problem.”

According to co-founder Pastor Luke Moon, the task force did consider addressing right-wing antisemitism when it was launched after Hamas’ October 7 attack on Israel, but members believed the far greater threat at the time came from campus protests and street demonstrations on the left.

“In terms of the magnitude, it was not even close. It was like 100 to one. So are you going to focus on the one or are you going to focus on the 100?” Moon asked, explaining the task force’s decision to target left-wing antisemitism. 

Historically, however, the American far right has been the more “typical home of ideologically committed antisemites,” said Benjamin Balthaser, a member of the Jewish Voice for Peace Academic Advisory Council. From white nationalist movements that argued Jews don’t belong in a Christian or white America to neo-Nazi groups that cast Jews as “globalist” enemies, explicit antisemitism has long existed on the fringes of the Republican coalition, he said.

Over the last two decades, pro-Israel conservatives and these nationalist factions have been pulled into closer alignment for strategic and ideological reasons, Balthaser said. Israel occupies a central place in evangelical Christian theology, while nationalist groups — some of which have long propagated antisemitic beliefs — have viewed it as a frontline ally in a broader civilizational struggle.

“It’s always been a maybe inevitable but dangerous coalition,” Balthaser said. “There’s this kind of marriage of convenience between Zionism and the far right.”

Lawrence Rosenthal, chair of the Berkeley Center for Right-Wing Studies, said this coalition held together even as overt antisemitism surfaced on the right — from the 2017 “Unite the Right” rally in Charlottesville, where marchers chanted “Jews will not replace us,” to January 6, when a rioter wore a “Camp Auschwitz” sweatshirt.

As extremist rhetoric persisted on its fringes, the mainstream Republican Party increasingly positioned support for Israel as a core part of its platform. While this may have appealed to some Jewish Zionists, Rosenthal said the right’s pro-Israel stance stemmed from evangelical theology and geopolitical priorities rather than Jewish well-being, enabling factions with neutral or even favorable views of Jews to share space with others whose views were openly antisemitic.

“Trumpism has, throughout the last 10 years, had astonishing success at making contradictions like this go away,” Rosenthal said. “There are a lot of contradictions, but one thing that’s agreed upon is the general principle that the USA has been under the domination of liberal elites, and that takes place in universities.”

The GOP casting itself as strongly pro-Israel — whether or not that stance was rooted in concern for Jews — has “proven very useful” for the Trump administration, he said, which has leveraged antisemitism as a “pretext for attacking liberal civil society.”

Inside the National Task Force to Combat Antisemitism, different conservative organizations brought their own initiatives to the table in a “potluck” style, according to Moon. The Heritage Foundation — known for its “Project 2025” and widely regarded as the most influential conservative think tank — contributed its own proposal, “Project Esther.”

Moon emphasized that Project Esther was conceived and driven by Heritage and will remain with the think tank following the split.

“The idea of Project Esther was to figure out a way to implement Project 2025 in a unique way,” said Kevin Rachlin of the Nexus Project, an organization dedicated to bolstering democracy as a means of fighting antisemitism. “What they did was create a plan that, under the auspices of protecting American Jewry, in reality provides a blueprint to enact an authoritarian regime here in the United States.”

Project Esther was written with very little Jewish input, Rachlin said, and takes advantage of legitimate Jewish trauma as a “means to an end.” It proposes a range of punitive measures, including cutting public funds to universities that allow activity by what it labelled the “Hamas Support Network,” revoking visas, and deporting foreign leaders and members of those groups.

The document makes no mention of contemporary right-wing antisemitism, instead attributing the persistence of antisemitism in part to the “American Jewish community’s complacency.” It suggests Jews may be “blind or deaf” to the threat, or more likely, “simply do not know what to do and are waiting for leadership to guide them.”

The Jewish community at large does not support punitive approaches like those outlined in Project Esther, Rachlin said, noting that American Jews are overwhelmingly liberal. According to CNN’s 2024 presidential election exit poll, 78 percent of Jewish voters cast their ballots for Kamala Harris. 

“Trump is still not popular among American Jews and I think Trump is actually, genuinely, on some level surprised at this,” Balthaser said. “He thinks he is doing what the institutional Jewish community wants, which is to use this antisemitism discourse to punish anybody who might be not only critical of Israel, but critical of a human rights framework or a liberal framework that might be critical of Israel.”

