Author: Ryan Grim

  • This article was originally published as a newsletter from Ryan Grim. Sign up to get the next one in your inbox.

    If there was any issue that dominated more air time during the Trump administration than immigration, I don’t remember what it was. From The Wall, to the Muslim ban, to the kids in cages, there was universal recognition within the Democratic coalition that Trump’s nativist approach, fueled by the maniacal advisor Stephen Miller, was beyond the pale. 

    Trump also fueled a migration crisis, sanctioning Venezuela after a failed coup, relisting Cuba as a State Sponsor of Terror after Obama had moved toward normalization, and otherwise destabilizing countries in the Western Hemisphere – destabilization that then drove people northward. He would then weaponize that migration in the service of tighter crackdowns. 

    What little difference a new president makes. Though rhetoric toward migrants is more humane coming from President Biden, the White House is now signaling it is on board for draconian, GOP-backed immigration restrictions and border security efforts.

    Putting my pundit hat on, I’ve been saying for more than a year that Democrats have been sending signals that they’d actually quite appreciate if their hand was forced on immigration, and Republicans forced a crackdown. The hoped-for benefits of their support for immigration reform haven’t translated into gains among Hispanic voters – in fact, they’ve lost ground instead – and the chaos at the border is a political headache they’d like to see go away. Republicans, meanwhile, face their own political conflict of interest: reducing the chaotic situation at the border would deprive them of a major political talking point. What do they want more? Their policy to be implemented, or the ability to point fingers at Democrats? Not an easy call. (They’ll probably choose both – take the policy win and still attack Democrats on the border – but you get the point.)

    If Democrats do cave on the border, they’re pledging to do so in exchange for more money for the war in Ukraine. Dave Dayen has a good rundown of the latest on the negotiations, the policy, and the politics.

    Putting my reporter hat back on, I have a new scoop related to the migration crisis: As one of his final foreign policy acts as president, in January 2021 Donald Trump added Cuba to the list of “State Sponsors of Terror,” reversing the Obama administration’s 2015 determination that the designation was no longer appropriate. 

    The incoming Biden administration pledged to Congress it would start the process of overturning Trump’s redesignation, which by statute requires a six-month review process. Yet in a private briefing last week on Capitol Hill, State Department official Eric Jacobstein stunned members of Congress by telling them that the department has not even begun the review process, according to three sources in the room.

    (I’ve started going to State Department press briefings, and asked them about this. You can see their response and my unkempt hair here.)

    In the briefing, Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass., inquired as to the status of the review. In order to remove Cuba from the list, statute requires at least a six-month review period. The news that the State Department had not even launched the review came as a surprise to McGovern and others in the room, and meant that the delisting couldn’t occur before mid-2024 at the earliest. McGovern pressed Jacobstein, noting that Congress had previously been assured that a review was underway. Jacobstein, according to sources in the room, said that perhaps there had been some misunderstanding around a different review of sanctions policies that State was undertaking. 

    “I don’t think they were prepared to respond to how upset members were,” said one Democrat, who was granted anonymity to discuss the private meeting. “They were furious.” 

    Vedant Patel, a spokesperson for the State Department, declined to comment on a closed-door meeting in Congress, and additionally declined to directly confirm or deny whether a review was ongoing. “We’re not going to comment on the deliberative process as it relates to the status of any designation,” said Patel. “Any review of Cuba’s status on the SST list — should one ever happen — would be based on the law and criteria established by Congress.”

    McGovern, however, had already been told that such a review was ongoing, according to multiple sources who heard directly from McGovern about the State Department’s messaging. 

    Biden’s refusal to even review Cuba’s status marks a strong rebuke of one of the Obama administration’s signature foreign policy achievements, the move toward normalizing relations with Cuba. 

    The Trump administration’s rationale for redesignating Cuba as a sponsor of terror relied heavily on the country having hosted representatives from FARC and ELN, two armed guerrilla movements designated by the U.S. as terror groups. But in October 2022, Colombian President Gustavo Petro, in a joint press conference with Secretary of State Antony Blinken, noted that Colombia itself, in cooperation with the Obama administration, had asked Cuba to host the FARC and ELN members as part of peace talks. The move by the Trump administration was “an injustice,” he said, and ought to be undone. “It is not us [Colombia] who must correct it, but it does need to be corrected,” added Petro, himself a onetime guerrilla.

    “When it comes to Cuba,” Blinken said at the press conference, “and when it comes to the state sponsor of terrorism designation, we have clear laws, clear criteria, clear requirements, and we will continue as necessary to revisit those to see if Cuba continues to merit that designation.” Blinken’s public claim — “we will continue as necessary to revisit” the designation — coupled with private assurances from the State Department left members of Congress certain that a review was underway. 

    Blinken was also asked about Cuba’s status in a hearing in March 2023 and said that Cuba had yet to meet the requirements to be removed from the list. “In both of these instances the Secretary was reiterating what we’ve said previously — should there be rescission of the SST status, it would need to be consistent with specific statutory criteria for rescinding a SST determination,” Patel said.

    The terror designation makes it difficult for Cubans to do international business, crushing an already fragile economy. The U.S. hard-line approach to Cuba has coincided with a surge in desperate migration, with Cubans now making up a substantial portion of the migrants arriving at the southern border. Nearly 425,000 Cubans have fled for the United States in fiscal years 2022 and 2023, shattering previous records. Instead of moving to stem the flow by focusing on root causes in Cuba, the Biden White House has been signaling support in recent days for Republican-backed border policies. 

    Hopes for a shift on Cuba policy have not just been fueled by the State Department’s misleading pledges about a review, but also by a semi-public moment picked up by a hot mic ahead of the previous State of the Union, in which Biden approached New Jersey Sen. Bob Menendez, one of the chamber’s leading Cuba hawks, and told him the two needed to chat. “Bob, I gotta talk to you about Cuba,” Biden told him. Menendez has since been indicted as an alleged intelligence asset of Egypt, and there is no indication the two have talked about Cuba.

    The post In a Major Snub to Obama, Biden Is Sticking With Trump When It Comes to Cuba Policy appeared first on The Intercept.

    This post was originally published on The Intercept.

  • As one of his final foreign policy acts as president, in January 2021 Donald Trump added Cuba to the list of “State Sponsors of Terror,” reversing the Obama administration’s 2015 determination that the designation was no longer appropriate. 

    The incoming Biden administration pledged to Congress it would start the process of overturning Trump’s redesignation, which by statute requires a six-month review process. Yet in a private briefing last week on Capitol Hill, State Department official Eric Jacobstein stunned members of Congress by telling them that the department has not even begun the review process, according to three sources in the room.

    In the briefing, Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass., inquired as to the status of the review. In order to remove Cuba from the list, statute requires at least a six-month review period. The news that the State Department had not even launched the review came as a surprise to McGovern and others in the room, and meant that the delisting couldn’t occur before mid-2024 at the earliest. McGovern pressed Jacobstein, noting that Congress had previously been assured that a review was underway. Jacobstein, according to sources in the room, said that perhaps there had been some misunderstanding around a different review of sanctions policies that State was undertaking. 

    “I don’t think they were prepared to respond to how upset members were,” said one Democrat, who was granted anonymity to discuss the private meeting. “They were furious.” 

    Vedant Patel, a spokesperson for the State Department, declined to comment on a closed-door meeting in Congress, and additionally declined to directly confirm or deny whether a review was ongoing. “We’re not going to comment on the deliberative process as it relates to the status of any designation,” said Patel. “Any review of Cuba’s status on the SST list — should one ever happen — would be based on the law and criteria established by Congress.”

    McGovern, however, had already been told that such a review was ongoing, according to multiple sources who heard directly from McGovern about the State Department’s messaging. 

    Biden’s refusal to even review Cuba’s status marks a strong rebuke of one of the Obama administration’s signature foreign policy achievements, the move toward normalizing relations with Cuba. 

    The Trump administration’s rationale for redesignating Cuba as a sponsor of terror relied heavily on the country having hosted representatives from FARC and ELN, two armed guerrilla movements designated by the U.S. as terror groups. But in October 2022, Colombian President Gustavo Petro, in a joint press conference with Secretary of State Antony Blinken, noted that Colombia itself, in cooperation with the Obama administration, had asked Cuba to host the FARC and ELN members as part of peace talks. The move by the Trump administration was “an injustice,” he said, and ought to be undone. “It is not us [Colombia] who must correct it, but it does need to be corrected,” added Petro, himself a onetime guerrilla.

    “When it comes to Cuba,” Blinken said at the press conference, “and when it comes to the state sponsor of terrorism designation, we have clear laws, clear criteria, clear requirements, and we will continue as necessary to revisit those to see if Cuba continues to merit that designation.” Blinken’s public claim — “we will continue as necessary to revisit” the designation — coupled with private assurances from the State Department left members of Congress certain that a review was underway. 

    Blinken was also asked about Cuba’s status in a hearing in March 2023 and said that Cuba had yet to meet the requirements to be removed from the list. “In both of these instances the Secretary was reiterating what we’ve said previously — should there be rescission of the SST status, it would need to be consistent with specific statutory criteria for rescinding a SST determination,” Patel said.

    The terror designation makes it difficult for Cubans to do international business, crushing an already fragile economy. The U.S. hard-line approach to Cuba has coincided with a surge in desperate migration, with Cubans now making up a substantial portion of the migrants arriving at the southern border. Nearly 425,000 Cubans have fled for the United States in fiscal years 2022 and 2023, shattering previous records. Instead of moving to stem the flow by focusing on root causes in Cuba, the Biden White House has been signaling support in recent days for Republican-backed border policies. 

    Hopes for a shift on Cuba policy have not just been fueled by the State Department’s misleading pledges about a review, but also by a semi-public moment picked up by a hot mic ahead of the previous State of the Union, in which Biden approached New Jersey Sen. Bob Menendez, one of the chamber’s leading Cuba hawks, and told him the two needed to chat. “Bob, I gotta talk to you about Cuba,” Biden told him. Menendez has since been indicted as an alleged intelligence asset of Egypt, and there is no indication the two have talked about Cuba. 

    The post State Department Stuns Congress, Saying Biden Is Not Even Reviewing Trump’s Terror Designation of Cuba appeared first on The Intercept.

    This post was originally published on The Intercept.

  • This article was originally published as a newsletter from Ryan Grim. Sign up to get the next one in your inbox.

    We posted a new excerpt from “The Squad: AOC and the Hope of a Political Revolution” exploring the way the Green New Deal came together. The bizarre right-wing distortion campaign around my book relied heavily on the climate parts of it, so we figured we’d just publish that and let people read it. Perhaps stung a bit by my criticism (ha), Fox News has since published another story based on my book that is shockingly faithful to the actual reporting in the book itself. Here is Fox’s writeup of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s first interaction with the Democratic Party’s hesitant, turtle-in-its-shell approach to abortion politics. No complaints on that one.

    If you’ve already gotten the book, please leave a review on Goodreads or Amazon or whatever independent platform you normally do that sort of thing. And if you haven’t finished your holiday shopping, what better stocking stuffer than a book? We also published Part 2 of the audio version on Deconstructed.

    At The Intercept, Murtaza Hussain and I published an explosive new report today that, for the first time, directly implicates the Indian government, based on Indian government documents, in the global assassination program against Sikh dissidents. The murders and attempted killings have stirred intense controversy between India, Canada, and the United States. An April 2023 memo we obtained, sent by India’s Foreign Ministry to operatives in North America orders a “sophisticated crackdown scheme” in coordination with the nation’s intelligence agencies.

    The memo lists several people to be targeted, along with a slew of dissident groups, associated with Sikh separatism. “Concrete measures shall be adopted to hold the suspects accountable,” the memo orders ominously.

    Two months later, Hardeep Singh Nijjar, who appears in the memo we obtained, was assassinated in Canada — a hit the Canadian government blamed on Indian assets. More recently, a New York-based leader of one of the organizations named in the memo was targeted in an assassination attempt, but it was foiled because India accidentally tried to hire a DEA informant to do the killing, according to an unsealed Justice Department indictment.

    After our story was published, the Indian Ministry of External Affairs flatly denied the existence of the memo in the following preposterous statement:

    In response to media queries on reports of MEA “secret memo” in April 2023, the Official Spokesperson, Shri Arindam Bagchi said:

    “We strongly assert that such reports are fake and completely fabricated. There is no such memo.

    This is part of a sustained disinformation campaign against India. The outlet in question is known for propagating fake narratives peddled by Pakistani intelligence. The posts of the authors confirm this linkage.

    Those who amplify such fake news only do so at the cost of their own credibility.”

    Just last week, following a slew of critical stories about India’s rival Pakistan, the Pakistani security services accused us of being in the pay of the Indian security services. That we work for their rival intelligence agency is the first thing India and Pakistan have agreed on since partition. Although it’s hard to square both claims being true at the same time.

    In any event, Baaz News, an outlet for the Sikh diaspora, subsequently published a document that supports our reporting and makes a mockery of the Indian government denial.

    Our full story is here.

    The post Our Bombshell on India’s Assassination Program — and the Story Behind the Green New Deal appeared first on The Intercept.

    This post was originally published on The Intercept.

  • Ahead of the publication of “The Squad: AOC and the Hope of a Political Revolution,” right-wing media outlets, in a series of reports in Fox News, the New York Post, the Daily Mail, and so on, wildly distorted the book. One of the chapters they mangled most aggressively was on the rise of the Green New Deal. Below is an adapted excerpt from Chapter 8: “It Is A Dream.

    Not long after Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez won her shock 2018 primary, Saikat Chakrabarti and Corbin Trent ventured to Washington, D.C., to scope things out. Both had started as volunteers on the first Bernie Sanders campaign, worked their way up the skeleton crew, then left to found what became Justice Democrats, and then threw themselves full time into electing Ocasio-Cortez in her primary campaign against Rep. Joe Crowley. 

    Now they had made it to Washington as AOC’s chief of staff and communications director, and the first question everyone they ran into asked them was the same, a question born of both curiosity and a sense of competitiveness: What committees does Ocasio-Cortez want to be on?

    Several members of Congress gave advice related to her “legacy” twenty or thirty years down the road. What does she want her legacy to be? She should figure that out first, they told Chakrabarti and Trent, and then work backward from there to figure out what committees she needs and what alliances she must form to make that legacy a reality.

    I met both men in the lobby of the Hyatt on Capitol Hill, and they relayed their revulsion at the notion. “Twenty years?” said Trent. “Christ, if we’re still here in twenty years, we’ll be total failures.” 

    “We have, like, a decade to turn this entire thing around,” said Chakrabarti, who was evangelizing about a book on the World War II mobilization that turned a peacetime economy into a wartime industry capable of producing the armaments, ships, planes, bombs, and vehicles that defeated fascism. “Freedom’s Forge: How American Business Produced Victory in World War II,” written by Arthur Herman, a scholar at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, focused, as its subtitle suggests, on the role of business in winning the war. But the book itself teaches a different lesson: that it was Franklin Roosevelt who used every tool at his disposal to engineer the top-to-bottom redevelopment of the economy. The same would have to happen this time, Chakrabarti suggested. Let that be AOC’s legacy.

    Despite Nancy Pelosi’s unwillingness to stop the party from raising money from the fossil fuel industry, the incoming speaker had been early in warning of the dangers of climate change, and the first thing she did when she took the House in 2006 was create a select committee on the climate with real teeth and subpoena power and then appoint then-Rep. Ed Markey, a true believer, to chair it. She also backed her ally Henry Waxman, another climate hawk, in his successful effort to oust the Big Auto–friendly John Dingell Jr. from the chairmanship of the Energy and Commerce Committee, specifically so Waxman could ram through a climate bill.

    He did so, at significant electoral cost to Democrats in swing seats, and the House passed the bill, only to see it die without a vote in the Senate. President Barack Obama had declined Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s suggestion to use budget reconciliation — a 50-vote process — to pass the climate bill. Had the country started that year in reducing carbon emissions, the picture a decade later would have looked much different.

    What happened to that climate committee? Chakrabarti and Trent wondered. Given the history, they both said, it seemed reasonable to push for it to be rebuilt and be the vehicle to turn the Green New Deal from a vision into legislative text, so that if and when the party took power fully in 2021, they’d have a bill ready to go.

    Creation of a Green New Deal Committee became the central demand of the occupation of Pelosi’s office, though the method had been a gamble. On a personal level, Pelosi didn’t want to be pushed into doing anything, lest it chip away at the image of toughness she had effectively cultivated. She went out of her way to belittle the Green New Deal. “It will be one of several or maybe many suggestions that we receive,” she told reporters. “The green dream, or whatever they call it. Nobody knows what it is, but they’re for it, right?”

    The “green dream” had started as a Google Doc put out by Sunrise, AOC, and the other groups behind the march on Pelosi’s office, and while the idea of a Green New Deal took off, the document itself came in for immediate criticism, both from the AFL-CIO, which warned that it would cost union jobs in the fossil fuel and pipeline industries, and from climate justice activists, who thought it didn’t go far enough in redressing the systemically racist impacts of climate change and pollution.

    Moving from dreamland to Google Doc to a congressional resolution (which is significantly short of legislation) required much more compromise than might be expected in an aspirational document.

    Work on it began in December 2018, before AOC had any staff. The joke was that Evan Weber of Sunrise, who had made the fateful ask that Ocasio-Cortez support the sit-in, was her interim legislative director. The first task was to find a co-sponsor in the Senate, and they immediately ruled out anybody potentially running for president, a good chunk of that chamber. “We knew if we had a presidential candidate, it would just be their thing, and we wanted it to be everybody’s thing,” said Weber.

    After the Sunrise protest, Ocasio-Cortez had felt isolated, having gone out on a radical limb on her own, breaking all sorts of norms and customs in Congress. Sen. Ed Markey of Massachusetts was one of the few who reached out to her with an encouraging word, congratulating her on what she’d done and probing her about the new youth movement.

    Markey was facing reelection in Massachusetts, with rumors that Rep. Joe Kennedy or Attorney General Maura Healey might challenge him. As a senator, Markey was liked well enough, but he’d been in Congress since 1976 and knew he was vulnerable to the question of why he deserved another term. What was he fighting for?

    Recalling Markey’s service as chair of the previous special climate panel, and his authorship of Waxman-Markey — the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 — the only major climate bill ever to clear a chamber of Congress, Ocasio-Cortez asked him to be her lead sponsor in the Senate. He eagerly accepted.

    By mid-January, working closely with Sunrise, which coordinated with outside groups, AOC’s office had consulted an endless number of organizations, including the Sierra Club, the AFL-CIO, the Service Employees International Union, the BlueGreen Alliance, Climate Justice Alliance, and New Consensus, the think tank backed by Chakrabarti and helmed by Zack Exley, where Rhiana Gunn-Wright, an up-and-coming radical policy writer, was taking the lead in drafting the resolution.

    An exchange between Sunrise and the NAACP was indicative of the difficulties they faced. A week before the unveiling, an NAACP official, Katherine Egland, wrote to Sunrise. “It isn’t that we want or expect a perfect bill or resolution, but that we are fundamentally opposed to carbon capture sequestration, by any name or concept; and we are vehemently against any form or theory of carbon taxing, credits, dividends, etc,” Egland wrote. For the NAACP, carbon capture and sequestration — the idea that emissions could be captured or sucked out of the air and sequestered back into the ground — was seen as a scam by the fossil fuel industry to continue to burn coal in Black neighborhoods and call it clean. “We unapologetically believe that these two particular proposals will do more harm than good — especially as it relates to the very people it proposes to uplift. ”

    Sunrise’s Weber forwarded the note to Markey’s and AOC’s teams. “Wanted to make sure you both had this from the NAACP. My opinion is that it would be very bad to not have them with us, and their concerns will be shared by other environmental and climate justice advocates as well,” Weber wrote, recommending that they remove the “true cost of emissions” bullet — which, to many in the know, Weber understood, signaled “carbon pricing.”

    Putting a price on carbon allows renewables to compete on a more level playing field, as carbon is now asked to pay for its pollution rather than sticking the public with the tab. But this setup also raises the price of gas and utilities, and no amount of credit or rebate scheme is enough to persuade people, the NAACP worried, that they won’t be paying more at the pump to satisfy the vanity of environmentalists. The Yellow Vests protests in France in 2018 had sounded the death knell for such an approach, as it became clear the working class weren’t willing to pay for what they saw as a problem they hadn’t created. 

    When it came to carbon pricing, an NAACP resolution had cast it as insufficient to the scale of the crisis, while putting too much burden on Black communities. Lost on nobody involved was the NAACP’s significant support from the fossil fuel industry, whose leading companies sponsored the group’s conventions and otherwise kicked in support.

    Yet dropping some form of carbon pricing could risk losing supporters on the left, who would see the resolution as mere wish-casting. “This is the kind of response we will likely get if we keep the carbon pricing thing as is,” Chakrabarti wrote in a subsequent email to Weber about the NAACP response. Carbon pricing was dropped.

    The final document was a result of wheeling and dealing the likes of which hadn’t been done by the left in Washington since Lyndon B. Johnson was president, and the final product had a stunningly broad coalition behind it. The unveiling of the resolution was set for February 7. “We got everyone in the right place. We had the Big Greens lined up, and they were happy because AFL was in a good place,” said Weber. “AFL-CIO was planning to put out a positive statement on the whole thing.”

    And then came the FAQ — and the cow farts. “We spent months really carefully negotiating between all these interests,” Weber recalled years later. “Honestly, this is like one of my biggest political regrets, is what happened around the FAQs.”

    Several things happened around the frequently asked questions document the office prepared, but what first set the resolution veering off course, Weber said, was an article in Politico — or, as Weber called it, “pain-in-the-ass-fucking-Politico.” (I started my political journalism career at Politico and can confirm that it is a pain in the ass.) 

    The story, based on sources who had seen a late version of the resolution, landed on Monday, February 4, and was headlined, “Green New Deal Won’t Call for End to Fossil Fuels.” The story came from frustrated elements on the left of the climate world who insisted that the only rational path forward was to shut down the burning of fossil fuels and worry about the rest later. Weber understood the irony: Nearly everyone in the Sunrise leadership came from the divest-and-shut-it-down side of organizing. These were their people, and now they were getting attacked by them. The Sunrise team was barely into their mid-20s and were already being called sellouts.

    “It’s the movement that many people in Sunrise came out of, but our whole thesis was that that kind of campaigning was ineffective both because it was an unpopular message with the public — that saying no to everything doesn’t actually give people something to believe in — and it was really bad for coalition building,” Weber said, noting that it’s impossible to get labor on board with a policy position that will eliminate jobs, even if you promise a world full of other types of jobs in the future.

    Indeed, the Politico story — as if to make Weber’s point — quoted the policy director for the climate group 350.org (where some of the Sunrise brass had started their careers or journeys into activism) criticizing the resolution for using the term “clean,” which indicated a “keep the door open” approach to carbon capture and sequestration, allowing fossil fuels to continue to be used.

    The rationale for the blanket opposition to any carbon technology is a bit elliptical. The carbon industry supports investment in clean-tech infrastructure cynically, as a way to stave off its own demise, the argument goes, and the technology isn’t actually able to do what its proponents have claimed it will one day be able to do. 

    But there are kinks in the logic. If a technology’s current state equaled its promise, both wind and solar would have been shut down long ago and we would never have seen the exponential technological bursts that have led both to become cheaper sources of energy than fossil fuels. It also ignores the reality that carbon capture technology does work — at least at a small scale and in theory. Whether it can be scaled fast enough to meet the crisis is an open question, but it’s not out of the question.

    The Politico article also quoted Sean McGarvey, president of the North America’s Building Trades Unions, saying that oil and gas industry jobs paid solid, middle-class wages while work in the renewable field still did not. “They’re talking about everything except the workers that are doing the work,” he said.

    McGarvey made the comments at an event alongside Mike Sommers, a lobbyist for the American Petroleum Institute, who gleefully drove in the wedge, claiming that one-third of construction jobs are in the oil and gas industry.

    Spooked by the article, AOC’s team began walking away from some of the concessions they had made. But instead of rewriting the resolution, they began tweaking the FAQ and other material that described it. Where the resolution left room for carbon tech and the possibility of nuclear power to play a role, for instance, the FAQ blasted the concepts.

    “Yes, we are calling for a full transition off fossil fuels and zero greenhouse gases,” the answer read, going beyond the carefully negotiated resolution. It continued:

    Anyone who has read the resolution sees that we spell this out through a plan that calls for eliminating greenhouse gas emissions from every sector of the economy. Simply banning fossil fuels immediately won’t build the new economy to replace it—this is the plan to build that new economy and spells out how to do it technically. We do this through a huge mobilization to create the renewable energy economy as fast as possible. We set a goal to get to net-zero, rather than zero emissions, in 10 years because we aren’t sure that we’ll be able to fully get rid of farting cows and airplanes that fast, but we think we can ramp up renewable manufacturing and power production, retrofit every building in America, build the smart grid, overhaul transportation and agriculture, plant lots of trees and restore our ecosystem to get to net-zero.

    “Farting cows and airplanes.” Trent’s plainspoken, no-bullshit approach, and his frustration with and contempt for the norms of Washington, D.C., had helped him slash and burn his way through the swamp. Trent and Ocasio-Cortez’s team were trying to have it both ways: to expose the absurdity of the zero-emissions approach. How will you fully eliminate cow farts? Or campfires? How to replace a fleet of jet-fueled airplanes with electric ones when the latter didn’t exist yet?

    Weber lamented that the retreat away from the compromise they had agreed upon came in the face of everything they’d done to reorient their politics toward coalition building, reaching the masses, and expanding the tent of environmentalism with the aim of actually passing a Green New Deal. “We believe that really deeply in our bones. It was one of the whole reasons why we broke off 350.org and the rest of these groups and started Sunrise in the first place, and we were really thrilled to find alignment with AOC and the New Consensus folks,” he said. “And basically, the second this Politico article hit, we sort of got scared, and I think it was eve-of-launch jitters.”

    Overconfidence had crept in, as AOC and Sunrise had become the It kids of Washington. “I think we had done such a good job, up until that point, of massaging the language that there was kind of an arrogance of, like, ‘We can actually appease everyone here,’ instead of sticking to our guns and making a real choice about charting a different direction and keeping our eyes on the prize,” Weber said. “And so, the decision was made by AOC’s team to write that FAQ, and they very rapidly and haphazardly put it together without any sort of process, like the one that we went through to write the resolution.”

    The FAQ brought up carbon capture specifically, asking, “Are you for CCUS [carbon capture, utilization, and storage]?” The resolution plainly left the door open for that technology, and Trent, in the Politico article, had even reiterated as much. But the FAQ document got weaselly, and instead of referring to the resolution, it stepped back to ask what its authors believed, which is a different question: “We believe the right way to capture carbon is to plant trees and restore our natural ecosystems. CCUS technology to date has not proven effective.” The answer leaves wiggle room for CCUS tech but is clearly trying to close the door — not what unions were looking for. The FAQ document added that while the Green New Deal didn’t ban fossil fuels or nuclear fuel, it might as well: “The Green New Deal makes new fossil fuel infrastructure or nuclear plants unnecessary.”

    The AFL-CIO, which had prepared a supportive statement, was livid, and issued a skeptical statement instead. Major environmental groups like the Sierra Club panicked. Fox News delighted in the entire affair. “We just fucking served them up this thing on a silver platter,” Weber said of Fox. “They go wild with the cow farts and the antinuclear and all this sort of stuff. We lose the support of AFL-CIO, they are freaking out. Their freaking out almost caused these Big Greens to pull out of the thing at the last minute. This is all happening while the press conference launching the thing is taking place. It’s just a total shitshow disaster. Months of some very delicate planning, years of strategic thinking and correction for mistakes, sort of gone in like, less than forty-eight hours.”

    “In kowtowing to this small corner of the left who was literally fighting over words and phrases, even though we are all basically aligned on the goals, we threw a lot of that away.”

    But the PR stayed strong. At the press conference outside the Capitol, Ocasio-Cortez pulled off one of her more impressive jujitsu moves when a reporter asked her about Pelosi’s swipe that it was just a “green dream or whatever they call it.” AOC disarmed the attack by adopting it. “No, I think it is a dream,” she said, going on to defend the Green New Deal as the full aspiration of the public.

    From there, the Green New Deal took off on two separate tracks. On one, it was ridiculed by the right and dismissed by Democratic leaders as unserious. But on the other, it became a global sensation.

    The Canadian government adopted a version of the Green New Deal, as did the Spanish government. The German government, unfamiliar with the American context of FDR’s New Deal, mixed up the words and pledged to implement a New Green Deal. And Democratic presidential candidates from the center to the left rushed to embrace it. Joe Biden, who would go on to become the Democratic nominee and then president, rejected the moniker as part of his effort to differentiate himself from the progressive wing, but the context of his platform was wildly more ambitious than anything Hillary Clinton had put out in 2016 and became even more so after he named AOC and Sunrise head Varshini Prakash to a committee charged with crafting his climate agenda.

    The capitulation to the environmental left had set back the cause of winning over organized labor and the party’s center, but the entire effort succeeded in reshaping the climate zeitgeist. “One of the main things we wanted to accomplish was to have Green New Deal be one of the questions that gets asked in a debate,” said Trent. “And we far and away achieved that goal. Like, the Canadian government is running Green New Deal shit. It literally took it across the world. And so, I felt like it was an accomplishment. I really don’t think [Ocasio-Cortez] does. I think she was embarrassed by the Green New Deal. She didn’t feel like it was serious enough,” he said. “That’s not what she wanted to do.”

    He noted that AOC pivoted after the rollout to something she called the Just Society series, a suite of six pieces of legislation that addressed housing, immigration, criminal justice reform, and other progressive priorities. “She wants to do the serious work of Congress, getting things in the record, on the record in committee, and things like that,” Trent said. She was there to help the party succeed in living up to its principles, she believed, not there to tear it down, and was frustrated that her colleagues and the party leadership couldn’t see it. What she wanted, said Trent, was “that they’d accept her as a sort of normal rep, that she would be one of the team. That just wasn’t never gonna happen.”

    Trent said he would often warn Ocasio-Cortez that because of the way she had burst onto the scene, and because of the threat she represented to others, her hope of being accepted as a member in good standing would always be frustrated. “Disarming will not make them happy,” he said. Even if she left politics and became merely an influencer or an MSNBC talking head, he argued, they’d still hunt her until the end of time. “The funny thing is it still wouldn’t prove to her that it won’t work,” he said. “ ‘I just have to get a little smaller, so nobody thinks I’m a threat. Okay. Sorry again, guys. Sorry again for all this trouble.’ ”

    Her staffer Dan Riffle, who served through the first two years, also watched the burn-it-down image that had developed around AOC clash with her more conciliatory approach to her colleagues. “Despite her having beaten Joe Crowley and her public-facing persona,” Riffle said, “she is a very conflict-averse person, more so than a normal person I think. And you add in all of the very real shit that she has to deal with and the very difficult decisions that she’s faced with as a then-twenty-nine-year-old female.”

    At the end of her first term, AOC produced and posted a video noting all her accomplishments, and the Green New Deal gets roughly as much time as the fact that she “Introduced more amendments than 90 percent of freshman lawmakers” and “cosponsored 78 pieces of legislation that passed the House, 14 that were signed into law.” “If you go back and look at the stuff she actually focuses on, to me it’s not the really fucking useful stuff she did,” said Trent.

    The rollout of the Green New Deal and Trent’s screwup with the cow farts opened up a rift between the two, even as they stayed bonded through their shared experience of the campaign and AOC’s launch to stardom. “My dad used to always talk about how Peyton Manning was good at never blaming other people on the team—took the blame and gave away the credit,” Trent said. “[Alex] used to love to talk about how—well, not love, but she would literally throw me under the bus all the time for fucking up that rollout, as she put it, or she’d say things like ‘Well, it didn’t go as smoothly as we’d like.’ ” 

    The Green New Deal rollout bundled together all the contradictions at the heart of Ocasio-Cortez’s politics and personality, tying her up in knots. In a profound way, she had found herself in a tortured position: a consensus builder and a people pleaser thrust into the role of rebel; a science fair champion, a congressional intern, and a loyal progressive Democrat cast as a burn-it-down radical because she had come from outside the system — had been forced to come from outside, because there was no other way in. And she was cast as unrealistic— a green dreamer — because she grasped the reality of the crisis.

    The post The Rise and Rollout of AOC’s Green New Deal appeared first on The Intercept.

    This post was originally published on The Intercept.

  • This article was originally published as a newsletter from Ryan Grim. Sign up to get the next one in your inbox.

    A quick request: If my book has arrived and you’re enjoying it, please give it a review. If you are not, well, please do not, I suppose.

    And some news: The Intercept is proud to partner on the Belmarsh Tribunal at the National Press Club this coming Saturday, December 9, 2023. 

    Inspired by the Russell-Sartre Tribunal of the Vietnam War, the Belmarsh Tribunal brings together a range of expert witnesses to call for the release of WikiLeaks publisher Julian Assange as his potential extradition from the U.K. to the U.S. reaches its denouement, with his final U.K. court hearing expected in early 2024.

    This D.C. sitting of the Tribunal will be co-chaired by Amy Goodman, the host of “Democracy Now!”, and by me. It’ll be livestreamed, and details are below. 

    Members of the D.C. sitting of the Tribunal include Marjorie Cohn, professor of law at Thomas Jefferson School of Law and former president of the National Lawyers Guild; Michael Sontheimer, journalist and historian (formerly Der Spiegel); Mark Feldstein, investigative correspondent and chair of journalism at the University of Maryland; Trevor Timm, co-founder of Freedom of the Press Foundation; John Kiriakou, former CIA intelligence officer; Rebecca Vincent, Reporters Without Borders; Ewen MacAskill, journalist and intelligence correspondent (formerly Guardian); Ben Wizner, lawyer and civil liberties advocate with the American Civil Liberties Union; Maja Sever, president of European Federation of Journalists; Ece Temelkuran, author; Lina Attalah, co-founder and chief editor of Mada Masr, 2020 Knight International Journalism Award recipient; Sevim Dagdelen, member of the German Bundestag; and Abby Martin, journalist.

    The Intercept invites you to book your place to attend in person or follow the proceedings online by visiting https://act.progressive.international/belmarsh.

    The post Julian Assange Could Face Extradition to the U.S. by Early 2024 appeared first on The Intercept.

    This post was originally published on The Intercept.

  • Today is the day!

    The book is out.

    It should be at your local bookstore, or you can order a copy through an independent bookstore, which I hope you’ll do. HuffPost‘s Daniel Marans is out today with a piece of news from the book: In 2018, roughly a week after Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez stumbled through an interview question about her criticism of the killing by Israel Defense Forces of dozens of nonviolent protesters in Gaza, her communications director got a call from AIPAC. The pro-Israel lobbying group offered her campaign $100,000 in contributions to “start the conversation” so that she would never flub the question again. AOC turned them down. What follows is a brief adapted excerpt of that section of the book, which is called “The Squad: AOC and the Hope of a Political Revolution.” Go get your copy!

    We also published an audio excerpt today in the Deconstructed podcast feed. The following excerpt is drawn from Chapter 3, “Occupation”:

    When the morning of July 13, 2018, dawned, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez had been on an unbroken streak of interview victories. The streak wouldn’t last the night. 

    When she stunned the political world by upsetting Rep. Joe Crowley on June 26, the assumption was that the big story of the night was the shock defeat of the next Speaker of the House. It soon became clear that Crowley would be the one to become a trivia question, and the real story was the rise of the politician quickly branded AOC. 

    In the days after her victory, she was consistently a presence on national TV, creating viral moments that sent her star rising further with each one. On Twitter, her clapbacks were feasted on by a rapidly growing social media following. Her direct-to-camera Instagram dispatches were bringing a rawness to politics that young people were craving. “She was just hitting homer after homer and kept doing these interviews and just blowing it out of the park,” Saikat Chakrabarti, who helped run her campaign and would go on to become her chief of staff, told me. “And every time she would do one, we’d get bigger and bigger people asking her to come on. And then, at some point, all the late-night shows were asking to have her, but then, they have this weird competition thing, where you can’t be on one and then also the other; they get really mad about that.” Still, the toll of her popularity was about to hit its limit. “A mistake we made early is we did not do enough to just figure out how to keep AOC from not getting exhausted. I mean, it’s incredible she didn’t have a nervous breakdown.”

    In the middle of July, the stress finally caught up to Ocasio-Cortez, and she did the unthinkable: She took on the Israel–Palestine question unprepared. “Corbin [Trent, her communications director,] and I put her in a bit of a vulnerable position,” Chakrabarti said, “on a topic that wasn’t her thing. She never really talked about Israel–Palestine, and that’s just not something she’d ever really thought a lot about, other than a little bit during the campaign.” Ocasio-Cortez was still surging in celebrity when she agreed to a sit-down interview on PBS’s “Firing Line.” In the midst of the primary campaign, she had attracted attention with her full-throated criticism of the Israel Defense Forces, which had fired on Palestinian demonstrators in Gaza, killing many.

    Her criticism hadn’t been a commentary on the politics of the region, she said when pressed about it during the interview, but merely a defense of the right to protest without being killed.

    “This is a massacre,” she had posted to Twitter in May 2018, as Israeli forces continued to kill protesters in Gaza, with the numbers of dead climbing north of two hundred. “I hope my peers have the moral courage to call it such. No state or entity is absolved of mass shootings of protesters. There is no justification. Palestinian people deserve basic human dignity, as anyone else. Democrats can’t be silent about this anymore.”

    But among Puerto Rican families, the issue just doesn’t come up all that often, outside of those who are heavily engaged in geopolitics, and if it does, there’s a reflexive solidarity with the Palestinians. “Puerto Rico is a colony that is granted no rights, that has no civic representation,” AOC told Glenn Greenwald in an interview during the primary campaign. “If sixty of us were shot in protest of the U.S. negligence in FEMA, I couldn’t imagine if there were silence on that.”

    Her “Firing Line” interviewer, Margaret Hoover, brought up AOC’s use of the term massacre and asked a broad question: “What is your position on Israel?”

    “Well, I believe absolutely in Israel’s right to exist,” Ocasio-Cortez began, adding that she supported “a two-state solution.”

    She then said that she was merely looking at the killings through her lens as an activist. “If sixty people were killed in Ferguson, Missouri, if sixty people were killed in the South Bronx, unarmed, if sixty people were killed in Puerto Rico — I just look at that incident more through … just as an incident, and as an incident, it would be completely unacceptable if it happened on our shores.”

    Ocasio-Cortez, in equating the lives and dignity of Palestinians with others around the world, was treading unusual terrain for a New York politician. “Of course,” Hoover cut in, “the dynamic there in terms of geopolitics and the war in the Middle East is very different than people expressing their First Amendment right to protest.”

    AOC paused and took a deep breath. The First Amendment might not legally cover unarmed Palestinian protesters, but it certainly did from a moral perspective. She stood her ground. “Well, yes,” she allowed, “but I think what people are starting to see, at least, in the occupation of Palestine is just an increasing crisis of humanitarian condition, and that, to me, is where I tend to come from on this issue,” she responded, now visibly nervous.

    “You used the term ‘the occupation of Palestine,’” Hoover pressed, leaning forward. “What did you mean by that?” From one perspective, it could mean the entire state of Israel was an illegitimate occupation of the nation that is truly Palestine—though this was ruled out by AOC’s initial assertion of her support of the right of Israel to exist. From another perspective, it could merely refer to the ongoing occupation of Palestinian territory, an occupation recognized as illegal by international law. But Ocasio-Cortez wanted none of the discussion.

    “Oh, I think — what I meant is, like, the settlements that are increasing in some of these areas and places where Palestinians are experiencing difficulty in access to their housing and homes,” she said, clearly suggesting she was referring to the latter definition.

    Hoover wanted more. “Do you think you can expand on that?”

    But Ocasio-Cortez was tapped out. “I am not the expert on geopolitics on this issue,” she said, laughing at herself. “I just look at things through a human rights lens, and I may not use the right words. I know this is a very intense issue. … I come from the South Bronx, I come from a Puerto Rican background, and Middle Eastern politics was not exactly at my kitchen table every night, but I also recognize this is an intensely important issue.”

    Her team decided to take a break from national interviews. “To me, the scary thing about that whole Israeli-Palestinian thing wasn’t that she got an answer wrong,” Chakrabarti said. “That was the first time she had a bit of a confidence hit because she didn’t do incredible in an interview. Up until that moment, she was doing incredible at every interview, and that’s a scary thing for someone like her, who really runs on her ability to command the room and [possess] confidence and belief in herself.”

    After the “Firing Line” interview, she was slammed from all directions — from the left for being too soft on the occupation, from the right for “attacking Israel,” and from all sides for the cardinal sin of admitting to not knowing about something. But Ocasio-Cortez had not run for Congress to become a voice on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. At the time, she betrayed a visceral sense of just how treacherous the issue could be for her, but she could never have guessed how significantly she had underestimated it.

    About a week later, she was in Kansas City with Bernie Sanders for a rally on behalf of labor attorney Brent Welder, with the duo hoping to make the case that even in Kansas, Bernie-and-AOC-style populism can flip a swing district. While there, she also got a lesson into how things typically work in national politics. Corbin Trent, her communications director, got a call from a man saying he represented donors to the organization AIPAC, or the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. 

    They told him there was $100,000 ready to be handed over to Ocasio-Cortez to “start the conversation” with the organization, with much more than that to come. Chakrabarti and AOC both told me they were shocked at the offer. The campaign was flush with cash and it was rejected out of hand. “I was expecting the corruption to be much more subtle,” Trent told me. “This was basically a bag filled with cash.”

    Daniel Marans confirmed my reporting with Chakrabarti and Trent, who offered this reflection: “The implication was that her positions could be repaired with conversations, that her positions where based on a lack of information and lack of proximity to enough of a variety of people,” Trent recalled.AIPAC denied the offer to HuffPost, but Marans offers an interesting (and I think correct) interpretation: before AIPAC started a real political action committee for the 2022 elections, it’s feasible an affiliated megadonor or major bundler could have gone to AOC with a policy paper and an offer and never told AIPAC itself. Flush with cash and facing no serious general election opponent, the offer wasn’t seriously considered.

    The book is “The Squad: AOC the Hope of a Political Revolution.”