Whatever their opinions on Zionism might be, Balthaser said, most American Jews value free speech, open debate, civil society and the role of universities. When actions taken “in the name of protecting Jews” result in defunding things like cancer research, he added, it risks generating backlash against Jewish communities — and may ultimately increase antisemitism rather than reduce it.

That dynamic has helped to fuel a resurgence of overt right-wing antisemitism, like the kind propagated by Fuentes, Balthaser said. When conservatives see political leaders willing to “shut down universities” and “back a state committing war crimes” to support the Jews, he said, it can reinforce longstanding conspiratorial narratives that Jews secretly “run the world.”

“What I had been fighting on the right with the neo-Nazis in early ’23 had metastasized and become mainstream,” Moon said. “It comes from a very different spot — antisemitism on the left is coming out of a pro-Palestinian orientation, but antisemitism on the right, they don’t really care about Arabs or Palestinians generally. Sometimes they do, but most of the time they’re against American involvement, American money. It’s very rooted in this kind of reaction to the institutional stuff of American foreign policy.”

As the New Right has distanced itself from Israel, Moon said, its growing influence has put pressure on older conservative institutions like Heritage to avoid alienating a faction that is increasingly shaping the movement’s political identity.

While Fuentes is a “proper antisemite,” Moon said, he does not believe Roberts is one. Instead, he thinks Roberts made a political miscalculation in refusing to criticize Carlson’s interview. Very few people have been willing to go against New Right figures such as Carlson, Fuentes and Candace Owens, he said, noting that many GOP leaders depend on the same pool of followers to support their campaigns.

But the normalization of antisemitism on the right, Moon warned, also threatens the GOP’s electoral coalition. While the New Right seems to think they can win elections with just white men, “you need Jews and you need Hispanics and African Americans and Chinese,” he said.

The task force met at The LINE Hotel DC Tuesday for an event titled “Exposing and Countering Extremism and Antisemitism on the Political Right.” Throughout the afternoon, speakers emphasized a refusal to let antisemitism — and the New Right figures associated with it — define the Republican Party’s identity.

“We have the opportunity to really, once again, gather the forces, strategize how we take this on,” Moon told the roughly 100 members who traveled from across the country. “It’s the early days of this war. I don’t feel like we did win the last battle, but we didn’t lose anything yet. And so I would welcome you to the fight.”

Several speakers invoked biblical imagery, casting the effort as part of a broader struggle to defend Christian, American and Western values.

Co-founder Pastor Mario Bramnick said the normalization of antisemitism has left America standing “on the eve of World War II,” and described the task force as united in its commitment to declare zero tolerance for antisemitism “wherever it arises” — on the left or right. He said the group severed ties with Heritage because the think tank failed to adequately address the damage caused by Roberts’ defense of the Carlson-Fuentes interview.

“Heritage has been a beacon of conservatism. We appreciate all the space that they gave us and all the support to the task force,” Bramnick said. “The conservative movement, MAGA and the Republican Party cannot flirt with antisemitism. We need to hold proper accountability, which is what the left did not do.”

House votes 427-1 to release Epstein files

WASHINGTON — The House voted 427-1 on Tuesday to pass legislation ordering the Justice Department to release files related to late convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. 

Rep. Clay Higgins (R-La.) was the sole “No” vote. The bill now moves to the Senate, where Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) said it could pass as early as Tuesday night by unanimous consent. 

Such swift action comes after a discharge petition forced a House vote on the bill. President Donald Trump changed his position Monday and called for House Republicans to vote in favor of the release of the files. Trump also said he will sign the legislation into law if it passes the Senate. 

But in the same Truth Social post calling for the files’ release, he called them a “Democrat hoax,” painting the issue as a distraction from tackling affordability. 

“House Republicans should vote to release the Epstein files, because we have nothing to hide, and it’s time to move on,” Trump wrote on Truth Social. 

Trump could release the files at any point without congressional legislation mandating him to do so. 

Reps. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) and Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) introduced a discharge petition in July to force a House vote on the bill because House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) refused to bring the bill to a vote. The petition secured its final vote Wednesday from Rep. Adelita Grijalva (D- Ariz.), whom Johnson swore in after a seven week delay. 

Johnson, who voted “Yes,” said he hopes the Senate amends the legislation due to concerns over “victim privacy.” 

The speaker said this bill was unnecessary since the House Oversight Committee had already released materials in its ongoing investigations, including new emails from Epstein released Wednesday. And like Trump, he cast blame on Democrats, calling the vote a “political exercise.” 