    The post AOC Was Offered $100,000 by AIPAC to “Start the Conversation.” She Turned Them Down. appeared first on The Intercept.

    This post was originally published on The Intercept.

  • This article was originally published as a newsletter from Ryan Grim. Sign up to get the next one in your inbox.

    Pushing a book into the world is a disorienting experience. It’s at once exhilarating — years of reporting, writing, and revising finally turned into something real — and terrifying. Will it get shredded by haughty reviewers? Or worse, ignored? 

    The place of a book in our ecosystem of knowledge production and distribution remains unique. No other medium can have so much intellectual and cultural influence with so few people actually consuming it. Nobody buys books, and ever fewer people read them, yet they still can shape the way we understand the world. Most people who have their views of the world shaped by a book do so by a form of media osmosis, listening to podcasts, reading reviews, excerpts, or news reports about the book. As an author, you hope that your themes and your message are clear enough that they land with some semblance of their original meaning by the time they’re refracted through so many mediated channels. 

    And then, the Murdoch empire steps in. 

    This weekend, the Daily Mail published a story based on an early copy of my book — called “The Squad: AOC and the Hope of a Political Revolution” — which they somehow acquired. Reading it is a surreal experience, as it misquotes the book, attributes things to me that are said by people I interviewed, and shears it of all context in the pursuit of a wildly sensational and flat-out wrong read. Next, the also-Murdoch-owned New York Post and Fox News followed suit, relying heavily on the faulty Daily Mail article, and then so did the conservative Washington Examiner. Last night, a salacious story on the book was even leading the Post’s website.

    Initially, I decided that ignoring it would be smarter than drawing more attention to it. There’s an argument that all press is good press, but I don’t buy that because A) those folks aren’t going to bother to buy or read the book anyway, so the publicity isn’t worth anything and B) the more fake noise injected into the public consciousness there is about the book, the less chance there is that the public will take away a reasonably accurate message. But ignoring it isn’t really an option once a lie starts to pick up major steam, and this one now has. So I figured it was worth sending an email not just to correct the record — those outlets don’t care — but to talk about the way the right-wing media ecosystem is so good at blotting out reality.

    In one example, the Daily Mail writes, and the other outlets generally repeat, “Grim claims that AOC’s signature achievement, the Green New Deal, was a ‘total s***show disaster.’” Except I do not at all claim that. In fact, in the book, Sunrise Movement’s political director, Evan Weber, describes one part of the Green New Deal rollout — an FAQ that Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s office put together — using those words. I also describe the Green New Deal, despite the flaws of the rollout, as an achievement that reshaped the climate debate on a global scale, but that doesn’t get mentioned. 

    The articles, and even some headlines, say I call AOC “arrogant,” which I simply don’t. “Grim explains that her arrogance led her to become ‘closed off’ to meeting donors,” the Daily Mail tells its readers. In fact, I celebrate the fact that she was closed off to major donors because she was able to rely on small donors, not because of some arrogance, but because she had confidence that her politics resonated with a broad grassroots base that would continue to power her and the other members of the Squad. Shutting out major donors is a good thing, if that needs to be explained. 

    The book is not without criticism of AOC and other members of the Squad, but man did they miss the mark. And yes, I know that “miss the mark” implies they actually tried to get it right and simply made a mistake, which we all know isn’t the case.

    What the Murdoch world might not be able to understand is that the book’s criticism isn’t aimed at cynically tearing down a movement that represents one of the few rays of hope we have left in this dark world, but is instead aimed at assessing what lessons can be learned in hindsight from the people who were directly involved in the decision making. 

    I write in the book about the 24/7 right-wing media operation that was aimed at making AOC and the Squad toxic, one that gave her higher name recognition among Republicans her first year in office than Democrats, so it shouldn’t be surprising to see my book used as grist for that mill. But it’s still jarring. So I guess all I can say is that you should ignore the right-wing coverage of the book, and if you do actually read it, one way to counter the disinformation is to review it online somewhere. And if you see anybody in your circle getting fooled by it, tell them to read the book itself, or listen to a conversation about it on my podcast, or read an excerpt, or send them this newsletter, or really, do anything but get your news from the ghost of Rupert Murdoch. The book officially launches tomorrow, but you can preorder it now

    The post Correcting the Record on My Book appeared first on The Intercept.

    This post was originally published on The Intercept.

  • This article was originally published as a newsletter from Ryan Grim. Sign up to get the next one in your inbox.

    On this week’s episode of Deconstructed, I spoke with “Breaking Points” co-host Krystal Ball about my new book, “The Squad: AOC and the Hope of a Political Revolution.” You can listen to it on whichever podcast platform you use, and the video has been posted on Krystal’s channel

    Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has tasked his top adviser, Ron Dermer, the minister of strategic affairs, with designing plans to “thin” the Palestinian population in the Gaza Strip “to a minimum,” according to a bombshell new report in an Israeli newspaper founded by the late Republican billionaire Sheldon Adelson. 

    The outlet, Israel Hayom, is considered to be something of an official organ for Netanyahu. It reported that the plan has two main elements: The first would use the pressure of the war and humanitarian crisis to persuade Egypt to allow refugees to flow to other Arab countries, and the second would open up sea routes so that Israel “allows a mass escape to European and African countries.” Dermer, who is originally from Miami, is a Netanyahu confidante and was previously Israeli ambassador to the United States, and enjoys close relations with many members of Congress. 

    The plan to ethnically cleanse Gaza of Palestinians faces some internal resistance from less hard-line members of Netanyahu’s cabinet, according to Israel Hayom. 

    Israel Today and other Israeli media are also reporting on a plan being pushed with Congress that would condition aid to Arab nations on their willingness to accept Palestinian refugees. The plan even proposes specific numbers of refugees for each country: Egypt would take one million Palestinians, half a million would go to Turkey, and a quarter million each would go to Yemen and Iraq. 

    The reporting relies heavily on the passive voice, declining to say who put the proposal together: “The proposal was shown to key figures in the House and Senate from both parties. Longtime lawmaker, Rep. Joe Wilson, has even expressed open support for it while others who were privy to the details of the text have so far kept a low profile, saying that publicly coming out in favor of the program could derail it.” 

    To underscore how absurd the refugee resettlement plan is, the de facto Houthi government in Yemen claimed an attack today on a U.S. ship as well as commercial vessels in the Red Sea.

    Back on October 20, in a little-noticed message to Congress, the White House asked for $3.495 billion that would be used for refugees from both Ukraine and Gaza, referencing “potential needs of Gazans fleeing to neighboring countries.”

    “This crisis could well result in displacement across border and higher regional humanitarian needs, and funding may be used to meet evolving programming requirements outside of Gaza,” the letter from the White House Office of Management and Budget reads. The letter came two days after Jordan and Egypt warned they would not open their borders to a mass exodus of Palestinians, arguing that past history shows they would never be able to return. 

    The post Netanyahu’s Goal for Gaza: “Thin” Population “to a Minimum” appeared first on The Intercept.

    This post was originally published on The Intercept.

  • This article was originally published as a newsletter from Ryan Grim. Sign up to get the next one in your inbox.

    The debate in Congress over Israel’s overwhelming response to the October 7 attack by Hamas would look much different today had not a big-money operation, unprecedented in its scope and scale, launched — purging the Democratic Party of some of its toughest critics of the Israeli government and cowing others into silence. 

    That operation was organized by AIPAC and an allied super PAC called Democratic Majority for Israel, which was founded by Mark Mellman, a longtime adviser to a top Israeli government official, Yair Lapid, who rose from foreign minister to prime minister, a position he held only briefly before being knocked out by Benjamin Netanyahu. 

    That operation, aimed squarely at the progressive wing of the Democratic Party, is the subject of an excerpt from my new book I just published at The Intercept. 

    The book is called “The Squad: AOC and the Hope of a Political Revolution,” and it’s officially out on Tuesday, December 5, so if you order it now, you’ll get it by then. Some bookstores already have it in the back, and if you ask for it they should be able to sell it now.

    Meanwhile, this morning on “Counter Points,” my show co-hosted by Emily Jashinsky, we had on Texas Republican Sen. Ted Cruz. He was there to promote his new book, and I joked at the end of the segment that viewers should actually buy mine instead to knock him off the bestseller list next week. The interview itself wasn’t a joke, however, as we focused mostly on his unconditional support for Israel. I couldn’t find anything he would condemn, up to and including the use of nuclear weapons on Gaza. 

    Cruz: “Members of the Squad have tweeted out, ‘From the river to the sea.’ But the answer — I’d allow them to say it but I wouldn’t sit there quietly. I would point out that you are calling for, once again, the extermination of millions of Jews.”

    Me: “As I’m sure that you know, though, in Likud’s platform, it says, ‘From the river to the sea, there will only be Israeli sovereignty.’ Are they suggesting genocide of all Palestinians?”

    “Of course not.”

    “Exactly, so if they’re not, why is the other suggesting genocide?”

    “Because that’s what Hamas supports.”

    “That’s just restating it.”

    “Hold on, let me say, yesterday morning I started the day by watching a 46-minute video of the actual atrocities that Hamas committed.” He then described in vivid detail the atrocities Hamas carried out. 

    After we all rightly condemned them, I asked if we could attempt to find some moral common ground, and I read Cruz a list of genocidal rhetoric from Israeli officials, like Agriculture Minister Avi Dichter’s comment that “We are now rolling out the Gaza Nakba … Gaza Nakba 2023. That’s how it’ll end,” or Israeli Heritage Minister Amihai Eliyahu saying that a nuclear bomb is “one of the possibilities” being considered against Gaza.

    “Would you join us in condemning that as well?”

    “I condemn nothing that the Israeli government is doing,” he said. “The Israeli government does not target civilians, they target military targets.” 

    Our exchange from there:

    “Why are they so bad at their targeting then, if they’re killing so many civilians?”

    “So they’re actually not.”

    “So then they are targeting civilians?”

    “No … I can tell you there is no military on the face of the planet, including the U.S. military, that goes to the lengths that the Israeli military goes to avoid civilian casualties.”

    “But the IDF says their focus is on damage, not on precision.”

    “Yes, damage to Hamas, to terrorists.”

    “No, they have said the opposite. They keep saying that what they’re doing is what they’re intending to do, yet here in the Unites States we say that’s not what they’re doing.”

    “That’s simply not true. They are targeting the terrorists.”

    “Are they lying?”

    “No. My focus is on damage. Good, damage Hamas.” 

    The full, outrageously maddening interview is here.

    The post Ted Cruz: “I Condemn Nothing That the Israeli Government Is Doing” appeared first on The Intercept.

    This post was originally published on The Intercept.

  • The following article is adapted from the new book, “The Squad: AOC and the Hope of a Political Revolution,” out December 5, 2023.

    In May 2021, the Israeli government began pushing ahead with evictions of Palestinians in the Sheikh Jarrah neighborhood in East Jerusalem. It was one more creeping step forward in an occupation and annexation process that had been under way for decades, but what was new this time was the reaction of Hamas, the government in Gaza. If Israel didn’t back off its plan to evict the families and the Palestinian Authority wouldn’t stand up for the homeowners in Sheikh Jarrah, Hamas announced, they would do it themselves.

    The Israeli government did not back off, as was to be expected, and Hamas responded by launching rocket attacks into Israel, attacks that were intercepted by the U.S.-built Iron Dome air-defense system or that otherwise crashed to the earth. Israel launched an assault on Gaza, and what became known as the Gaza War of 2021 broke out.

    In Gaza wars past, the Washington ritual had always been repeated. Israel had “a right to defend itself,” each statement began, even if the support for that right was occasionally caveated with a hope that Israel might decide to respect human rights and, perhaps, if it saw fit, limit civilian casualties.

    This war was different. In the United States, the tenor of the coverage was far less sympathetic than it had been, with images of Israeli police attacking protesters in East Jerusalem and reports of widespread casualties from the Israeli strikes. Mark Pocan, the Madison, Wisconsin, congressman who’d previously co-chaired the Congressional Progressive Caucus, reserved an hour of time on the House floor on May 13, and Democrats paraded through to denounce the assault.

    It was like nothing the U.S. Congress had ever seen. Ilhan Omar, standing in the well of the House, bluntly but not inaccurately called Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu an “ethno-nationalist.” Rashida Tlaib added, “I am a reminder to colleagues that Palestinians do indeed exist.”

    Omar recalled her own experience as an 8-year-old huddled under a bed in Somalia, hoping the incoming bombs wouldn’t hit her home next. “It is trauma I will live with for the rest of my life, so I understand on a deeply human level the pain and the anguish families are feeling in Palestine and Israel at the moment,” she said.

    Ayanna Pressley, the elder of the Squad and the least inclined to challenge the status quo on Israel-Palestine, spoke directly to the political guardrails put up around members of the House of Representatives—and then ran right through those guardrails. “Many say that ‘conditioning aid’ is not a phrase I should utter here,” she said, “but let me be clear. No matter the context, American government dollars always come with conditions. The question at hand is should our taxpayer dollars create conditions for justice, healing, and repair, or should those dollars create conditions for oppression and apartheid?”

    Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez hit hard, too. “Do Palestinians have a right to survive? Do we believe that?” she asked, reminding the House that Israel had barred Omar and Tlaib from traveling to the country. “We have to have the courage to name our contributions,” she said, referring to the U.S. role in perpetuating and funding the fighting.

    The clerk of the House addressed Cori Bush: “For what purpose does the gentlelady from Missouri rise?”

    “St. Louis and I today rise in solidarity with the Palestinian people,” Bush responded.

    What made the moment dramatically different, however, was that the Squad wasn’t isolated, but instead was part of a sizable group pushing back. Rep. Betty McCollum of Minnesota rose to slam the assault on Gaza, as did Reps. Andre Carson of Indiana, Chuy Garcia of Illinois, and Joaquin Castro of Texas.

    As chair of the House Appropriations Defense Subcommittee, McCollum had influence over U.S. foreign military aid. “The unrestricted, unconditioned $3.8 billion in annual U.S. military aid . . . gives a green light to Israel’s occupation of Palestine because there is no accountability and there is no oversight by Congress,” McCollum said. “This must change. Not one dollar of U.S. aid to Israel should go toward a military detention of Palestinian children, the annexation of Palestinian lands, or the destruction of Palestinian homes.”

    Castro thanked Tlaib for her presence, agreeing with her statement, “My mere existence has disrupted the status quo.” He seemed to address Israeli leaders directly when he said that “creeping de facto annexation is unjust.” “The forced eviction of families in Jerusalem is wrong,” Castro said from the floor, offering what would have been an uncontroversial assertion most anywhere else, but that was a foreign one to the House floor.

    Marie Newman, who had been beaten by the combined force of No Labels and AIPAC donors in 2018, had come back and won in 2020, and she joined her colleagues on the floor. In January 2021, she spoke out publicly against Israel’s unequal distribution of the Covid-19 vaccine, demanding that the country vaccinate people in the Palestinian territories it was occupying and allow the vaccine to get to Gaza through the blockade. She organized a letter sent to Secretary of State Antony Blinken demanding that he act. “They ended up negotiating that the vaccine would go through. And so, as a freshman, that was kind of a big coup,” she said. “Never before on any matter that engaged on Palestine, on any letter, resolution, legislation, did you get 23 or 25 members of Congress to sign up something, it just didn’t happen. So, we felt like, Oh, gosh, this is so good. Then that’s when the DMFI [Democratic Majority for Israel] first was like, ‘Oh, shit, she’s a pain. She’s a problem.’”

    “That’s when I started getting donors that had given to me in 2018, and even some of them in 2020, saying, ‘This is going to really hurt you, Marie, just so you understand.’”

    Newman was warned that being outspoken on the issue would come with a cost. “A couple of folks in my delegation, and then a couple of folks in Congress that were Democrats—more conservative than I am, said, you know, you need to be careful, because it’s really going to ruffle some feathers,” she told me. Speaking against the Gaza War on the floor brought out more opposition. “That’s when I started getting donors that had given to me in 2018, and even some of them in 2020, saying, ‘This is going to really hurt you, Marie, just so you understand.’ And it did; they were correct.”

    The hour of speeches critical of Israel’s bombing of Gaza was a sloshing together of watery metaphors—a high-water mark and also a watershed moment, one that unleashed a flood of money that would erode the foundation on which the Squad had built its power to date.

    After the success of the first Bernie Sanders presidential campaign, Democratic politicians began to recognize that voters were in a progressive mood. This early recognition had saved Ed Markey’s Senate seat and produced the environment in which progressive Democrats—and groups like the Sunrise Movement—had so much influence over legislation. If Sanders had led a self-described political revolution, the Gaza speeches galvanized the counterrevolution and brought tens of millions of dollars off the sidelines and into Democratic primaries, with the express purpose of blunting the progressive wave. “We’re seeing much more vocal detractors of the U.S.-Israel relationship, who are having an impact on the discussion,” Howard Kohr, head of AIPAC, told the Washington Post in a rare interview. “And we need to respond.”

    Throughout the 2020 cycle, AIPAC had been content to let DMFI run the big-money operation in Democratic primaries. To encourage support for it, AIPAC donors were even allowed to count money given to DMFI as credit toward their AIPAC contributions, which then won them higher-tier perks at conferences and other events. But the unprecedented display of progressive Democratic support for Palestinians amid the Gaza War, as seen on the House floor, was triggering. AIPAC would go on to spend well over $30 million against progressive candidates in the coming cycle, potentially upping that to $100 million in the 2024 race. Their first target was Nina Turner.

    The problem, Kohr said, was “the rise of a very vocal minority on the far left of the Democratic Party that is anti-Israel and seeks to weaken and diminish the relationship. Our view is that support for the U.S.-Israel relationship is both good policy and good politics. We wanted to defend our friends and to send a message to detractors that there’s a group of individuals that will oppose them.”

    A Controversial Vote

    In September 2021, Congress prepared to cut Israel a fresh check. It was considering its latest bill to both avoid a government shutdown and raise the debt ceiling—a legislative maneuver needed to avert both default on the debt and a global financial crisis—and Pelosi decided at the last minute to add a billion dollars in new money to the bill to replenish Israel’s Iron Dome, which had been depleted by the Gaza War. The round number had a symbolic, slapped-together feel and was well out of whack with what the United States had previously provided, representing 60 percent of the total funding given to the Iron Dome over the entire last decade. Sen. Pat Leahy, who chaired the Appropriations Committee, which doles out the money, told reporters the request wasn’t remotely an urgent one. “The Israelis haven’t even taken the money that we’ve already appropriated,” he said. Democrats, though, were making a billion dollar point, whether the money was needed or not.

    But so was the Squad. Jayapal, backed up by the now six members of the Squad and by Minnesota’s Betty McCollum and Illinois’s Marie Newman, threatened to take the bill down if the money were included. Pelosi relented and pulled the bill from the floor on a Tuesday. The Washington insider outlet Axios described the stunning development for its readers: “Why it matters: There has never been a situation where military aid for Israel was held up because of objections from members of Congress.”

    Mark Mellman’s client Yair Lapid, not yet prime minister, was serving at the time as Israel’s foreign minister. According to a readout later provided by the Israeli government, Lapid called Steny Hoyer to demand to know what had happened. Hoyer assured him that it was a “technical” glitch and that the House would get Israel its money quickly.

    Making good on his promise, Hoyer moved to schedule a new vote, suspending the House rules so the bill could hit the floor on Thursday of that week. Omar spoke with him the night before and pleaded for a delay, arguing that a spending increase that large needed to at least be discussed and that there were other ways to move the legislation. Why use this moment, Omar asked him, to force a fiery debate on the House floor? Doing it this way would put a target on the backs of the opponents, she said—with part of her aware that this was the precise purpose of hurrying with the vote. “Israel wants a stand-alone vote to show the overwhelming support for Iron Dome,” Hoyer told Omar.

    Bowman and Ocasio-Cortez both lobbied Hoyer for a delay or for a different legislative vehicle, but both were told the same thing. The vote was going ahead. In a floor speech, Rep. Ted Deutch charged Tlaib with anti-semitism for accurately referring to Israel’s government as engaged in apartheid. Pelosi made an unexpected appearance to claim that the proposed money was part of a deal President Obama had cut with Israel to fund Iron Dome. Voting against the funding, speaker after speaker said, would be tantamount to killing innocent Israeli civilians. “All of this framing starts to cross a new line—that we are now removing and defunding existing defense, when the bill is actually just shoveling on more,” Ocasio-Cortez texted from the Capitol, trying to lay out her frame of mind. “Meanwhile the vitriol started to really heat up—AIPAC has escalated to very explicit, racist targeting of us that very much translates to safety issues. This is creating a tinderbox of incitement, with the cherry on top being that Haaretz’s caricature of me holding and shooting a Hamas rocket into Jerusalem with Rashida and Ilhan cheering on.” Back at home in New York, she said, rabbis from City Island who were typically progressive and on her side were sending out mass emails warning that her vote would put people’s lives at risk. She had even been banned from attending High Holidays in her district.