“Democrats are trying to use the Epstein matter as a political weapon to distract from their own party’s failures,” Johnson said. 

Several other Republican lawmakers expressed concerns over privacy during floor debate. But Higgins was the only one among them to vote against the bill over those concerns.  

“If enacted in its current form, this type of broad reveal of criminal investigative files, released to a rabid media, will absolutely result in innocent people being hurt,” Higgins wrote on X just after voting.

Throughout the day leading up to the vote, Massie directed a refrain toward the Senate: “Don’t muck it up.” 

“I think some of them would like to amend the bill to protect the pedophiles,” Massie said. “And if we see any inkling of that, that bill needs to be killed immediately.”  

Massie and Khanna stood with Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) in front of the Capitol with a group of Epstein survivors. 

Greene, a loyal Trump supporter, has publicly clashed with the president over the release of the files. Recently, Trump withdrew his endorsement of Greene, who remained firm in supporting the release of the files. She acknowledged the rift they have driven in her party. 

“Watching this actually turn into a fight has ripped MAGA apart,” Greene said.

Several Democrats have commended Greene for her stance. 

“Are there still many questions about her previous positions and the violence and negativity that she stoked in the past that she needs to answer for? Absolutely,” Rep. Yassamin Ansari (D-Ariz.) told Medill News Service. “But on this issue, she’s been strong. She’s been brave.” 

Despite jabs exchanged on both sides of the aisle leading up to the vote, the near-unanimity marked a rare moment of unity. 

“Sometimes we have to see people not just through their caricature,” Khanna said. “And I had caricatures of Rep. Greene and Rep. Massie and Rep. Mace. But what I saw is that they cared, as Americans and human beings.”

RFK Jr. touts ‘Make America Healthy Again’ agenda to divided audience at GW University

WASHINGTON — Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. pitched his Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) movement as a disruptive force in health policy at a “fireside chat” hosted by Turning Point USA-Foggy Bottom on Monday evening.

Organizers intended the event at George Washington University to be an exercise of free speech and inquiry, in honor of late right-wing activist Charlie Kirk. Kennedy faced a polarized audience as he reiterated his mission to end chronic diseases in the U.S.

“(My goal is) to end the chronic disease crisis and make America the healthiest nation in the world, like it was when I was a kid,” Kennedy said.

Nearly 100 students protested outside the venue, criticizing Kennedy’s frequent vaccine misinformation and his comments on people with autism. GWU’s Disabled Students Collective also circulated a petition urging university administrators to prevent Kennedy from speaking on campus.

RJ Doroshewitz, president of GWU’s chapter of Democracy Matters, said Kennedy has spread “baseless conspiracy theories” and has harmed marginalized communities at the university, including transgeneder students and students with autism.

“We believe in truth. We believe in the rule of law. We believe in science,” Doroshewitz said. “RFK — I wish he did, but he does not reflect any of those values.”

Inside the event, the crowd mostly cheered for Kennedy as he doubled down on some of his more controversial positions.

Kennedy claimed antidepressant SSRI drugs are a possible cause of mass shootings, insisted that the Trump administration had not cut funds for clinical trials, reframed pandemic-era public health measures as constitutional violations and praised recent HHS efforts to initiate studies on the link between vaccines and autism.

There is no evidence that SSRIs cause people to commit mass shootings, the National Institutes of Health terminated grants for 383 clinical trials between Feb. 28 and Aug. 15, federal courts have upheld states’ authority to enact public health laws and rejected claims that refusal to mask was protected speech and multiple peer-reviewed studies have rebuked Kennedy’s claim that vaccines cause autism.

The event was the first hosted by the brand-new Foggy Bottom chapter of TPUSA. Chapter President Ryan Van Slingerland and GWU College Republicans Vice Chairman Paul Lieb co-moderated the discussion.

Lieb told Medill News Service the chapter chose to host Kennedy because of his influence within the Trump administration, and added that Kennedy has made “a lot of effective changes.”

“It’s hard to go up there, especially when you are the secretary of one of the most influential departments in the entire nation and then trying to defend every little thing, especially to college students,” Lieb said.

As the Q&A portion began, dozens of audience members rushed to line up to ask Kennedy a question, pressing him on his public health qualifications, mass HHS firings, food labeling and the opioid epidemic. One student asked Kennedy about his anti-vaccine claims, to which Kennedy replied: “I believe what I’ve always believed.”

Zach Novick, who attended the event, said the questions, and the protest, largely focused on concerns about national issues and reflected deep societal polarization, but added that he appreciated the organizers’ goal of civil discussion.

“(Kennedy) is such an interesting figure within current politics. I can’t really think of anyone else that I know who’s like him,” Novick said. “I think it’s good that he’s out here trying to at least communicate what he’s feeling.”

Novick said he was particularly interested in Kennedy’s claim that federal agencies had long been influenced by special interests such as the pharmaceutical industry.

Throughout the event, Kennedy framed the MAHA movement as a bipartisan agenda blocked by partisan optics, not by substance. He claimed Democratic governors privately agree with him on food dye bans, SNAP waivers and whole-food school lunches, but refuse to adopt the MAHA label.

Kennedy also argued the rise of chronic diseases is an issue that uniquely impacts younger generations. He blamed his own generation for failing young people, but said that his movement would give them the information to address the environmental causes of chronic disease.

 

Watch the Video Report Here:

IN PHOTOS: Longest government shutdown comes to an end

WASHINGTON — The government shutdown ended on Wednesday night as President Donald Trump signed legislation to reopen the government after the House approved the Senate’s spending package, ending the 43-day hiatus. 

The government will remain funded until Jan. 30, with SNAP and other benefits extended through September 2026. 

Here is a photographic look at the historic week that was in Washington.

 

“I love it, I think it’s brilliant,” Sen. Markwayne Mullin (R-Okla.) said of President Trump’s direct payment health care proposal before heading into the Senate Chamber on Monday night, November 10, 2025. (Katareena Roska/MNS)

 

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) talks to reporters about the Senate bill to end the shutdown during voting on November 10, 2025. (Katareena Roska/MNS)

 

 

Sen. Jim Justice (R-W. Va) in a press gaggle ahead of voting on November 10, 2025. (Katareena Roska/MNS)

 

Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) discusses the Senate bill ending the shutdown and party leadership under minority leader Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) with reporters on November 10, 2025. (Katareena Roska/MNS)

 

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) and Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) converse following a press conference in which Jeffries urged his party not to vote for the funding package. (Riddhimaa L. Kodali/MNS)

 

Rep. Adelita Grijalva (D-Ariz.) is sworn into Congress after waiting for 50 days on Nov. 12, 2025. (Riddhimaa L. Kodali/MNS)

 

Grijalva leaving the press conference held after her swearing in on Nov. 12, 2025. (Riddhimaa L. Kodali/MNS)

 

The Washington Monument from the Speaker’s Ceremonial Office on Nov. 12, 2025. (Riddhimaa L. Kodali/MNS)

Rep. Grijalva sworn into Congress, provides final signature on Epstein discharge petition

WASHINGTON — Rep. Adelita Grijalva (D-Ariz.) was sworn into the House on Wednesday, 50 days after winning a special election to represent Arizona’s 7th congressional district. 

Grijalva added the key 218th signature on a bipartisan discharge petition to force a House vote on releasing files related to the late convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. 

“I will sign the discharge petition right now to release the Epstein files,” Grijalva said on the House floor Wednesday afternoon. “Justice cannot wait another day.” 

The chamber returned to session Wednesday for the first time since Sept. 19. House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) kept the House out of session through the 43-day government shutdown that ended later that night.  

Johnson previously said he would not swear in Grijalva during the shutdown. Democrats said the delay was to prevent Grijalva from signing the discharge petition, pointing to instances in which the Speaker swore in other representatives 24 hours after they were elected.  

“There is no justification to deny Arizonans of their representation, and Speaker Johnson literally twisted himself into knots trying to explain it,” Rep. Pete Aguilar (D-Calif.) said. “But we all know the real reason. Donald Trump and Republican leadership are hell-bent on keeping the Epstein files hidden from the American people.” 

Grijalva was sworn in the same day Democrats on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee released new emails from Epstein that mentioned President Donald Trump, including one from 2019 in which Epstein wrote that Trump “knew about the girls.”  

Johnson said he plans to hold a House vote on the Epstein legislation next week. If the bill passes, it moves to the Senate, where Senate Republicans will likely face public pressure over how they vote. Nearly three-quarters of Americans support releasing the Epstein files, based on a PBS NewsHour/NPR/Marist poll conducted last month.