    Ocasio-Cortez walked onto the House floor and voted against the Iron Dome funding. She and Bowman, in the neighboring district, had gotten a barrage of calls and emails to their offices urging them to support the funding, but almost nothing at all from constituents telling them to vote it down. “Those on the ‘yes’ side were very clear, and very loud, and very consistent with why they believed the vote needed to be ‘yes,’” Bowman told me. “And that’s why I’m saying there needs to be much organizing on the left around this issue and others.” But back in the cloakroom, Ocasio-Cortez was shaken. For the first time in her life, she had been trailed that week by her own private security detail, the Capitol Police having refused to offer protection, even as the FBI was investigating four credible threats on her life, one of them a still-active kidnapping plot.

    The other three members of the original Squad—Pressley, Omar, and Tlaib—had all cast “no” votes. The two newest additions, though, were split, with Cori Bush voting “no,” but Bowman voting to approve the funding. In the cloakroom, AOC began to tear up while telling Omar and Tlaib that she felt she had to go out there and change her vote.

    “Alex, it’s fine,” Omar said, embracing her. “Just don’t go out there and cry.” Omar was a big believer in the mantra that you couldn’t let them see they’d hurt you.

    Tlaib cut in. “Ilhan, stop telling people not to cry!” They all laughed, knowing Rashida’s penchant for letting her emotions flow freely down her cheeks.

    It may have been good advice from Omar, but Ocasio-Cortez didn’t put it into practice. On the floor, she saw Pelosi, who knew AOC was angry at being forced to vote on the funding. Pelosi approached her, telling her she hadn’t wanted this stand-alone vote, that it was Hoyer, who controlled the floor schedule, who had forced it. “Vote your heart,” she told Ocasio-Cortez.

    AOC broke down, this time on the floor, with tears flowing in full view of the press and her colleagues, some of whom gave a shoulder of compassion, others giving awkward back pats as they slid past. She switched her vote to “present.”

    Speculation about the tactical designs behind the vote quickly shot through the press. Did this nod toward the pro-Israel camp mean AOC was angling for a New York State Senate bid? Was she worried that redistricting would bring heavily Jewish New York suburbs into her territory? Or was all of it just becoming too much?

    Her “present” vote was the epitome of Ocasio-Cortez’s effort to be the consensus builder and the radical all at once. Voting her heart, she felt, would have permanently undermined her ability to serve as a peacemaker on the issue. “While I wanted to vote NO[,] the dynamics back home were devolving so fast that I felt voting P[resent] was the only way I could maintain some degree of peace at home—enough to bring folks together to the table[,] because all this whipped things up to an all out war,” she said.

    Omar and Tlaib held firm, though, and the threats of violence ratcheted up. “For Muslim members of Congress, it’s a level no one understands,” Omar messaged me when speaking about the death threats the next day. “The anti-American rhetoric is a violent beast and our vote yesterday makes it 10x worse.”

    Marie Newman also faced serious pressure after she had announced her opposition. Ahead of the vote, she said she got a call from a member of party leadership, and from other from rank-and-file members, urging her to reconsider. Pressure had been applied in the run-up to the vote, too. “I was like, well, it is what it is. It’s done. And I feel good about it,” she said. The resistance was fiercest on the floor during the vote. “I got bullied on the House floor. Two of AIPAC’s members—congressional members—came over and literally yelled at me,” she said, demanding to know why she had voted the funding down. “First of all, my husband is an engineer, and from an engineering standpoint, there’s no way that battery system costs a billion dollars,” she told them. But also, she said, her district was opposed to it and would rather the billion dollars be spent here, in the United States.

    The next day, Ocasio-Cortez sent a long note of apology to her constituents. “The reckless decision by House leadership to rush this controversial vote within a matter of hours and without true consideration created a tinderbox of vitriol, disingenuous framing, [and] deeply racist accusations and depictions,” she wrote. “To those I have disappointed—I am deeply sorry. To those who believe this reasoning is insufficient or cowardice—I understand.”

    Then Came the Money

    Amid the 2021 war in Gaza, Nina Turner was setting on a 30-point lead in a special election when DMFI and an allied organization, called Mainstream Democrats, decided to make an example of her. 

    Mainstream Democrats PAC, backed by LinkedIn billionaire Reid Hoffman, and DMFI were effectively the same organization, operating out of the same office and employing the same consultants, though Mainstream Democrats claimed a broader mission. Strategic and targeting decisions for both were made by pollster Mark Mellman, according to Dmitri Mehlhorn, a Silicon Valley executive who serves as the political adviser to LinkedIn’s Hoffman. DMFI also funneled at least $500,000 to Mainstream Democrats PAC. Together, Mehlhorn and Mellman controlled the kind of money that could reshape any race they targeted.

    “Our money is going to the Mainstream Democrats coalition, which we trust to identify the candidates who are most likely to convey to Americans broadly an image of Democrats that is then electable,” Mehlhorn told me, saying he relied on the consultants linked to DMFI to make those choices. “I trust them. I think Brian Goldsmith, Mark Mellman—they tend to know that stuff.”

    The super PACs came in with a deluge of money and swamped Turner, electing Shontel Brown instead. On election night, she thanked supporters of Israel for her victory. 

    Mehlhorn, Hoffman’s right-hand man, was explicit about his purpose. “Nina Turner’s district is a classic case study, where the vast majority of voters in that district are Marcia Fudge voters. They’re pretty happy with the Democratic Party. And Nina Turner’s record on the Democratic Party is [that] she’s a strong critic,” he told me. “And so, this group put in money to make sure that voters knew what she felt about the Democratic Party. And from my perspective, that just makes it easier for me to try to do things like give Tim Ryan a chance of winning [a U.S. Senate seat] in a state like Ohio—not a big chance, but at least a chance. And he’s not having to deal with the latest bomb thrown by Nina. So anyway, that’s the theory behind our support for Mainstream Democrats.”

    Mellman, in an interview with HuffPost, acknowledged that his goals extended beyond the politics of Israel and Palestine. “The anti-Biden folks and the anti-Israel folks look to [Turner] as a leader,” Mellman said. “So she really is a threat to both of our goals.” His remark was itself a case study in the strength of Washington narratives to withstand reality. The party’s right flank, led by Manchin, Gottheimer, and Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, was actively undermining Biden’s agenda, while Turner’s allies in Congress were the ones fighting for it.

    In response to DMFI’s spending in 2020, the group J Street, a rival of AIPAC that takes a more progressive line on Palestinian rights, launched its own super PAC to compete. Its leaders guessed DMFI would spend somewhere between five and ten million dollars. If the advocacy group could cobble together $2 million, said J Street’s Logan Bayroff, that would at least be something of a fight, given that AIPAC and DMFI had to overcome the fact that what they were advocating for—unchecked, limitless support for the Israeli government, regardless of its abuses—was unpopular in Democratic primaries.

    But then AIPAC itself finally stepped into the super PAC game in April 2022, funding what it called the United Democracy Project. It would go on to spend $30 million, with its first broadside being launched against Turner in her rematch against Brown.

    The constellation of super PACs and dark-money groups around No Labels, the political vehicle for Josh Gottheimer and Joe Manchin, kicked into gear, targeting progressives in primaries around the country. And then came the crypto. Hoffman’s super PAC spent heavily, while crypto billionaire Sam Bankman-Fried, his Ponzi scheme having yet to collapse, chipped in a million dollars against Turner. SBF, as he became known, seeded his Protect Our Future PAC with nearly $30 million and began spending huge sums.

     “We’re always gonna expect the right to have more money, given that they’re operating off of the basis of big donors. But that’s a little bit more of a fair fight,” he said of the disparity between J Street and DMFI. “But now you add to what DMFI is doing, 30 million [dollars] from AIPAC—that’s just in a whole other realm,” he said. “It’s been a radical transformation in the politics of Israel-Palestine and the politics of Democratic primaries.”

    Going into 2022, Turner was joined by the biggest number of boldly progressive candidates running viable campaigns in open seats since the Sanders wing had become a national force. There was Gregorio Casar in Austin, Delia Ramirez in Chicago, Maxwell Alejandro Frost in Orlando, Becca Balint in Vermont, Summer Lee in Pittsburgh, Nida Allam and Erica Smith in North Carolina, Donna Edwards in Maryland, Andrea Salinas in Oregon, and John Fetterman and Mandela Barnes running for Senate in Pennsylvania and Wisconsin — both, coincidentally, their respective state’s lieutenant governor. Also in Oregon, Jamie McLeod-Skinner was challenging incumbent Kurt Schrader, one of the most conservative Democrats left in Congress, who had made it his personal mission to block the Build Back Better Act and to stop Medicare from negotiating drug prices.

    Redistricting had also produced two progressive-on-centrist primaries between sitting Democratic members of Congress, as Marie Newman and Andy Levin were both crammed in against centrist incumbents. On January 31, kick-starting the primary season, Jewish Insider published a list of fifteen DMFI House endorsements, nearly all of them squaring off against progressive challengers.

    “In Michigan and Illinois, Reps. Haley Stevens (D-MI) and Sean Casten (D-IL) are, with support from DMFI, waging respective battles against progressive Reps. Andy Levin (D-MI) and Marie Newman (D-IL), who have frequently clashed with the pro-Israel establishment over their criticism of the Jewish state,” the Jewish Insider piece read.

    In January, DMFI released its first list of fifteen endorsements, the start of the year’s battle to shape what the next Democratic class would look like. The constellation of progressive groups that played in Democratic primaries scrambled to respond. Their loose coalition consisted of J Street, Justice Democrats, Sunrise Movement, Indivisible, the Working Families Party, the Congressional Progressive Caucus PAC, and Way to Win.

    Because Justice Democrats had been unable to form a collaborative relationship with the Squad, it hadn’t been able to raise the kind of small dollars that AOC or the Sanders campaign could. This meant it was increasingly relying on the small number of left-wing wealthy people who wanted to be involved in electoral politics and were okay angering the Democratic establishment. This left the organization without many donors, but with enough to stay relevant.

    Collectively, the groups would be lucky to cobble together $10 million, up against well more than $50 million in outside spending, and that’s before counting the money that corporate-friendly candidates could raise themselves. Remarkably, the Squad and Bernie Sanders were conspicuously absent from this organized effort to expand their progressive numbers.

    In the summer of 2020, facing down their most intense opposition from within their party, the four members had created a PAC called the Squad Victory Fund. But in the 2022 cycle, it raised just $1.9 million, and a close look at the finances show that it spent nearly a million dollars to raise that money—renting email lists to hit with fund-raising requests, advertising on Facebook, and so on. The remaining million was doled out mostly to the members of the Squad.

    Had the Squad worked collaboratively with the coalition of organizations—lending their name, attending fund-raising events, and the like—several million dollars could have been raised. If Sanders had turned on his fire hose, the resources available to the left would have been considerable. As it was, the left had to find a way to even the playing field, and, to a handful of progressive operatives, Sam Bankman-Fried seemed like the only path left.

    After SBF was arrested, he texted with a reporter at Vox, saying his effective altruism evangelism and woke politics was all a cover. “It’s what reputations are made of, to some extent. I feel bad for those who got fucked by it,” he said in a series of direct messages the reporter published, “by this dumb game we woke westerners play where we say all the right shib[b]oleths and so everyone likes us.”

    John Fetterman was locked in what threatened to be a tight primary race with Rep. Conor Lamb for a Senate nomination, and Lamb’s campaign was openly pleading for super PAC support to put him over the top. Early in the year, Jewish Insider reported, Mellman had reached out to Fetterman with questions about his position on Israel. “He’s never come out and said that he’s not a supporter of Israel, but the perception is that he aligns with the Squad more than anything else,” Democratic activist Brett Goldman told the news outlet.

    Mellman said the Fetterman campaign responded to his inquiry and “came with an interest in learning about the issues.” Following the meeting, the campaign reached out again. “Then they sent us a position paper, which we thought was very strong,” Mellman said. But it wasn’t quite strong enough. Jewish Insider reported that DMFI emailed back some comments on the paper, which “Fetterman was receptive to addressing in a second draft.”

    In April, Fetterman agreed to do an interview with Jewish Insider. “I want to go out of my way to make sure that it’s absolutely clear that the views that I hold in no way go along the lines of some of the more fringe or extreme wings of our party,” he said. “I would also respectfully say that I’m not really a progressive in that sense.” Fetterman, unprompted, stressed that there should be zero conditions on military aid to Israel, that BDS was wrong, and so on. “Let me just say this, even if I’m asked or not, I was dismayed by the Iron Dome vote,” he added. DMFI and AIPAC stayed out of his race.

    During the Gaza War in 2021, Summer Lee had once posted support for the Palestinian plight. “It was really one tweet that kind of caught the attention of folks,” she said. “Here, this is it, we got you. And it was really a tweet talking about Black Lives Matter and talking about how, as an oppressed person, I view and perceive the topic. Because the reality is—and that’s with a lot of Black and brown progressives—we view even topics that don’t seem connected, we still view them through the injustice that we face as Black folks here and the politics that we see and experience here, and are able to make connections to that.”

    Lee had written on Twitter: “When I hear American pols use the refrain ‘Israel has the right to defend itself’ in response to undeniable atrocities on a marginalized population, I can’t help but think of how the West has always justified indiscriminate and disproportionate force and power on weakened and marginalized people. The US has never shown leadership in safeguarding human rights of folks it’s othered. But as we fight against injustice here in the movement for Black lives, we must stand against injustice everywhere. Inhumanities against the Palestinian people cannot be tolerated or justified.” That was the extent of her public commentary on the question.

    But the comment was shocking to some in Pittsburgh. Charles Saul, a member of the board of trustees of the Pittsburgh Jewish Chronicle, was later quoted by the paper saying he was concerned about Lee because “she’s endorsed by some people I believe are antisemites [sic], like Rashida Tlaib.” He went on: “Another thing that worried me was her equating the suffering of the Gazans and Palestinians to the suffering of African Americans. That’s one of these intersectional things. If that’s her take on the Middle East, that’s very dangerous.”

    In January 2022, AIPAC transferred $8.5 million of dark money to the new super PAC it had set up the previous April, United Democracy Project. Private equity mogul and Republican donor Paul Singer kicked in a million dollars, as did Republican Bernard Marcus, the former CEO of Home Depot. Dozens of other big donors, many of them also Republicans, along with more than a dozen uber-wealthy Democrats, kicked in big checks to give UDP its $30 million war chest.

    On May 11, Israel Defense Forces sparked global outrage, first, by killing Palestinian American journalist Shireen Abu Akleh and then, again, days later at her funeral procession, by attacking her mourners and pallbearers and nearly toppling her casket.

    Primary Elections

    That Tuesday in May was a day that DMFI, AIPAC, and Mainstream Democrats had been hoping would be a death blow to the nascent insurgency that had been gaining traction in the primaries. In April, AIPAC had begun its furious barrage of spending, tag-teaming with DMFI, Mainstream Democrats, and Sam Bankman-Fried to make sure Nina Turner’s second run against Shontel Brown never got off the ground. Turner was smothered. Reid Hoffman’s PAC had spent millions to prop up conservative Democratic representative Kurt Schrader, who was facing a credible challenge from Jamie McLeod-Skinner in Oregon.

    Nida Allam, a Durham County commissioner and the first Muslim woman elected in the state, ran for office after three of her Muslim friends were murdered in a gruesome Chapel Hill hate crime that drew national attention. AIPAC would spend millions to stop her rise. Elsewhere in the state, it spent $2 million against progressive Erica Smith in another open primary. United Democracy Project, for its part, began hammering away at Summer Lee, whose Pennsylvania primary was held the same day as North Carolina’s.

    Justice Democrats, the Working Families Party, Indivisible, the Congressional Progressive Caucus PAC, and the Sunrise Movement worked in coalition with J Street on a number of races in which DMFI and AIPAC played. Where the progressive organizations could muster enough money, the candidates had a shot. “If you look at the races we lost, we were outspent by the bad guys six, eight, ten to one. If you look at Summer’s race, it was more like two to one,” said Joe Dinkin, campaign director for the Working Families Party.

    AIPAC and DMFI did manage to win their rematch against Marie Newman, who had beaten the incumbent Democrat Dan Lipinski in 2020. That win had been critical, as Lipinski would certainly have been a “no” vote on Biden’s Build Back Better and the Inflation Reduction Act. In 2022, Newman was redistricted out of her seat, with much of her former area being sent to a new district, the one Ramirez claimed. Illinois Democrats carved up the Palestinian-American stronghold and split it into five separate districts, diluting its strength. This forced Newman into an incumbent-on-incumbent contest with a centrist. AIPAC and DMFI also knocked off the synagogue president Andy Levin.

    Nida Allam lost a close race, and Erica Smith, who also faced more than $2 million in AIPAC money, was beaten soundly. And in Texas the following week, Jessica Cisneros was facing Rep. Henry Cuellar in a runoff she would lose by just a few hundred votes. But McLeod-Skinner knocked off Schrader, and progressive Andrea Salinas overcame an ungodly $11 million in Bankman-Fried money through Protect Our Future PAC to win another Oregon primary.

    The marquee race, however, was in Pittsburgh, where AIPAC and DMFI combined to put in more than $3 million for an ad blitz against Summer Lee in the race’s closing weeks. In late March, Lee held a 25-point lead before the opposition money came in—and that amount of money can go a long way in the Pittsburgh TV market. As AIPAC’s ads attacked Lee relentlessly as not a “real Democrat,” she watched her polling numbers plummet.

    But then she saw the race stabilize, as outside progressive groups pumped more than a million dollars in and her own campaign responded quickly to the charge that she wasn’t loyal enough to the Democratic Party. Her backers made an issue of the fact that AIPAC had backed more than one hundred Republicans who had voted to overturn the 2020 election while pretending to care how good a Democrat Lee was.

    “When we were able to counteract those narratives that [voters] were getting incessantly—the saturation point was unlike anything you’ve ever seen—when we knocked on doors, no one was ever saying, ‘Oh, hey, does Summer have this particular view on Middle Eastern policy?’ Like, that was never a conversation. It was, ‘Is Summer a Trump supporter?’” she said. “We were able to get our counter ad up, a counter ad that did nothing but show a video of me stumping for Biden, for the party. When we were able to get that out, it started to really help folks question and really cut through [the opposition messaging].”

    On Election Day, Lee bested Irwin by fewer than 1,000 votes, winning 41.9 percent to 41 percent, taunting her opponents for setting money on fire. Had she not enjoyed such high popularity and name recognition in the district, AIPAC’s wipeout of her 25-point lead in six weeks would have been enough to beat her.

    John Fetterman, meanwhile, was able to face his centrist opponent in an open seat for the U.S. Senate without taking on a super PAC, too, and won easily. In Austin, Casar and the progressive coalition behind him had known he was within striking distance of clearing 50 percent in the first-round election, which would avoid a May runoff—and avoid the opposition money that would come with it. They spent heavily in the final weeks, and Casar won a first-round victory, another socialist headed to Congress. Once sworn in to the House, one of his first major acts as a legislator was to support Betty McCollum’s bill to restrict funding of the Israeli military. He quickly became one of the leading progressive voices critical of U.S. adventurism abroad, likely producing regret among DMFI and AIPAC that they had allowed him to slip through.

    The big-money coalition had not gotten the knockout win in the spring it had hoped for. But AIPAC itself posted impressive numbers. It spent big against nine progressive Democrats and beat seven of them, losing only to Summer Lee and an eccentric, self-funding multimillionaire in Michigan. Without their intervention, Turner, Donna Edwards (who saw AIPAC spend more than $6 million against her), Nida Allam, and, potentially, Erica Smith would have joined the progressive bloc in Congress, in districts that are now instead represented by corporate-friendly Democrats. And many of the ones who did make it through had been forced to moderate their stances on the way in. Still, the Squad of AOC, Omar, Tlaib, Pressley, Bowman, and Bush was being joined by Summer Lee, Delia Ramirez, Greg Casar, Maxwell Frost, and Becca Balint. On a good day, that was ten. But what kind of ten?

    “I see people who are running for office or thinking of running for office in the future, and they feel deterred because this is a topic that they know will bury them.”

    Summer Lee, reflecting on her near-death experience, was pessimistic. I asked if the amount of spending had gotten into her head and influenced the way she approached the Israel-Palestine issue. “Yes, absolutely, and not just with me. I see it with other people. I see people who are running for office or thinking of running for office in the future, and they feel deterred because this is a topic that they know will bury them,” she said. “There’s absolutely a chilling effect . . . I’ve heard it from other folks who will say, you know, we agree with this, but I’ll never support it, and I’ll never say it out loud.”

    More broadly, though, it makes building a movement that much more difficult, Lee added. “It’s very hard to survive as a progressive, Black, working-class-background candidate when you are facing millions and millions of dollars, but what it also does is then, it deters other people from ever wanting to get into it,” she said. “So then it has the effect of ensuring that the Black community broadly, the other marginalized communities, are just no longer centered in our politics.”

    Her narrow win, coupled with some of the losses, began to crystalize into a conventional Washington narrative that the Squad was in retreat and that voters wanted a more cautious brand of politics. “It’s a way of maintaining that status quo,” Lee told me. “But also it’s just disingenuous when we say that we’re not winning because we’re not winning on the issues. No, we’re not winning because we’re not winning on the resources.”

    Israel’s Rightward March Continues

    Whatever the fears of hard-line Israel hawks, the rise of the Squad did not materially slow the expansion of Israeli settlements into occupied Palestinian territory. In 2019, the Squad’s first year in office, Israel added more than 11,000 new settlement units. In 2020, the figure doubled to more than 22,000, many of them in East Jerusalem and deep into the West Bank. “As stated in numerous EU Foreign Affairs Council conclusions, settlements are illegal under international law, constitute an obstacle to peace and threaten to make a two-state solution impossible,” said an EU representative to the United Nations in a report chronicling the increase. The settlement expansion included multiple “outposts”—seizure of farmland and pasture—which puts any semblance of Palestinian independence or sustainability farther out of reach. In 2021—despite Israeli prime minister Lapid’s campaign promise not “to build anything that will prevent the possibility of a future two-state solution”—settlement expansion in East Jerusalem doubled in 2021 compared with the year before, threatening to fully slice the remaining contiguous parts of Palestinian territory into small, prisonlike enclaves.

    On August 5, 2022, without the support of his cabinet, Lapid launched air strikes on the Gaza Strip, agreeing to a truce on August 7. Palestinian militants fired more than a thousand rockets, though no Israelis were killed or seriously wounded. The three-day conflict left forty-nine Palestinians dead, including seventeen children.

    Israel’s initial denial of any role in the killing of reporter Abu Akleh gradually morphed under the weight of incontrovertible evidence into admission of possible complicity. Partnering with the London-based group Forensic Architecture, the Palestinian human rights organization Al-Haq launched the most comprehensive investigation into her death. On the morning of August 18, at least nine armored Israeli vehicles approached the group’s headquarters in Ramallah and broke their way in, ransacking it and later welding shut its doors. An attempt by the Israeli government, headed by Mellman ally Yair Lapid, to have the European Union label Al-Haq a terrorist organization was rejected by the EU, which reviewed the evidence Israel provided and found it not remotely convincing.

    With the primaries over, Bankman-Fried’s PAC, AIPAC, and DMFI had mostly stopped spending to help Democrats. In September 2022, the Democratic National Committee refused to allow a vote on a resolution, pushed by DNC member Nina Turner and other progressives, to ban big outside money in Democratic primaries. Leah Greenberg, cofounder of Indivisible, said it was absurd that Democrats continued to allow outside groups to manipulate Democratic primaries even though they clearly had little interest in seeing the party itself succeed. Their goal is to shape what the party looks like; whether it’s in the minority or majority is beside the point. “For a group called Democratic Majority for Israel, they don’t seem to be putting much effort into winning a Democratic majority,” Greenberg said.

    Rep. Elaine Luria, a Democrat from Virginia whose race was listed as “key” by AIPAC, had been one of the organization’s most outspoken and loyal allies since her 2018 election and had regularly teamed with Gottheimer as he made his various power plays. Her first significant act as a member of Congress had been to join him in confronting Rashida Tlaib with their white binder of damning quotes. Still, AIPAC’s United Democracy Project had declined to help her, and Luria was among the few incumbent Democrats to lose reelection in 2022.

    Instead, AIPAC’s first foray into the general election had been to spend its money in a Democrat-on-Democrat race in the state of California. According to Jewish Insider, “a board member of DMFI expressed reservations over [David] Canepa’s Middle East foreign policy approach, pointing to at least one social media post viewed by local pro-Israel advocates as dismissive of Israeli security concerns.” The allegedly dismissive message, which Canepa posted on May 13, 2021, as the Gaza War raged, had read, “Peace for Palestine.”

    But AIPAC saved the rest of its energy for Summer Lee. Because the Republican in the race had the same name, “Mike Doyle,” as the popular retiring incumbent Democrat—deliberately, no doubt—voters thought that a vote for Doyle was a vote for the guy they’d known for decades. After spending millions of dollars attacking Lee for not being a good enough Democrat, AIPAC spent millions in the general elections urging voters to elect the Republican. Lee won anyway.

    At the end of 2022, Bibi Netanyahu, at the head of a right-wing coalition so extreme that mainstream news outlets had dubbed it fascist, was once again sworn in as prime minister, ousting Yair Lapid, the prime minister backed by DMFI’s Mark Mellman. 

    Disclosure: In September 2022, The Intercept received $500,000 from Building a Stronger Future, Sam Bankman-Fried’s foundation, as part of a $4 million grant to fund our pandemic prevention and biosafety coverage. That grant has been suspended. In keeping with our general practice, The Intercept disclosed the funding in subsequent reporting on Bankman-Fried’s political activities. A nonprofit affiliated with Way to Win, called Way to Rise, has donated to The Intercept, facilitated by Amalgamated Foundation.

    The post A Big-Money Operation Purged Critics of Israel From the Democratic Party appeared first on The Intercept.

    This post was originally published on The Intercept.

  • Oren Miller has been exonerated. On Thursday, a Florida appeals court overturned the conviction of the 73-year-old retiree turned former Sumter County commissioner, who was removed from office by Ron DeSantis in 2021 amid a battle with the Florida governor’s high-dollar donors. The court took the unusual step of not just vacating the previous conviction, but also instructing the lower court to insert a new verdict of “not guilty.” 

    The saga of Miller and his fellow commissioner, Gary Search, who was similarly prosecuted, captured national attention earlier this year after The Intercept reported on the backlash to their effort to roll back property taxes in The Villages retirement community. A surge in public support for Miller’s legal defense fund enabled him to appeal his conviction.

    Ahead of the investigation into Miller and Search, as The Intercept previously reported, a top Villages official, who has hosted DeSantis for fundraisers, told Search on Election Day he had the personal phone number of DeSantis, adding, according to Search: “Search, just remember one thing: I’m a big person, you’re a little person. I can squash you anytime I want.”

    During oral arguments, a three-judge panel made up exclusively of Republican appointees eviscerated the prosecution, giving Miller hope the conviction would be vacated — a tall bar for a jury verdict. That it was not just vacated, but also flipped to a not-guilty verdict makes the ruling all the more unusual. 

    Miller’s attorney had made the same arguments to trial Judge Anthony Tatti, but the motion was rejected. That the appeals court unanimously disagreed with Tatti is a stinging rebuke.

    Miller and Search ran for office pledging to roll back a property tax increase that had been foisted on residents to fund future development in The Villages. They argued that if the developer, which also owned the local newspaper and radio station, wanted to expand the size of the retirement community, they should do so with their own money. 

    Shortly after Miller and Search were sworn in, the local prosecutor launched an investigation into whether they had violated Florida “sunshine laws” around transparency and open government. They were never charged with doing so, but as part of the investigation, the state’s attorney interrogated both Miller and Search about phone calls they had after the election. Commissioners are barred from talking about commission business outside of open meetings, and the investigators wanted to know about calls between the two that had happened earlier in the year. Miller, who said none of the calls were about commission business beyond who was picking up donuts and such, was repeatedly hazy in response to questions as to when the calls stopped. At one point, the investigator prompted Miller with a claim he had not made, saying that the calls ended in January. Miller agreed with him, but elsewhere gave different estimates, and at another point said that whatever the phone records said was accurate. 

    As the appellate ruling lays out:

    In response to leading questions, Miller twice acknowledged that no calls occurred after January. However, prior to those questions, Miller made clear his uncertainty as to precisely when calls with Search ceased. Specifically, Miller stated the phone calls ended “about the first two or three months” after he and Search took office in November 2020, or “maybe three or four months.”

    Thus, by Miller’s reckoning, the calls stopped between January and March 2021 or “somewhere in there.” Later in the sworn statement, Miller did not dispute that he received a phone call from Search in February, though he could not remember what they discussed. Further still, when asked about a phone call with Search in March 2021, Miller stated, that while he could not remember what they discussed, “[y]es, I promise you we had phone calls.”

    For that, Miller was charged with perjury and served 75 days in jail. (Search took a plea deal rather than fight in court.) At oral arguments, the judges poked at the absurdity of the charge. Judge Harvey Jay, appointed to the bench by Republican Gov. Rick Scott and reappointed by DeSantis, picked up on the fact that Miller was charged with falsely saying his phone calls with Search stopped in January when in fact it was the prosecutor who first said that, and Miller simply agreed with him, while later saying he wasn’t sure and accepted whatever the records said.

    “At the time he is asked, ‘You said January,’ he had not said January. Is that a big deal for us? I mean, it was just simply not the case,” Jay asked the prosecutor during oral arguments.

    “Police may lie,” the prosecutor responded, describing a scenario where an officer falsely tells a suspect that his friend has confessed, so he might as well confess too. Judge Adrian Sound, another DeSantis appointee, jumped in to note how wildly different the two scenarios are. 

    He then drilled down on the prosecutor’s implicit claim, that an investigator can lie to a suspect, and if the suspect doesn’t correct them, they’re guilty of perjury, even if they’ve made contrary claims elsewhere in the interview. “Can a failure to correct — what you just described, he should have corrected … can the failure to correct then form in part or in whole a basis for perjury?” Sound asked. 

    The case is shot through with ironies, principally that the prosecutors used an anti-corruption law to prosecute a commissioner who was challenging corruption. In a further irony, the prosecution made obviously false statements while accusing Miller of perjury. “Reviewing the entirety of the sworn statement made by Miller to investigating authorities, it cannot be said he in fact definitively claimed that there were no phone calls with Commissioner Search after January 2021. Indeed, quite the contrary,” according to the ruling. 

    Miller had also been sentenced to three years of probation and community service. He has not decided whether he will sue the state for wrongful prosecution, he said. Angie Fox, Miller’s wife, said the ordeal had left a mark. “He lost everything. They took his job away. He had to go to jail. He had to pay for all the expenses and everything,” she said. “Where we go from here, I don’t know. Right now we’re just trying to settle down from the news.”

    Miller had previously been barred as a felon from voting and running for office, but with his conviction overturned, he is able to serve in public office again. 

    Miller has said that he would run for his old seat on the county commission again if his name was cleared. Now it has been.

    The post Sham Conviction Overturned for Oren Miller, the Jailed Villages Politician Railroaded by Ron DeSantis appeared first on The Intercept.

    This post was originally published on The Intercept.

  • This article was originally published as a newsletter from Ryan Grim. Sign up to get the next one in your inbox.

    Voters yesterday enshrined abortion rights and legal marijuana into the Ohio Constitution, flipped the Virginia legislature to Democrats, expanded majorities in New Jersey, flipped the Pennsylvania Superior Court, and held the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. A Bernie-inspired candidate, Sara Innamorato, won the powerful Allegheny County executive seat in western Pennsylvania. 

    Broadly speaking, this is one of those moments where I think the conventional wisdom from the press was correct: Their take is that abortion as an electoral issue continues to power Democrats and drag down Republicans. It drove voters to the polls in Ohio, Virginia, and Pennsylvania, and in New Jersey, the GOP’s unpopular position on abortion rights undercuts everything else they do on the culture front. The effort by Republicans in New Jersey to ride culture war anger at trans-related school policies also flopped, with Democrats expanding their majorities. 

    Even in Kentucky, where a GOP super majority means the governor can’t do much on abortion policy, Andy Beshear leaned into the issue, running this viral campaign ad of Hadley Duvall talking about being raped and impregnated by her step-father at the age of 12. One of the first people he thanked during his victory speech last night, for her courage, was Duvall. 

    Philadelphia reserves two city council seats for nonmajority-party members, and those have typically been held by Republicans. But the Working Families Party launched an effort to seize them several years ago, picking up one seat when Kendra Brooks won. Last night, she won reelection and the WFP grabbed the second one, too, with a victory by Nicolas O’Rourke. They’ll represent the entire city in the at-large seats, and Republicans will now have zero representation on the council. WFP also went all-in on Innamorato, who won by just 2 points, giving the group wins across the state. 

    Criminal justice reformers, meanwhile, took a loss in the Allegheny County district attorney race. Matt Dugan, the county’s former chief public defender, had beaten 25-year incumbent, Stephen A. Zappala, Jr., by 11 points in the May primary and became the Democratic nominee for county district attorney. But then Zappala ran a write-in campaign to win the Republican nomination, and yesterday he beat Dugan by 4 percentage points as a Republican.

    In yesterday’s email, I noted that if Susanna Gibson could win her long-shot race for the House even after a sex-on-camera scandal that blew up in the Washington Post, Democrats would win both the House and Senate. In fact, Gibson, running largely in Henrico County, is winning there by 890 votes. The New York Times estimates about three-quarters of the vote has been counted. The problem for Gibson is that the district includes part of a rural county — named, apparently, Goochland County. Even though there were only about 5,000 votes cast in Goochland County, she’s losing it by roughly 1,900, which gives her opponent the lead by 966 votes overall. 

    Goochland and Henrico provisional ballots are outstanding, according to the elections department, but it’ll be difficult for her to make up her current gap. Still, her surprisingly strong showing was evidence of the Democratic surge that bucked Glenn Youngkin and delivered both Virginia chambers to Democrats, ending his threats to impose abortion restrictions.

    My doppelganger in Mississippi, Tate Reeves, survived a challenge from Elvis Presley’s second cousin, Brandon Presley. He’s currently ahead by 5 percentage points, enough to avoid a runoff. 

    The effort in Maine to create a consumer-owned utility called Pine Tree Power was annihilated 69-31 percent. 

    The post Abortion Rights and Weed Are Super Popular. Who Knew? appeared first on The Intercept.

    This post was originally published on The Intercept.

  • A handful of states are holding important elections today — some of which have gotten a bit of media attention, others which are flying under the radar. Here’s what to watch, and, if you’re in any of these states or know people who are, here’s what to look for at the ballot box:

    Ohio

    This summer, Ohio Republicans tried to change the rules so that it would take a 60 percent threshold to amend the constitution because a measure to enshrine abortion rights was polling in the high 50s. That effort failed, meaning abortion access — which is on the ballot today — only needs a bare majority, and it should win comfortably. Pot legalization and regulation is also on the ballot and expected to prevail.

    Maine

    The Pine Tree State will vote on a ballot measure that would seize control of the two state utility monopolies and combine them into the publicly owned Pine Tree Power, which would be operated by an elected board. “By Mainers, for Mainers,” as their slogan goes. Advocates are promising lower prices, fewer outages, and local control. The measure has been endorsed by major environmental groups, which see it as part of a just transition to a clean energy future.

    The unknown is just how scared voters are of the unknown. Will they stick with the status quo, which nobody really likes, or seize the moment? That depends on whether the public still believes in its democratic, collective ability to do big things together. The spending against the proposal has predictably been massive, and Democratic Gov. Janet Mills is against it, so it’s not looking good, but not impossible either. 

    Mississippi

    Republican Tate Reeves, the flush-faced fella from Mississippi who people love to say looks just like me, is facing a robust challenge from Democrat Brandon Presley, who’s most famous for being Elvis’s cousin. The non-Elvis Presley has been repeatedly elected to the state’s Public Services Commission from a Republican district and was also a popular mayor. If anybody can beat a Republican in Mississippi, it’s this Presley — but it might be that nobody can beat a Republican. Some polls have it close, others have my doppelganger comfortably ahead.

    Virginia

    The House and Senate are both up for grabs. If Republican Gov. Glenn Youngkin wins a trifecta, not only does he become a major White House threat, but he’ll also have the opportunity to do an enormous amount of culture war legislating — including passing abortion restrictions — along with traditional Republican stuff like cutting taxes on businesses and the wealthy. 

    The most interesting individual race to watch is Democrat Susanna Gibson running in the 57th House district representing the Richmond suburbs. She’s the one caught up in a scandal: Republican operatives discovered she was doing sex on camera with her husband and streaming it on the website Chaturbate, and they fed the dirt to the Washington Post. The Post hilariously (and erroneously) dinged her for violating the website’s terms of service. (She didn’t, if that’s the part that had you bothered.) Democrats have largely stopped funding her campaign, but the race asks a question I can’t wait to learn the answer to: Do voters care about this more than they care about abortion rights? After all, it’s consensual adult behavior, nobody got hurt, nobody was watching who didn’t want to. And for those with traditional values, hey, it was even with her husband. What’s the problem?

    If Gibson prevails, look for Democrats to win both chambers. That makes her race the one to watch — and you don’t even have to pay. (Tips are of course accepted.)

    Pennsylvania

    A state Supreme Court election on Tuesday could narrow Democrats’ majority ahead of a critical year for issues from abortion to election integrity. Spending on the election has topped $17 million, with committees tied to Pennsylvania billionaire Jeff Yass pouring money in to back Republican candidate Carolyn Carluccio. With the state party in disarray, Democrats are betting that Superior Court Judge Dan McCaffery’s support for abortion rights will be enough to win the race. But expectations of low turnout, particularly in Philadelphia, amplified by growing frustration with President Joe Biden, have the party on edge. 

    Pittsburgh voters in Allegheny County will have a say in the latest battle between reformers and “tough-on-crime” prosecutors. Matt Dugan, the county’s former chief public defender, beat 25-year incumbent, Stephen A. Zappala Jr., by 11 percentage points in the May primary and became the Democratic nominee for county district attorney. Zappala switched parties so that he could face Dugan again on Tuesday, gathering enough write-in-votes to become the GOP nominee in the race. 

    In 2018, Summer Lee and Sara Innamorato, with the support of the Democratic Socialists of America, unseated two incumbent cousins in the Pennsylvania state house, Dom and Paul Costa — shocking upsets that flowed from the same current that lifted the Squad to federal office that year. Lee won election to Congress in 2022, and this year, Innamorato won the Democratic nomination for Allegheny County executive, the most powerful position in western Pennsylvania, with control over a budget in the billions, plus oversight of local elections. Given the partisan lean of the area, there generally isn’t a competitive general election. In fact, after beating her Costa in 2018, Innamorato ran unopposed in the general election (aside from a write-in campaign by Costa). 

    This year is different. Republicans have nominated Joe Rockey — heavily backed by the aforementioned Yass — a former banker running as an old-school moderate, pro-business Republican. The county executive has very little say over abortion policy and zero over Gaza, but Innamorato is hammering Rockey on abortion and Rockey is hitting her back on Israel–Palestine. Innamorato left the DSA in 2019 (Lee left in 2018), but Rockey has hammered her for the connection, demanding she condemn both Hamas (which she did) and DSA for not sufficiently condemning Hamas (which she also did). 

    She also distanced herself again from the DSA. “I haven’t been affiliated with the DSA since 2019,” she noted. “I urge my opponent to stay focused on who is actually being harmed in the conflict in Israel and Gaza instead of trying to score cheap political points off of people’s pain.”

    If Innamorato loses, it’ll be seen as a rebuke to the left, and a warning shot fired at Lee, and it’ll position Rockey as a credible threat for governor or Senate. Plus, look for tax cuts for wealthy homeowners and an erosion of the area’s tax base.

    If Innamorato wins, she is pledging to focus on affordable housing, clean water, and other progressive priorities. But in our weird system, the race may come down to how voters feel about Gaza — or how they feel about how other people feel about Gaza.

    Kentucky 

    Gov. Andy Beshear, a Democrat, is up for reelection in Kentucky, facing Mitch McConnell protégé Daniel Cameron, the state’s attorney general. Polls are extremely tight, and Beshear has the support of enough Trump voters that he might hold on. If Beshear edges it out, he instantly becomes a national political contender. (Which, by the way, is absurd. Should losing by a few thousand votes versus winning by a few thousand votes be the difference in whether he’s a viable presidential candidate?)

    New Jersey 

    The American right has been trying to win elections on culture war issues for as long as there’s been an identifiable right wing in our politics, though what those culture war issues are is endlessly up for grabs. In 2021, Republicans felt like they cracked the culture code in Virginia, electing Glenn Youngkin on the back of anger at school districts over a scandal involving gender, bathroom access, and a high-profile assault. Youngkin claimed the mantle of a “parents movement” that wanted more say in curriculum and in the books in libraries. 

    Now Republicans think they’ve successfully rerun that campaign on steroids in New Jersey, based on anger at school boards over the question of whether schools must notify parents if their children go through a social gender transition at school. Based on existing law, schools do not have to alert parents. That law was passed largely with sexual orientation in mind, and the idea was that a student ought to be able to confide in a sympathetic teacher and should be able to come out to their parents at a time of their own choosing. 

    Parent groups today in New Jersey have argued to school boards that the law ought to treat sexual orientation and gender transition differently, given that the latter is — at least as is currently understood in some corners — related to gender dysphoria, which is by definition related to mental health, which is not the case for sexual orientation. And if mental health is involved, any treatment, including social transition, ought to be implemented in coordination with parents, the argument goes. Democrats have tried to strike a balance on the question, not wanting to repeat Terry McAuliffe’s debate gaffe — “I don’t think parents should be telling schools what they should teach — which helped elect Youngkin. 

    School boards are up for election, but so is the state legislature, and Republicans are hoping one will bleed into the other. 

    Correction: November 7, 2023, 1:25 p.m.
    Due to an editing error, the piece mistakenly said that Matt Dugan switched parties to run in the general against Stephen A. Zappala Jr. in Allegheny County. It was Zappala who switched parties to run against Dugan.

    The post Do Voters Care More About Online Sex Than Abortion Rights? appeared first on The Intercept.

    This post was originally published on The Intercept.