Two Epstein survivors were present in the House chamber during Grijalva’s first speech as congresswoman. 

“This is an abuse of power,” Grijalva said as Johnson stood on the dais behind her. “One individual should not be able to unilaterally obstruct the swearing in of a duly elected member of Congress for political reasons.” 

During the ceremonial photo-op outside the chamber that followed, Grijalva was asked why it took so long to swear her in. The congresswoman motioned to Johnson and said, “That would not be my question.” 

“Look, I really like this lady,” Johnson said in response. “She’s going to be an excellent member of Congress. She’s a great person.” 

He added that Grijalva “fills her father’s shoes,” referring to former Rep. Raúl Grijalva, who represented Arizona’s 7th congressional district for over two decades before his death in March. 

Grijalva becomes the first Latina congresswoman to represent Arizona in the House — a point Rep. Teresa Leger Fernández (D-N.M.) reiterated as Democratic Women’s Caucus members posed with Grijalva outside the chamber. 

Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-Texas), who embraced her new colleague after the photo, told Medill News Service the two met years ago through Raúl Grijalva.  

“I told her that her dad has been with her the entire time,” Crockett said. 

Like her late father, Grijalva is a progressive Democrat. She said she plans to advocate for environmental justice, public education and legislation to “ensure” the immediate seating of future representatives-elect.  

Her whirlwind first day in Congress ended with a vote alongside her colleagues on the Senate-passed bill to open the government, which passed the House 222-209 that evening.  

“It’s a little surreal, I have to say,” she said. “People keep asking me how I feel. And honestly, maybe I’ll have a better answer tomorrow.” 

Supreme Court weighs breadth of compassionate release statute, consideration of decades in sentencing difference

WASHINGTON – U.S. Supreme Court justices weighed whether changes in sentencing law can be used as part of a petition for a compassionate release on Wednesday.

In the consolidated cases of Rutherford v. United States and Carter v. United States, plaintiffs raised questions about whether sentencing laws, which were enacted after they had been sentenced and would have reduced their own terms in prison, could be considered when determining “extraordinary and compelling reasons” to grant compassionate release. 

Rutherford received a 42-year sentence in 2003, and Carter received a 70-year sentence in 2007, both for multiple firearm offenses in armed robberies. In 2018, Congress passed the First Step Act, lowering mandatory minimums for individuals convicted of multiple offenses at the same time.

If sentenced today, Rutherford would have received a 24-year sentence and Carter a 34-year sentence. Rutherford and Carter did not seek resentencing under the First Step Act, but did use the change in mandatory minimums to support their applications for compassionate release.

The district courts and U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit denied that the defendants’ sentencing disparities were cause for reducing their terms. They instead ruled that because Congress did not make the First Step Act apply retroactively, it couldn’t be used for compassionate release applications, and this created a 6-4 circuit split around the consideration of sentencing changes.

The plaintiffs argue that the law change can be used for compassionate release requests in agreement with the four circuits that allow the justification in a multifactor analysis. In the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984, Congress’ only limit to finding “extraordinary and compelling reasons” for compassionate release is that the decision can’t be based on rehabilitation alone. 

The Sentencing Reform Act also created the Sentencing Commission, responsible for sentencing guidelines as an independent agency. In 2023, the Commission voted 4-3, directly allowing a change in law to be considered in “extraordinary and compelling reasons” for defendants who have already completed 10 years of their “unusually long sentences.” 

On Wednesday, some justices called into question the Sentencing Commission’s authority over Congress. Justice Clarence Thomas asked about Congress’s decision not to make the First Step Act a retroactive measure. Justice Brett Kavanaugh also said he was concerned that the Commission had “countermanded” Congress.

The U.S. Deputy Solicitor General Eric Feigin supported those questions, arguing the Commission’s definitions of “extraordinary and compelling” were too broad.

Justice Sonya Sotomayor questioned Feigin’s premise, asking what “goalposts,” a comparison first raised by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, the Commission had if Congress hadn’t explicitly set other limitations.

The Justices’ ruling in this case could redefine the authority of the Sentencing Commission, as well as what reasons can be used in future applications for compassionate release.  

“There are people across the country whose ability to be free really depends on what the Supreme Court does in this case,” Shanna Rifkin, General Counsel of FAMM, Families Against Mandatory Minimums, who filed an amicus brief in support of the petitioners, said. “Those implications can’t be understated.”

Medill Today | Wednesday, November 19, 2025