  • WASHINGTON, DC - OCTOBER 10: U.S. President Joe Biden delivers remarks on the Hamas terrorist attacks in Israel in the State Dining Room of the White House October 10, 2023 in Washington, DC. On October 7, the Palestinian militant group Hamas launched the largest surprise attack from Gaza in a generation, sending thousands of missiles and an unknown number of fighters by land, who shot and kidnapped Israelis in communities near the Gaza border. The attack prompted retaliatory strikes on Gaza and a declaration of war by the Israeli prime minister. (Photo by Drew Angerer/Getty Images)
    President Joe Biden delivers remarks on the Hamas terrorist attacks in Israel, at the White House on Oct. 10, 2023, in Washington, D.C.
    Photo: Drew Angerer/Getty Images

    This article was originally published as a newsletter from Ryan Grim. Sign up to get the next one in your inbox.

    Until last week, Miguel Sanchez was both a member of the Providence City Council and a constituent service representative for Democratic Gov. Daniel McKee. He is now only one of those two things; McKee fired Sanchez for his public opposition to the war in Gaza and his support for a ceasefire. Sanchez had introduced a resolution to City Council, which passed unanimously, condemning “terrorism and ethnic cleansing.” 

    On Thursday night, the City Council passed another resolution, this one explicitly calling for a ceasefire, becoming the first city council to advocate for one — or at least one of the first. (Fact-check me on that if your city council has passed one; it looks like Richmond, California, sort of did.) 

    We’re at the phase of the war where people are starting to worry about how they will look when this is over. Sanchez told me he has no regrets, and the ferocity of the Israeli campaign has only increased over the last week. 

    For the Biden administration, though, it does seem like doubts are beginning to creep in, particularly judging from this jarring comment given to NBC News:

    “If this really goes bad, we want to be able to point to our past statements,” a senior U.S. official said. The official said the administration is particularly worried about a narrative taking hold that Biden supports all Israeli military actions and that U.S.-provided weapons have been used to kill Palestinian civilians, many of them women and children. The Defense Department has said the U.S. is not putting any limits or restrictions on the weapons it’s providing Israel. 

    It’s no longer a matter of if, so the administration better hustle to get those statements of concern time-stamped for posterity. For three straight days, the Israel Defense Forces bombed the same refugee camp, and today a drone strike hit the gate of the al-Shifa hospital — one of only four still in operation, home to some 3,000 patients and thousands more refugees.

    The Gaza Health Ministry publicly asked the Red Cross to escort its ambulances as they follow Israeli orders to evacuate patients south. Today, Israel bombed the ambulances. (Israel claimed responsibility for striking an ambulance but said that Hamas fighters sometimes use them, and did so in this occasion, though it did not provide evidence to support that claim.) That they did so almost precisely as Secretary of State Antony Blinken was meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, ostensibly on the question of restraint and civilian casualties, appeared calculated to send a message that Israel is not interested in slowing down. 

    DMFI’s Plans for 2024

    Across the country, members of Congress who have called for a ceasefire are now facing primary challenges. That’s the subject of this week’s episode of Deconstructed. Democratic Majority for Israel — DMFI, an ally of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee — launched a $100,000 ad campaign against Rep. Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich., in Detroit. Though Tlaib doesn’t have a primary challenger yet, the money is an effort to invite one in. (Jewish Insider reports that one candidate, former state Sen. Adam Hollier, has rejected entreaties to switch districts and challenge Tlaib.)

    Dmitri Mehlhorn, the lead fundraiser for the super PAC connected to LinkedIn founder Reid Hoffman, which does battle with the party’s left flank, signaled that he plans to target both her and Rep. Cori Bush, D-Mo., according to CNBC. Bush has an official challenger: District Attorney Wesley Bell.

    Mehlhorn told me that he is targeting Tlaib not because she is critical of Israel, but because of her statement in response to the Hamas attack on October 7. “To be really clear, if the issue was that Rashida Tlaib wanted to take the same resources currently allocated for Israel security and allocate it instead to civilian relief, that would not be a reason to fight in the primary,” he told me. “Given the specifics of what happened that day, including the intentionality and strategic goals, as well as the specific atrocities, an overwhelming majority of Americans prefer political leaders who are willing to simply say that such a thing is an atrocity that cannot be excused by any fact pattern, and deserves to be condemned as such. That is what Biden did, and that is what 98 percent of the Congress voted to endorse in the House and Senate resolutions. Of the 2 percent of Congress who failed that basic test, only Rashida Tlaib said that Biden’s insistence on taking the morally correct position on the matter was such an egregious act that he should pay a political price in the swing state of Michigan, and thereby reelect the most anti-Muslim president in American history. That is an extremist position within an extremist position within an extremist position. If we cannot condemn someone like Rashida Tlaib, we cannot pretend that we have boundaries on our side.”

    (Mehlhorn is center-left in his politics but liberal when it comes to sharing his views; you can listen to our previous longform interview here.)

    For context, here is Tlaib’s statement from October 8: 

    I grieve the Palestinian and Israeli lives lost yesterday, today, and every day. I am determined as ever to fight for a just future where everyone can live in peace, without fear and with true freedom, equal rights, and human dignity. The path to that future must include lifting the blockade, ending the occupation, and dismantling the apartheid system that creates the suffocating, dehumanizing conditions that can lead to resistance. The failure to recognize the violent reality of living under siege, occupation, and apartheid makes no one safer. No person, no child anywhere should have to suffer or live in fear of violence. We cannot ignore the humanity in each other. As long as our country provides billions in unconditional funding to support the apartheid government, this heartbreaking cycle of violence will continue.

    While Bush has been outspoken in support of a ceasefire, that’s not the driving motivation for a primary, Mehlhorn said. “The biggest reason that Cori Bush is an electoral liability is that she continues to insist on defunding the police, a policy that is morally, practically, and politically catastrophic,” he said. 

    Notably, Mehlhorn told Jewish Insider he was limiting his targeting to just Bush and Tlaib, worried about blowing the coalition up if he went too hard on the left. “If you try to police your own side too aggressively,” he said, “it actually breaks things.” DMFI intervened extensively in 2022 to sideline progressive candidates, as I wrote about in a long feature last year

    Elaborating to me, he said that he also plans to target New Jersey Sen. Bob Menendez, not for lack of support for Israel (he supports it) but over corruption. “You can’t go after too many — you have to set some boundaries, but it’s a balance in a coalition. I can disagree with someone, but if they condemn the Oct. 7 atrocities at least I can still finish eating with them,” he said. “To my mind, it’s a big fucking deal what Tlaib did — no one else comes close.”

    House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries was asked about this policing at a press conference Friday. “Outside groups are gonna do what outside groups are gonna do. I think House Democrats are going to continue to support each other,” Jeffries said, which does the job of publicly backing the incumbents, but effectively giving permission to DMFI and Mehlhorn to do what they’re gonna do.

    I interviewed Justice Democrats co-founder Waleed Shahid on Deconstructed, and we talked about the role of AIPAC and DMFI in these primaries. I interviewed him not long after Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin became the first senator to call for a ceasefire, which gave me an opportunity to crib from my upcoming book and tell the history of how Durbin became AIPAC’s first successful recruit, knocking off an incumbent, pro-Palestine Republican in 1982. 

    The Firing in Providence, R.I.

    Last week, the Providence Journal began asking if the governor was OK with an employee criticizing the Israeli siege, and Sanchez told me he was called in for a meeting with the governor’s top staff. His social media posts had made clear he condemned the killing of Israeli civilians by Hamas, but he also condemned the bombing campaign in response. “I’ve been very vocal in condemning any civilian lives being killed, that’s my main principle in all this. I’m very antiwar and understand what war does to the world,” he said. “That’s been really my main principle and then at the same time trying to make sure that folks know this situation didn’t start October 7.” He reiterated that condemnation of Hamas to the Journal

    The governor’s staff told Sanchez to cool it a bit, and he did. Last Thursday, October 26, they asked if he was willing to take his social media posts down, but he told them his preference was not to. The communications director had also advised against it, he said, because it would only inflame the situation. He was not ordered to do so. 

    The next day, he was called in again for a meeting with the governor’s chief of staff and his senior deputy chief of staff. Sanchez, when it became clear they wanted him gone, asked if he could have two or three weeks to find new work. They asked him to step out into the hallway so they could discuss. “They brought me back in and offered to give me a week pay if I would sign a resignation letter,” Sanchez said. The agreement would require his silence about the matter and he told them he wasn’t comfortable with that, so he was fired on the spot, and escorted out of the State House by the police. 

    Sanchez said he didn’t regret speaking out, but it came with a cost. “I don’t have anything lined up. I live pretty much paycheck to paycheck. I don’t come from a wealthy family,” he said. “I do have the privilege of knowing people in the community that have businesses and whatnot. I know I’ll be OK, whether I have to do DoorDash for a while, it’s definitely on my mind at this point.”

    The local American Civil Liberties Union has expressed concerns about the firing and Jewish Voice for Peace–Rhode Island, among other organizations, has condemned it. Sanchez remains a city councilmember, largely an unpaid position, and backed the ceasefire resolution that just passed. 

    The post Inside the Biden White House, Doubts About Gaza War Are Beginning to Creep In appeared first on The Intercept.

    This post was originally published on The Intercept.

  • Democrat Dick Durbin became the first senator to call for a ceasefire in the Israel–Gaza war on Thursday, as Israel’s bombing and ground campaign picks up in ferocity. Durbin, speaking on CNN, said that a ceasefire must come along with the release of hostages. 

    “I think it is,” the Illinois senator and Judiciary Committee chair said when asked if it was time for a ceasefire, a term that has been off-limits for the Biden administration and the vast majority of Democrats. “At least in the context of both sides agreeing. For example, the release of those who have been kidnapped should be part of this — immediate release. That should be the beginning of it,” Durbin said. 

    “An effort should be made to engage in conversation between the Israelis and Palestinians,” he added. 

    Durbin’s willingness to tiptoe ahead of his colleagues is all the more surprising given his own electoral history. Durbin, as a House candidate in 1982, was the first successful recruit of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, better known as AIPAC, to beat an incumbent. 

    AIPAC reorganized itself in the late 1970s and early 1980s to flex its political muscle, setting a strategy to organize a national network of donors. They first tested their theory of the case on Republican representative Paul Findley. They viewed Findley as too sympathetic to the Palestinian cause. AIPAC targeted Findley in both the GOP primary and the general election. A young Rahm Emanuel took time off from college to volunteer for his first campaign that year, becoming chief fundraiser for the Democrat challenging Findley, raising some three-quarters of a million dollars. It was the first attempt to unseat a member of Congress by fundraising on the issue of support for Israel, and Findley survived, but the model was in place.

    In 1982, AIPAC recruited Dick Durbin to challenge Findley and helped make the race the costliest ever in Illinois. “If I hadn’t been a persistent critic of [Israeli Prime Minister] Menachem Begin, I wouldn’t have had a real contest this year,” Findley told the Washington Post then. This time, he lost by less than 1 percent, and the message was sent that showing sympathy for the Palestinians or wavering in one’s full support of Israel could be politically costly, even in districts like Findley’s, with a significant Arab population. (Bridgeview, Illinois, is known as “Little Palestine.”)

    The next cycle, AIPAC recruited Democrat Paul Simon to take on Illinois Sen. Charles Percy, whom the group also deemed too sympathetic to Palestinians; Simon won. Thomas Dine, AIPAC’s executive director, called it a warning. “Jews in America, from coast to coast, gathered to oust Percy,” Dine said at the time. “And American politicians — those who hold public positions now, and those who aspire — got the message.”

    In 2015, AIPAC and Durbin were on opposite sides of the Iran deal, with Durbin organizing Democratic colleagues to support it and AIPAC reportedly spending $20 million in ads against it.

    Research for this article is drawn from Ryan Grim’s book “The Squad: AOC and the Hope of a Political Revolution,” available for preorder now.

    The post Dick Durbin, AIPAC’s First Successful Recruit, Becomes First Senator to Call for Gaza Ceasefire appeared first on The Intercept.

    This post was originally published on The Intercept.

  • During the 2020 presidential campaign, Karine Jean-Pierre applauded the decision by every Democratic candidate to skip the annual conference put on by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, better known as AIPAC. She slammed it for “racist, Islamophobic” rhetoric and for inviting Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to speak. Netanyahu, Jean-Pierre correctly noted, was facing allegations of war crimes and a raft of corruption charges.

    Though Netanyahu still faces those allegations, and many more, Jean-Pierre has defended Netanyahu’s bombardment of Gaza in her current role as press secretary for President Joe Biden.

    “Netanyahu not only has personal charges levied against him—he’s been indicted on both bribery and fraud charges—but under his leadership of Israel, according to the United Nations, Israel may have committed war crimes in its attacks on Gazan protesters,” Jean-Pierre wrote in a March 2019 column in Newsweek.

    “It’s time to call a spade a spade,” she continued. “AIPAC is not progressive. You cannot call yourself a progressive while continuing to associate yourself with an organization like AIPAC that has often been the antithesis of what it means to be progressive.”

    Jean-Pierre at the time was a spokesperson and senior adviser to the liberal group MoveOn, a former Obama administration official, and a commentator for MSNBC. The column explicitly noted that it represented her personal views, not those of her employer. 

    As White House press secretary, Jean-Pierre’s rhetoric has more closely aligned with AIPAC’s than with her own previous assessment. “I’ve seen some of those statements this weekend,” Jean-Pierre said in mid-October, referring to calls by some Democratic lawmakers for a ceasefire. “And we’re gonna continue to be very clear. We believe they’re wrong. We believe they’re repugnant and we believe they’re disgraceful.” (It was not entirely clear what she was referring to as repugnant.)

    When recently asked about whether “anti-Israel protesters” were extremists, Jean-Pierre conflated protest against Israel with antisemitism and pivoted to talk about white supremacists who marched in Charlottesville, Virginia, saying the White House also condemned those neo-Nazis. 

    Her tough words were directed instead at AIPAC before Biden was sworn in. “Its severely racist, Islamophobic rhetoric has proven just as alarming” as its choice of speakers, Jean-Pierre went on. “The organization has become known for trafficking in anti-Muslim and anti-Arab rhetoric while lifting up Islamophobic voices and attitudes. As we’ve seen over the course of the Trump administration’s tenure, words can prove just as destructive as laws. Anti-Muslim and anti-Arab rhetoric doesn’t simply sit in a silo. It interacts with the world, creating and fuming hatred that leads to hateful acts, whether the package is individual hate crimes—or collective—the Muslim ban.”

    The war crimes Jean-Pierre referred to relate to the Great March of Return, which began in early 2018, with Gazans gathering each Friday and peacefully marching to the Gaza border. The Israeli army responded by shooting and killing hundreds of unarmed Palestinians and wounding many more. Israeli forces famously began shooting at their legs. 

    “The number of wounded has reached colossal proportions,” the AP reported. “The upsurge in violence has left a visible mark on Gaza that will likely remain for decades to come. It is now common to see young men walking through dilapidated streets on crutches. Most have legs bandaged or fitted with a metal frame called a fixator, which uses pins or screws that are inserted into fractured bones to help stabilize them.” The United Nations warned that, on top of maiming the population, Israel had rejected requests by Palestinians to leave Gaza for medical treatment. 

    Jean-Pierre herself has been dubbed “anti-Israel” by critics. When she was named to replace Jen Psaki as White House spokesperson, her Newsweek column resurfaced. “Amidst all the celebration of Biden’s new press secretary checking multiple boxes in identity politics,” Donald Trump’s ambassador to Israel David Friedman told Haaretz, “the mainstream media forgot to mention that she hates Israel.” The false charge that she “hates Israel” rhymes with Jean-Pierre’s current lumping of protests against Israel with antisemitism. Richard Grenell, the former acting director of National Intelligence under Trump, also said to Haaretz: “Has there ever been a White House spokesperson so hostile to Israel?”

    Biden, however, defended her, as did the group Democratic Majority for Israel, which is aligned with AIPAC. “Jill and I have known and respected Karine a long time and she will be a strong voice speaking for me and this administration,” Biden told Haaretz at the time. Outgoing press secretary Psaki had kind words as well. “Karine’s role as Press Secretary will be to speak on behalf of President Biden, who throughout his 50-year career – in the Senate, as Vice President, and as President – has been, and will continue to be, a steadfast supporter of Israel,” she said.

    In her Newsweek column, it was AIPAC that Jean-Pierre accused of going soft on antisemitism. 

    “AIPAC itself has refused to condemn the repeated and callous anti-Semitic remarks that have come out of the Trump administration,” she wrote. “Steve Bannon, a close ally and former member of the Trump administration, reportedly had his kids removed from school because of ‘the number of Jews that attend’ and that he ‘didn’t want [his children] going to school with Jews.’ These ‘reports’ are according to Bannon’s wife. Time after time, policy after policy, speech after speech. At nearly every opportunity, AIPAC has shown that it is no bastion of progressivism.”

    The post Before Joining White House, Karine Jean-Pierre Slammed Netanyahu For Alleged War Crimes Against Gazans appeared first on The Intercept.

    This post was originally published on The Intercept.

  • President Joe Biden, asked last week what his government planned to do to reduce the number of civilian casualties in Gaza, responded by rejecting the idea that the numbers could be trusted. “I have no notion if Palestinians are telling the truth about how many people are killed,” Biden said on Wednesday. “I’m sure innocents have been killed and it is the price of waging war,” he added. “But I have no confidence in the number that Palestinians are using.”

    A new analysis by The Intercept provides evidence refuting that claim.

    Biden’s effort to delegitimize the numbers coming out of Gaza as fake news has created an opening for defenders of Israel’s indiscriminate bombing campaign to dismiss the crisis; they note Hamas governs Gaza, therefore runs the Ministry of Health and is inflating the figures. (Biden later clarified he meant to say he didn’t trust Hamas, not all Palestinians, according to the Wall Street Journal.)

    Biden’s claim was quickly rejected by human rights organizations that have been active in Gaza for years. The Associated Press noted that the Ministry of Health’s figures from previous conflicts have broadly matched the numbers arrived at by both the Israeli government and the United Nations. And the State Department itself has long considered the numbers reliable. 

    The Gaza Ministry of Health, meanwhile, responded by publishing a list of names of 6,747 who had died as of October 26 since the bombing campaign began, including 2,664 children. The list included 2,665 children, but The Intercept found that one 14-year-old boy was listed twice, bringing its total down to 6,746. Otherwise the list does not contain duplicates.

    Now that the Health Ministry has published a list of victims, skeptics have suggested that the list may be fabricated and that a paper with names on it proves nothing. Immediately after the publishing of these names, Biden’s National Security Council coordinator for strategic communications John Kirby maintained the skepticism, saying that the ministry is “a front for Hamas” and that “we can’t take anything coming out of Hamas, including the so-called Ministry of Health at face value.” 

    Pressed, Kirby acknowledged civilian casualties were rising. “We absolutely know that the death toll continues to rise in Gaza. Of course we know that. But what we’re saying is that we shouldn’t rely on numbers put forth by Hamas and the Ministry of Health,” he said. A reporter noted that independent reporting suggested “thousands” of civilians had been killed. “We would not dispute that,” Kirby said.

    But is the list itself reliable? We interrogated it and were able to corroborate dozens of names on the ministry’s list through a single family. 

    Prior to the release of the list, Maram Al-Dada, a Palestinian who was born and raised in Gaza but now lives in Orlando, Florida, had told The Intercept about the deaths of seven relatives on his father’s side of the family and 30 on his mother’s side, in and around Khan Yunis. A week later, that number had risen to 46 total. (He and his family were featured on last week’s Deconstructed podcast.)

    We compared the list of his relatives that began to be compiled last week — before the release of the list by officials in Gaza — to the list subsequently made public by the Ministry of Health. Al-Dada and his parents requested that last names not be published, as there is concern in Gaza that Israel has targeted journalists and their families, and might also retaliate against civilians who speak to Western media. The family hopes to emerge from the war with as many relatives still alive as possible.

    The list of those killed includes four different last names: 30 members of one branch of the family, nine from another, four from a third, and three from a fourth. 

    Of those 46 members of Al-Dada’s family so far lost in the war, 43 appear on the list, from the littlest — a baby girl not yet one — to the oldest, a 71-year-old grandmother.

    When a building is struck, multiple generations are wiped out. “In Palestine, the society is set up differently than it is here,” Al-Dada noted. “People never leave their place. So families are huge; they all stay close to each other. For example, if you have a son, he will get married and he will build a house right behind your house and this keeps going. That’s why you will find a lot of people are getting killed from the same family.” 

    Each name on the list is the story of a profound tragedy. One family’s home had already been bombed, for instance, and so the father and two children sought refuge at his brother’s house. The wife of the family’s father was in Saudi Arabia, undertaking a pilgrimage to Mecca, when she learned her husband and children had been killed in a new bombing at her brother-in-law’s house. The bombing also killed the man’s brother.

    There have also been many close calls. On Monday, the neighbor of Al-Dada’s grandparents was bombed, killing the family living there. A small piece of shrapnel from the explosion tore through a steel grate, blasted through a white chair and destroyed the family’s refrigerator. His grandmother, who was unharmed, had been sitting in that chair just moments earlier. He shared the following photos with us.

    A shrapnel piece, damaged plastic chair, and ruptured steel grate from the home of Maram Al-Dada’s grandparents in Khan Yunis, Gaza.
    Image: Provided to The Intercept

    A report in HuffPost also found that nearly 20 State Department reports have cited the ministry, and one also argued the ministry may have undercounted. “The numbers are likely much higher, according to the UN and NGOs reporting on the situation,” the U.S. State Department report read.

    The Intercept presented the White House with our new reporting and asked if Kirby and Biden stand behind their claims. We also asked whether the administration has made any independent efforts to gauge the extent of the killing if the Health Ministry’s numbers aren’t reliable, and if, as the administration states publicly, it is concerned about civilian casualties. The White House referred us to public comments made by Kirby and State Department spokesperson Matt Miller that acknowledged civilian casualties.

    “We don’t have any way to make an accurate assessment of our own about the number of civilians who have died in Gaza,” Miller told reporters. “There is not an independent body that’s operating in Gaza that can provide an accurate number. But we do have skepticism about everything that Hamas says, but that said, obviously a number of civilians have died, which is why we’re working to do everything we can to minimize civilian harm and get humanitarian assistance in to the civilians in Gaza.”

    Far from doing everything it can to minimize civilian harm, the IDF has said its “emphasis is on damage and not on accuracy.” Amir Avivi, former deputy commander of the Gaza Division of Israel’s military, said recently, “When our soldiers are manoeuvring we are doing this with massive artillery, with 50 aeroplanes overhead destroying anything that moves.”

    Al-Dada said his family was firmly apolitical, with zero connections to Hamas. The October 7 attack on Israel surprised them as much as it did the world. 

    Since Biden muddied the waters on the extent of the carnage, Israel imposed a total communications blackout on Gaza, while ratcheting up its airstrike campaign and launching a ground invasion. U.S. officials have reportedly issued private warnings to the Israeli government but have still not threatened to withdraw any military, political, or economic support. Instead, the Biden administration is putting together a $14 billion package for Israel that includes money for the Iron Dome, replenishment of weapons, and more.

    The Ministry of Health in Gaza produced updated figures: As of Tuesday, October 31, at least 8,525 Palestinians have been killed and more than 21,543 injured since October 7.

    The post Biden’s Conspiracy Theory About Gaza Casualty Numbers Unravels Upon Inspection appeared first on The Intercept.

    This post was originally published on The Intercept.

  • This article was originally published as a newsletter from Ryan Grim. Sign up to get the next one in your inbox.

    Israel turned off the lights, cut the phone lines, and shut off the internet to Gaza on Friday night, plunging the region into darkness and isolation before launching a ground invasion. Only those inside know what’s happening there.

    At the end of last week, I reached out to a source of mine from previous reporting, knowing that he’d been born and raised in Gaza, and I asked him how his family was managing in the face of the bombing campaign. He told me that so far, seven relatives on his father’s side, and 30 on his mother’s, had been killed. Those are numbers that we have no ability to comprehend. I told him that if he was able to, he was welcome to join our podcast, “Deconstructed” and tell their stories. After thinking about it for a few days, he decided to do it, and we spoke on Thursday evening, the night before he lost all contact with his family. 

    I first interviewed Maram for research I was doing for my new book on the Squad, the left, and their years-long fight with AIPAC over Israel-Palestine. That reporting turned into this feature published in the fall of 2022 on the distorting role of AIPAC and a related super PAC, Democratic Majority for Israel, in shaping and constraining the bounds of allowable discourse in Democratic primaries.

    This week, that fight ratcheted up to unprecedented levels of animosity when nine Democrats voted against a resolution that condemned Hamas and defended Israel’s response, but which said nothing about Palestinian civilian lives lost. Democratic Rep. Josh Gottheimer, the Squad’s chief antagonist in the House, called them “despicable” in response. And President Joe Biden shockingly cast doubt on civilian casualty statistics put out by hospitals in Gaza because they run through the Ministry of Health, which is itself run by Hamas. In response, Hamas posted a public list of the names, ages, and ID numbers of 6,746 people who’ve died amid the bombing campaign. The list includes 2,664 children.

    I’ve seen some people cast doubt on the reliability of the list, but Maram provided us a list of his relatives who’d been killed that was created before Hamas put its own data out, and those names all appear on the Ministry of Health list. (We did find one duplicate on the list, not a relative of Maram’s, a 14-year-old boy who appears twice on it. That’s why I say it’s a list of 6,746 people and not the number you’ve seen in public reporting, 6,747.) I asked Maram what he made of Biden’s dismissal of the accuracy of the numbers, and he said he agreed with Biden, but in the other direction: It’s not possible that the hospitals are capturing the extent of the slaughter, he said, because many of the people he knows who have died in bombings have not been able to get to a hospital or a morgue.

    Deliberately leaving Palestinian lives out of a congressional resolution, or suggesting that the numbers from Gaza can’t be trusted because Hamas runs the Ministry of Health, riggs those numbers. In fact, it likely makes the situation on the ground considerably worse, giving the IDF a sense of impunity that comes from dismissing the deaths as a Hamas conspiracy or fake news. 

    You can find my interview with Maram anywhere you listen to podcasts, just search for “Deconstructed.” And please share with anybody you think does not yet grasp the scale of what’s happening. It can’t stay hidden forever. Below is a brief excerpt of our conversation.

    Maram Al-Dada: It’s a total of 46. Yesterday, when you texted me about this interview, my uncle’s house was bombed. My aunt’s house was bombed. My cousin’s house was bombed. I mean, yesterday, it was a very tough time. We really thought, like, that’s it. The whole family will go.

    Ryan Grim: I saw news of Khan Yunis being bombed over the last couple of days and I thought of you and your family each time. 

    Maram Al-Dada: I mean, I was talking to my uncle when I was trying to get him to join this interview. He was telling me like, “We will die in this war, like all of us will die, but we don’t know when.” … I mean, I’ll tell you a little story. Yesterday, I was calling him, I was talking to him. He goes like, today, a bomb fell in our street. A guy’s leg was cut off in front of everyone and we were trying to just help him, waiting for an ambulance and there was just no ambulance. There’s no, no 911, ambulance. The healthcare system’s collapsed and he just kept bleeding and people just, at the end, just put him in a car and they just drove him away trying to take him to the hospital. I don’t know what happened after that. 

    And then another story: He goes, “There’s no food.” My cousin, my cousin called, my aunt called my uncle, she goes – that was before their house was bombed – she goes, “Do you have food? Do you have any bread?” And he said, “Let me try to see who has bread. We don’t have any.” So they tried calling around and they found there’s one little bakery in our town that still has bread, and they called and were like, “Can you please keep a bag of bread for us?”

    So he called my aunt back and he goes like, “Oh, ask Ahmed, my cousin, to go and pick it up.” Ahmed calls my uncle back, and I was with him on the phone, and he tells him, “I can’t go, I can’t leave, it’s the street.” Our street, called Gamal Abdel Nasser, you can go check it out, that street is just blocked because the buildings are collapsed. “I can’t just cross to the other side.” So I was like, wow, so it’s just a slow death, just waiting to die. There’s no food, they get water now four hours a day, no electricity. It’s horrifying. What’s happening is literally slow death.

    The post The Lights Are Off. Here’s What We Know About Life and Death Inside Gaza. appeared first on The Intercept.

    This post was originally published on The Intercept.

  • Nearly 300 alumni of the presidential campaigns of Bernie Sanders are urging the Vermont senator to join calls for a ceasefire in Gaza. 

    In a letter sent Tuesday, former staffers asked Sanders to introduce a Senate-side companion to the “ceasefire now” resolution in the House; support an end to U.S. funding “for war crimes against the Palestinian people, the expansion of settlements, and the occupation of Palestinian lands”; and to support an end to the blockade of Gaza. The House ceasefire resolution — led by Reps. Cori Bush, D-Mo.; Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich.; André Carson, D-Ind.; Summer Lee, D-Pa.; and Delia Ramirez, D-Ill. — now has 18 members supporting it.

    “President Biden clearly values your counsel, as is shown by the ways you’ve managed to shape the outcomes of his presidency,” the staffers wrote. “We urge you to make it clear what is at stake in this crisis politically, morally, and strategically.” The group also produced a video appealing directly to Sanders.

    The Vermont senator has taken to the Senate floor to advocate for humanitarian aid for people in Gaza and urged Israel to allow aid to enter the region, along with calling for a halt from “the bombs and missiles from both sides.” Still, he has not formally endorsed a ceasefire, and his former aides are urging him to introduce a Senate resolution more clearly laying out the case.

    For veterans of the Israel-Palestine fight in the United States, Sanders is someone who expanded the boundaries of allowable dissent, but has never been a radical on the question. In the 2016 presidential campaign, his suggestion that the 2014 Israeli assault on Gaza had been disproportionate was elevated as an indication that Sanders was heavily critical of Israel. Pressed on his characterization on CNN, Sanders stood by it. 

    “Was Israel’s response disproportionate? I think it was,” Sanders said. “Israel has a 100 percent — and no one will fight for that principle more strongly than I will — has the right to live in freedom, independently, and in security without having to be subjected to terrorist attacks. But I think that we will not succeed to ever bring peace into that region unless we also treat the Palestinians with dignity and respect, and that is my view.”

    CNN’s Jake Tapper noted to Sanders that even that formulation was outside the realm of standard campaign fare. “It is interesting that the first Jew in American history to win a delegate, much less a primary, is taking this position with Israel,” Tapper said to Sanders. “Usually in American politics, everyone just supports Israel whatever Israel wants to do, but you are taking a more critical position.”

    “I’m taking a more balanced position,” Sanders responded. 

    At a presidential debate, advocates of Palestinian human rights cheered when Sanders became effectively the first serious candidate to insist the U.S. “treat the Palestinian people with respect and dignity.” 

    “I read Secretary Clinton’s speech before AIPAC. I heard virtually no discussion at all about the needs of the Palestinian people,” Sanders said. “Of course Israel has a right to defend itself, but long-term, there will never be peace in that region, unless the United States plays an even-handed role, trying to bring people together and recognizing the serious problems that exist among the Palestinian people … There comes a time when, if we pursue justice and peace, we are going to have to say that Netanyahu is not right all of the time.”

    Because the Israel-Palestine dialogue was so fiercely constrained, Sanders’s intervention may have suggested to his supporters that he was willing to go further on the issue than he actually was. But in 2014, as he made those “disproportionate” comments, Sanders was heckled back home at a Vermont town hall, sparking a testy exchange in which he told voters who wanted stronger condemnation of Israel that they wouldn’t always be satisfied with his answers. 

    “I’m sorry, I don’t have the magic answer. This is a very depressing and difficult issue. This has gone on for 60 bloody years,” he said. “If you’re asking me, do I have the magical solution, I don’t. That is my answer. I hear that some of you don’t like it. You have better ideas, that’s great.” 

    In 2020, after former President Donald Trump introduced a “peace plan,” Sanders tweeted that any acceptable proposal “must end the Israeli occupation and enable Palestinian self-determination in an independent state of their own alongside a secure Israel.” In 2021 — amid a flare-up of violence sparked by the eviction of Palestinians in Jerusalem and the Israeli police storming the city’s Al-Aqsa Mosque compound — Sanders urged for “an immediate ceasefire” and for the U.S. to “take a hard look at nearly $4 billion a year in military aid to Israel,” out of concern that U.S. aid supports human rights violations.

    The letter is part of mounting opposition against the United States’s unconditional support for Israel. Last week, over a dozen former John Fetterman campaign staffers, 411 current congressional staffers, and 260 former Elizabeth Warren presidential campaign staffers issued statements demanding support for a ceasefire, while an 11-year State Department official resigned due to his moral disagreements with the Biden administration’s approach to the conflict.

    Last week, as the death toll of Israel’s assault in Gaza approached 3,800 people, the progressive polling firm Data for Progress found that 66 percent of all likely voters and 80 percent of Democrats were in favor of a ceasefire. Just days later, as of Tuesday, Israel has killed almost 2,000 more people — at least 5,700 total since October 7 — according to the Gaza Ministry of Health.

    In the letter, Sanders’s aides said that his advocacy for Palestinian rights was among the major reasons they came to work for him. “Many of us, your former staff, are Muslim and/or Arab, and were inspired to support your campaign because of your calls to end the ‘Forever Wars’ waged against people who look like us and worship like us,” they wrote. “We felt proud to serve a candidate who acknowledged the plight and humanity of Palestinians and who spoke out against the Israeli occupation. Many of us, your former staff, share your Jewish heritage. Like your family, many of our families had entire sections erased from existence by Nazi barbarism in the Holocaust. It is our duty to stand up and say that our pain and sorrow at the losses on October 7 will not be weaponized to justify the ethnic cleansing or genocide of Palestinian civilians.”

    “You are the strongest voice in the US Senate on progressive foreign policy,” they added. “We need you to stand up forcefully, as you always have.”

    The post Nearly 300 Bernie Sanders Alumni Call On Senator to Back a Ceasefire in Gaza appeared first on The Intercept.

    This post was originally published on The Intercept.

  • GAZA CITY, GAZA - OCTOBER 18: A Palestinian woman around the belongings of Palestinians cries at the garden of Al-Ahli Arabi Baptist Hospital after it was hit in Gaza City, Gaza on October 18, 2023. Over 500 people were killed on Al-Ahli Arabi Baptist Hospital in Gaza on Tuesday, Health Ministry spokesman Ashraf al-Qudra told. According to the Palestinian authorities, Israeli army is responsible for the deadly bombing. (Photo by Mustafa Hassona/Anadolu via Getty Images)
    A Palestinian woman cries in the garden of al-Ahli Arab Hospital after it was hit in Gaza City on Oct. 18, 2023.
    Photo: Mustafa Hassona/Anadolu via Getty Images

    This was originally published as a newsletter from Ryan Grim. Sign up to get the next one in your inbox.

    At the end of 2015, I worked with Israeli journalist Amir Tibon on a long story about the devolving relationship between President Barack Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. My role was to help report out the U.S. side of that fracturing relationship, relying on my sourcing inside the Democratic Party and the White House. I still remember what a privilege it felt like to work with Tibon, whose own sourcing on the Israeli side gave us a window into the strategic thinking of Bibi and his inner circle that one simply never sees here in the U.S. Instead, all we get is a flattened gloss on Netanyahu as a tough guy and a political survivor. 

    I did a double take when I woke up on Saturday, October 7, and learned that Amir had only narrowly escaped being murdered with his wife and two young girls by Hamas. In a story that has since become famous, he and his wife woke first to the sound of mortars — not uncommon in their kibbutz near Gaza — quickly followed by the sound of automatic gunfire, quite uncommon. 

    They rushed to their safe room — effectively a concrete bunker that can withstand a mortar blast, and where children often sleep — as the sound of gunfire drew closer. Group texts with neighbors soon let them know Hamas had overrun the kibbutz, and a text with a source of his told him the militants had overrun all of southern Israel. 

    The family was hours from being rescued, and he was sure they would die. He texted his father in Tel Aviv before he lost reception, then spent the next many hours huddled with his family in the dark, gunfire ricocheting through their home.

    His 62-year-old father, meanwhile, grabbed a pistol and headed south, picking up another 70-year-old veteran and a handful of lost soldiers along the way. As Amir told The Atlantic: 

    We were just hearing the gunfire getting closer and closer. The girls had fallen asleep, but now they woke up. I think it’s 2 p.m. They haven’t had anything to eat since last night. There’s no light, and we don’t have cellphones anymore, so we can’t even show them our faces, and there’s one sentence that is keeping them from falling apart and starting to cry—I’m telling them: “Grandfather is coming.”

    I tell them, “If we stay quiet, your grandfather will come and get us out of here.” And at 4 p.m., after 10 hours like this, we hear a large bang on the window, and we hear the voice of my father. Galia, my oldest daughter, says, “Saba higea”—“Grandfather is here.” And that’s when we all just start crying. And that’s when we knew that we were safe.

    The story of Amir and his family hits me hard (I’m sure it hits all of us hard) for what it tells us about love, faith, and resilience in a time of terror — and because behind it are hundreds of stories that did not end with grandfather making it. In a must-read essay, Palestinian American journalist Sarah Aziza reflects on one of the horrifying details that Amir and other survivors relayed — that children tend to sleep in bunkers in the communities near Gaza. 

    I find this detail so chilling. I wonder, what kind of world does one imagine one lives in, in which such structures are normalized? What kind of status quo does one abide, in which one’s children shelter each night this way? Does it really feel like peace? Does it ever occur to the architects to wonder at the reason rockets are thrown? Or has this society fully accepted that the mortars launched from Gaza are merely missiles of hate?

    Don’t their daughters miss waking up to the sun?

    One of the cruel ironies of the Hamas assault, in fact, is that the kibbutz that was home to Amir’s family, and many of the nearby villages, are populated by left-leaning Israelis who abhor both the occupation and the current Israeli government. When that right-wing government withdrew military resources from the south to help support rampaging settlers in the West Bank instead, it was understood in Israel that the political lean of the south contributed to the Israeli government’s willingness to pull those resources away. 

    I’ve thought about Amir’s story a lot the past two weeks, and it resonated with me again when I saw a viral tweet from my colleague Murtaza Hussain about the role of culture, circumstance, and empathy. Though I don’t have a safe room in my home, the fear of gun violence coming home is a real one for me and most Americans, even if our perpetrators are more likely to be lone nuts in a school or a mall rather than organized terror cells. It’s much harder, bordering on impossible, to imagine war planes and drones flying over my home, firing missiles into my neighborhood. “I don’t think Americans appreciate the horror of dying under bombing or airstrikes because they have no experience of that themselves,” Murtaza wrote. “Being shot or stabbed is more tangible horror to the public but dying under bombs is a completely alien experience to which they cannot relate.”

    Yet even as I write these words, I recognize the trap we fall into in the West, taking an event happening to people somewhere else in the world and transmuting it into the all-important question of how we feel about it, of whether our proper feelings have been properly shared on social media. It’s a sickness, but how we Americans feel does matter, since we’re the ones financing all this. 

    Most Americans who have no Palestinian lineage don’t know anybody in or from Gaza, which would be the case for me if I wasn’t a journalist. Through that work, I’ve met a number of people who were born there and some who still live there. The stories they’re telling of the past two weeks suggest an ongoing humanitarian catastrophe that is far greater than we understand. However bad you think it is there, it is probably much, much worse. One young man who I met reporting last year said that he has lost 30 members of his family on his mother’s side, and seven on his father’s, and this is just the beginning. A photographer I’ve worked with in Gaza evacuated from his middle-class apartment building and watched as it and the surrounding ones were bombed into rubble. What does he do now? 

    The numbers — at least 4,000 killed in Gaza so far, and my guess is it’s several times that — don’t tell the whole story, because the entire concept of living in a city getting carpet-bombed is alien to us. Because Israel has cut Gaza off from energy and water, the average Gazan is down to less than a liter available per day for all purposes. The United Nations says the bare minimum for survival is 15 liters per day. Going days on end with barely any water is literally unimaginable to me. 

    In the wake of the assault by Hamas, many in both the U.S. and in Israel were shocked that in some corners of the internet and on some college campuses, Hamas’s violence against civilians was either excused as a necessary element of resistance or celebrated as a step toward liberation. Even if those reactions came from small, powerless pockets, any glimpse into that degree of inhumanity is chilling. It also exposes the depth of our crisis of empathy and disconnection. Notice that many of those who were rightly appalled at the cynical cheering of innocent lives lost took barely a breath before cynically cheering on the loss of innocent lives in Gaza. The Gazan population elected Hamas, so they’re guilty, too, goes one argument. (The election was in 2006, and most Gazans alive today were not yet born or of voting age at the time.) Israel warned the million people of north Gaza to flee, so if they don’t, that’s on them, goes another argument. Or, rhyming with those who defended Hamas, civilian casualties are regrettable but they’re a part of war. 

    For years, Israel has publicly promised that it does everything it can to minimize civilian casualties, and argues correctly that doing so is fundamentally different than deliberately targeting civilians. But what becomes of that argument when Israel dispenses with even bothering to make it — “The emphasis is on damage and not on accuracy,” Israel Defense Forces official Daniel Hagari said — and systematically deprives the civilian population of the basics it needs to survive? Perhaps a way to close our empathy gap a bit is to connect with the justified rage that was felt at those who refused to condemn the atrocities committed by Hamas and imagine how it feels to civilians on the other side — to imagine how it feels to see unconditional support being given to a military operation that is killing thousands upon thousands of innocent people. To see the largest news aggregator in Europe actively suppress news of atrocities and push a narrative away from reality. How it must feel to see calls for a humanitarian ceasefire attacked as not just wrong but “repugnant” — not from a college student group, but from the podium at the White House.

    In her essay for The Baffler, Sarah (who has done much great work for The Intercept) offers a window into that feeling: 

    “But what about Hamas?” I grew up with this question whipped at my face every time I declared my people’s right to survive. “What about Hamas?” It didn’t matter if I’d just asked for clean water or the right to return to our stolen land. “What about Hamas?” they’d ask, holding my humanity hostage. Their smug smiles at this question, which they saw as a rhetorical coup. I gave them hours, pages of my words. I filled rooms with my hot breath, panting, “We are not terrorists — Hamas is a symptom of oppression — yes of course I condemn extremism — this is a struggle for human rights — Israel propped up Hamas for years — please look at our children — please, don’t you see our helpless elders? — please, if you don’t respect us as humans, could you spare some pity?”

    President Joe Biden and Netanyahu spoke by phone yesterday and, according to a readout provided by the White House, discussed the handful of trucks that have finally been allowed into the enclave of what was, at the beginning of the siege, some 2 million people, but by the end of it may be considerably fewer. “The President welcomed the first two convoys of humanitarian assistance since Hamas’s October 7 terrorist attack, which crossed the border into Gaza and is being distributed to Palestinians in need,” according to the readout. “The leaders affirmed that there will now be continued flow of this critical assistance into Gaza.” The pair also discussed the two American hostages freed and “ongoing efforts” to secure the release of the rest. 

    What’s shifting, though, is that the world’s population does not seem unconditionally OK with what’s happening. Stunning polls in the U.S. show a majority oppose arming Israel’s assault; major protests have broken out in the U.S. and Europe. In Israel, much of the public has put the blame for the catastrophe at Netanyahu’s feet. “The protests that Israel saw in the last year are going to be a children’s game compared to the anger of the public after this,” said Tibon, who, like his news outlet Haaretz, has been unsparing in his criticism of Netanyahu. 

    In the U.S., support is growing for a ceasefire. More than 400 staff members on Capitol Hill have circulated a letter urging their bosses to back one. Sen. John Fetterman’s former campaign staff have done the same. And a ceasefire resolution introduced by Reps. Cori Bush and Rashida Tlaib recently picked up support from some important corners: Pramila Jayapal, chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, along with Reps. Maxwell Frost and Greg Casar, who had been the targets of fierce AIPAC lobbying during their primaries, plus North Carolina Rep. Alma Adams. (That lobbying campaign is a big focus of my new book “The Squad: AOC and the Hope of a Political Revolution.”)

    Adams’s decision to sign on should scare AIPAC, as she’s gone on multiple AIPAC-sponsored trips to Israel — most recently last month. Her decision to step out on the issue turned a lot of heads inside the Democratic caucus. Perhaps ironically, it is the political element described in Washington as anti-Israel that — in calling for a ceasefire — is working to save Israel from the looming catastrophe of a ground invasion. 

    This weekend, the House Armed Services Committee was briefed by the Pentagon on the status and prospects of Israel’s war effort. People who were in the briefing tell me and my colleague Ken Klippenstein that the Defense Department is far more pessimistic about the upcoming ground invasion than has been allowed publicly. If you were also there and can share some details, you can reach Ken on Signal at 202-510-1268 or me at 202-368-0859. 

    The post Gaza and the Empathy Gap appeared first on The Intercept.

    This post was originally published on The Intercept.

  • On Friday, Florida Rep. Maxwell Frost announced he had signed on to a resolution calling on the White House to push for a ceasefire in Gaza. He joins a small but growing list, now 18 House Democrats, urging President Joe Biden to help ensure hostages can be safely removed and humanitarian aid can enter the besieged territory. 

    The move from Frost is notable given his political trajectory. The first Gen Z member of Congress, Frost had been a strong supporter of Palestinian rights ahead of his run for office, participating in a protest for Palestinian rights and supporting the boycott, divestment, and sanctions movement against Israel. But after he got in the race, he became the subject of an intense lobbying campaign by the groups Democratic Majority for Israel and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. When his position paper on Israel–Palestine was ultimately released, his supporters in the Florida Palestine Network saw he had flipped on many of the issues.

    AIPAC and DMFI reshaped Democratic primaries in 2022, spending more than $30 million to pummel Democratic candidates they deemed insufficiently supportive of Israel, or to use the threat of the spending to reshape a candidate’s platform on the question of Israel–Palestine. The progressive organization J Street — which defines itself as pro-peace, pro-Israel, and pro-democracy — entered the fray on the opposite side, defending candidates against the onslaught of spending from DMFI and AIPAC, though the resources at their disposal were much more limited.

    The group had been planning to raise and spend about $2 million to compete with DMFI. “We’re always gonna expect the right to have more money, given that they’re operating off of the basis of big donors. But that’s a little bit more of a fair fight,” said J Street’s Logan Bayroff of the disparity between J Street and DMFI at the time, expecting the latter to be able to spend at most $10 million. “But now you add to what DMFI is doing $30 million from AIPAC, that’s just in a whole other realm.”

    In that new realm, candidates such as Frost in Florida, John Fetterman in Pennsylvania, and Greg Casar in Texas faced intense pressure to adopt a policy platform more aligned with AIPAC and DMFI. 

    Fetterman, as The Intercept reported last year, allowed DMFI to make edits to his Israel–Palestine policy and adopted those edits, according to Mark Mellman, head of DMFI. Frost, too, was receptive. “Mr. Frost reached out to us to hear our views on Israel related issues,” DMFI spokesperson Rachel Rosen told The Intercept last year. “We had several conversations with him and his team and were pleased to see the way his views evolved on U.S.-Israel policy as he learned more about the substance.” 

    Now, as the civilian death toll in Gaza mounts, with the Israeli assault showing no sign of abating, Frost has joined the humanitarian ceasefire resolution sponsored by Rep. Cori Bush, D-Mo., alongside several of her progressive colleagues. “The loss of Palestinian & Israeli civilian life has been unbearable. An immediate ceasefire is needed to save lives and to establish a humanitarian corridor so that aid can get into Gaza and hostages can be safely released,” Frost said on Friday. “I have co-sponsored the Ceasefire Now Resolution to save lives.”

    Casar, too, has signed on to the resolution calling for a ceasefire. Like Frost, some of his former allies criticized him during his congressional campaign for what they said was backing off his previous support for Palestine. Casar voluntarily gave up the endorsement of the local chapter of the Democratic Socialists of America over the issue. Since arriving in Congress, however, he has been among the chamber’s more outspoken supporters of Palestinian rights. Fetterman, meanwhile, has remained a strong defender of the Israeli war on Gaza.

    Reps. Barbara Lee, currently a candidate for Senate in California; Pramila Jayapal, chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus; and Alma Adams of North Carolina, who has traveled to Israel on trips sponsored by AIPAC, have also since signed on.

    J Street, in the wake of the brutal assault by Hamas, has resisted calls for a ceasefire, aligning itself more closely with AIPAC than as its counterweight. Yet that posture has been evolving in recent days, said Capitol Hill Democrats, noting a willingness by J Street to allow space to dissent from unconditional support for Israel’s response. The group had previously warned that Democrats who declined to support a hard-line resolution would lose J Street’s support but has more recently backed away from that threat. The organization has also faced pressure from more than 100 former staffers and alumni with J Street University, who wrote the group an open letter urging it to support a ceasefire. 

    “We still support the resolution,” J Street’s Bayroff wrote in a statement. “Nearly all of congress does, and nearly all our endorsees do.”

    Israel has engaged in a policy of collective punishment in retaliation for the Hamas slaughter on October 7 — which killed more than 1,300 Israelis and foreign nationals, many of them civilians — cutting off water, energy, and imports into Gaza. Under pressure, Israel has turned on some water to some parts of southern Gaza, but the situation remains bleak

    On Friday, Hamas released two American hostages, a mother and her daughter, on what it called “humanitarian grounds.” At least 197 remain in captivity. 

    Efforts to free hostages have focused on children, women, and the medically infirm. Amir Tibon — a journalist with Haaretz who survived the Hamas assault on his kibbutz, Nahal Oz, after he was saved by his grandfather — reported Friday that the official in charge of hostage negotiations for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had been spending his energy blasting Western officials. “This week I had the opportunity to talk with some foreign diplomats who are trying to help the release of our hostages,” Tibon reported. “They came out embarrassed from a conversation with Gal Hirsch, Netanyahu’s man on the subject. Instead of talking about how to promote a move tomorrow for partial release (women-children-patients), he started shouting at them about why they supported Oslo [Accords]. Everything is political in Netanyahu’s office. Only political.”

    “Rescuing the hostages and providing humanitarian supplies to Gaza are important priorities, as is disarming and dismantling Hamas,” said Rosen of DMFI. “The Palestinian people deserve to live in peace with security and dignity. Hamas’ brutal rule is antithetical to those aspirations.”

    Florida Palestine Network, which had backed Frost before falling out over his evolving stance on Israel–Palestine, acknowledged his call for a ceasefire, calling it “a place to start.”

    Update: October 20, 6:16 p.m. ET
    This article was updated to include statements that DMFI spokesperson Rachel Rosen and J Street spokesperson Logan Bayroff provided after publication.

    The post Reps. Pramila Jayapal, Maxwell Frost, and Greg Casar Join Call for Ceasefire in Gaza appeared first on The Intercept.

    This post was originally published on The Intercept.

  • This was originally published as a newsletter from Ryan Grim. Sign up to get the next one in your inbox.

    Stick with this one, it’s worth the ride. I know there isn’t really any oxygen for news outside of the assault on Gaza, but we didn’t want to hold this story any longer, particularly as things in the Middle East look like they might spiral out into a regional war. 

    Back in March, you might remember, Neha Wadekar and I published an investigation called “A Is for Abuse,” about a slick tech firm that purports to be disrupting education in Africa and turning a profit while doing it. It’s the kind of “doing well by doing good” ethos that has become common in our benevolent oligarch era, and Bridge International Academies quickly became a darling of Silicon Valley and its associated billionaires, like Mark Zuckerberg, Bill Gates, and our very own Pierre Omidyar (he was the founding donor of The Intercept, but has since stepped back), as well as international financial institutions like the World Bank, all of which kicked in millions to get the operation off the ground. 

    The play, as Bridge saw it, was to cut costs dramatically by using technology rather than expensive teachers, and to scale rapidly throughout informal settlements in Africa and South Asia. You may already have spotted the risk with that business plan: Who are you putting in the classrooms, and how are you making sure the kids are safe at that scale? 

    Our March investigation zeroed in on a case of serial child sex abuse that had, to put it gently, not been handled well by the company or by its main investor, the World Bank. The Bank’s internal investigation unit uncovered the abuse, yet, years later, it had yet to be revealed publicly, until our article. 

    Neha and I thought we had produced a hell of a piece of journalism — but we didn’t know the half of it. Since then, we learned that top executives at the World Bank joined a conference call with the founders of the company. On the call, they discussed a plan to bury the sex abuse allegations until they had finished a new round of financing, and along the way to “neutralize Adler”: a reference to the World Bank investigator leading the probe into the company. And they took notes while on the call — notes we obtained, along with a cache of other documents. The story’s almost too much to believe. 

    You can find it here. As always, thanks for reading.

    The post World Bank Whistleblower Exposes Cover Up of Child Sex Abuse at For-Profit School Chain appeared first on The Intercept.

    This post was originally published on The Intercept.

  • Starbucks is suing its union, Starbucks Workers United, after objecting to the group’s social media post in support of Palestine after the Hamas attack on Israel, according to an internal company note circulated Tuesday and obtained by The Intercept.

    The company had previously condemned the post but is now upping the ante, planning to take the union to court. In a message from Executive Vice President Sara Kelly, Starbucks argued that the union’s use of the name Starbucks confuses customers, and that some customers took their anger over the SWU statement out on store employees. 

    The union’s post read “Solidarity with Palestine!” and quote-tweeted an image of a bulldozer breaking through the fence encircling Gaza. More than 9,000 workers at 360 stores have now voted to join SWU, which is affiliated with Workers United and SEIU, according to its website, but they have been met with stiff resistance from the company on a potential contract. The company previously sent SWU a “cease and desist” order threatening legal action and now plans to follow through with that threat. The message reads, with bolding in the original:

    Shortly after October 7, Workers United posted a statement with an image of a bulldozer tearing down part of the Israel and Gaza border, reflecting their support for violence perpetrated by Hamas. Unfortunately, as violence against the innocent in the region continues to escalate, some people are mistakenly tying these remarks to us, because Workers United and its affiliates and members continue to use our name, logo and intellectual property. Starbucks unequivocally condemns acts of terrorism, hate and violence committed by Hamas, and we strongly disagree with the views expressed by Workers United, including its local affiliates, union organizers and those who identify as members of “Starbucks Workers United” — none of these groups speak for Starbucks Coffee Company and do not represent our company’s views, positions, or beliefs. Their words and actions belong to them, and them alone.

    Starbucks did not immediately respond to a request for comment, nor did Starbucks Workers United. The full note is below, also with bolding in the original.

    Message from Sara Kelly: Affirming Starbucks Position and Addressing Statements from Workers United

    Partners,

    I hope each of you are finding ways to take care of yourselves and your loved ones in this heavy time. In addition to the heartache we are all feeling during this moment, like many of you, I am also deeply troubled by the spread of misinformation and inflammatory headlines stemming from images used and statements made last week by Workers United. 

    Shortly after October 7, Workers United posted a statement with an image of a bulldozer tearing down part of the Israel and Gaza border, reflecting their support for violence perpetrated by Hamas. Unfortunately, as violence against the innocent in the region continues to escalate, some people are mistakenly tying these remarks to us, because Workers United and its affiliates and members continue to use our name, logo and intellectual property. Starbucks unequivocally condemns acts of terrorism, hate and violence committed by Hamas, and we strongly disagree with the views expressed by Workers United, including its local affiliates, union organizers and those who identify as members of “Starbucks Workers United” — none of these groups speak for Starbucks Coffee Company and do not represent our company’s views, positions, or beliefs. Their words and actions belong to them, and them alone.

    The ongoing confusion from this misinformation has sadly led directly to incidents where angry, hurt customers are confronting partners in our stores and sending graphic and violent messages to partners in our Customer Contact Center (CCC). Our retail leaders and support teams are prioritizing partner care and safety, working to ensure every store and the CCC feels supported in de-escalating these situations.

    It is in the best interest and safety of our partners and customers for Workers United to disengage from the dialogue and from misrepresenting Starbucks. Workers United’s actions risk putting partners from all stores, including both non-union and unionized stores, in harm’s way. On Friday, we contacted Workers United demanding they 1) immediately stop using our company name, logo and intellectual property, and 2) issue an immediate correction. This morning, they rejected that request. As a result, Starbucks will file litigation against the union in federal court, and we intend to pursue all legal options in defense of our partners and our company.

    We will be in touch as we have more updates. Thank you for continuing to support one another, and for the work you do each day to create environments where everyone is welcome and feels a sense of belonging. Our actions have always been — and will always be — driven through the lens of humanity with our partners at the core.

    The post Starbucks Is Suing Its Union After “Solidarity With Palestine!” Tweet appeared first on The Intercept.

    This post was originally published on The Intercept.

  • For Shannon May and her husband Jay Kimmelman, the conference call scheduled with the World Bank on September 12, 2020, was make or break. It had been just over 10 years since the Harvard graduates had launched Bridge International Academies, a chain of for-profit schools that had exploded in Africa and South Asia. With the backing of Silicon Valley’s elite and the support of international financial institutions like the World Bank, the founders were now in negotiations to raise fresh capital that would allow them to move into several new countries. 

    Rapid expansion was essential to the company’s business model. Bridge had figured out a way to slash the biggest cost drivers of a school budget — teachers’ salaries and traditional school houses — but the business was a low-margin enterprise that couldn’t slow down. The company was aiming for 10 million pupils, and it wasn’t as unreachable as it sounded: Bridge had already taught more than 1 million kids, backed by the for-profit investment arms of some of the world’s most famous philanthropists, including Bill Gates and eBay and Intercept founder Pierre Omidyar. The Chan Zuckerberg Initiative provided Bridge with $10 million in seed funding; its previous round of financing, the so-called Series E, which closed in 2017.

    Bridge was now raising its next round, Series F.  May and Kimmelman had a lot to lose: The couple had relocated from Cambridge to Kenya, and had done well enough to helicopter to their vacation home on the coast.

    Just days before the call, in early September, May and Kimmelman had gotten bad news. In 2016, there had been a dozen or more cases of serial sexual assault at a Bridge school in Kenya. Several years later, at another Bridge location, a child on school grounds had been fatally electrocuted by a dangling live wire, while another had been badly injured. May and Kimmelman were already aware of the tragedies. Indeed, the company had internally documented many more cases of sexual abuse, but they had not been reported to the World Bank and stayed out of the local press. Now, a World Bank investigation threatened to bring them to light. 

    In February 2020, an internal World Bank entity that independently reviews bank projects, called the Compliance Advisor Ombudsman, had sent an investigative team, led by veteran investigator Daniel Adler, to Nairobi to look into complaints filed by a local human rights organization about workers’ rights and health and safety issues at Bridge schools. The CAO team, while in Nairobi, learned of additional allegations from parents and community members, namely the serial assaults and the electrocution. Adler quickly filed a report recommending a deeper look and asked Bridge for more information.

    Bridge spent several months gumming up the process, successfully negotiating a nondisclosure agreement with the World Bank that would make it difficult to publish in full any report that might be completed. The company also pressured the head of the CAO, Osvaldo Gratacós, to ease off. Gratacós was pushed out by the World Bank, but the effort ultimately backfired; before his tenure expired, he formally launched an investigation — known internally as a CAO compliance process — into the sex abuse allegations at Bridge in September 2020. May and Kimmelman were now meeting with the World Bank to discuss how to respond.

    With the company actively soliciting Series F financing and close to securing a deal to expand in Rwanda, the timing couldn’t have been worse. So the group — which included William Sonneborn, the World Bank official who oversaw the investment in Bridge, and another World Bank staff member, Shannon Atkeson — hatched a plan to keep the allegations hidden. 

    With Gratacós already on his way out, the next step was to “neutralize Adler,” the CAO’s lead investigator. Bridge would file a complaint with a World Bank ethics office accusing Adler of violating CAO procedures and of impersonating a Bridge employee. It was right out of the Bridge playbook: The company had previously done the same to a Canadian graduate student writing a report on its schools in Uganda, going so far as to craft a bogus “Wanted” poster and place it in local newspapers. (A subsequent complaint Bridge filed with his university was dismissed.)

    Next, Bridge would publish a consultant report favorably comparing its own record on student safety to that of Kenyan public schools — something to point to if the news leaked. The main objective, though, was to keep it quiet for as long as possible. The revelations would “spook investors” and undermine Bridge’s expansion plans in Rwanda. “Time matters,” as one person on the call put it. “Need to delay until Series F.”

    There was only one problem: Someone on the call was taking notes.

    “Time matters … The performance standards don’t address [child sexual abuse] … Need to delay until Series F.” Notes taken during a Bridge International Academies and World Bank meeting on Sept. 12, 2020.
    Photo: Obtained by The Intercept

    Earlier this year, The Intercept published an investigation into Bridge International Academies, exposing the serial assaults and the electrocution, along with concerns from parents, teachers, and local civil society groups that there had been little accountability. Bridge responded furiously, citing the flattering consultant report discussed on the 2020 call.

    New documents and interviews expose a plan between Bridge and the World Bank to undermine the internal investigation into the scandals that was far greater than previously known. May and Kimmelman schemed with the World Bank to draft a far-reaching nondisclosure agreement that would limit the World Bank’s ability to speak publicly about what it knew. And, following the meeting, the World Bank flagrantly retaliated against the investigator who initially uncovered the allegations and pushed for accountability in the face of institutional pressure. 

    The documents were provided to The Intercept by civil society representatives and a U.S. government source. They include notes, contracts, a whistleblower complaint and supporting documents later filed by Adler to a World Bank’s ethics office, and a draft of the long-delayed CAO investigative report finding serious deficiencies in the way the World Bank and Bridge protected children from sex abuse and gender-based violence in its schools. That report remains unpublished more than three years after the probe was launched.

    Members of Congress are now pressing for answers. On October 10, Sens. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., who serves on the Banking Committee, and Peter Welch, D-Vt., sent a letter to Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen and World Bank President Ajay Banga, laying out a list of questions for the Bank about the Bridge investigation. “We are also aware of allegations that World Bank Group management may have colluded with the project owner, Bridge International Academies (“Bridge”), to obstruct and delay the CAO investigation,” the letter warns. Without naming Adler specifically, but making a clear reference to him, it goes on to warn the Bank against retaliating against staff who blew the whistle, asking what the Treasury Department and Bank would do so that “World Bank Group staff who have raised concerns about these issues are recognized as having whistleblower status under the Staff Rules and will be protected from retaliation by their employer.”

    The documents and interviews offer a rare glimpse into the kind of internal institutional machinations that often remain concealed from public view. And they reflect a broader trend in the world of international development finance. In the mid-to-late 1990s and early 2000s, the antiglobalization movement — a coalition of trade unions, environmentalists, and representatives of the Global South — regularly protested gatherings of the World Bank, International Monetary Fund, and World Trade Organization. Under pressure, the institutions created internal accountability mechanisms that interact with external civil society organizations and member countries. The CAO, created in 1999, was the World Bank’s version. Today, civil society organizations are warning, those guardrails are all being taken down, with independent investigators under siege. 

    Inside the World Bank, the fight with the CAO kicked off after Adler’s February 2020 discovery in Nairobi. Typically, the CAO only launches an investigation when it receives a formal complaint. In this case, Adler had uncovered the allegations of abuse on his own. But when he returned from Kenya, Gratacós told him he’d been authorized to offer a “very generous package” if Adler would take his investigative curiosity elsewhere.

    Adler, according to the internal complaint he filed to a World Bank ethics office in September 2022, had previously been warned that Bank management considered his investigations into their work too probing — and he had clearly attracted their attention again. Adler declined, leaving Gratacós with a decision on how to proceed. Gratacós stood his ground, defending the integrity of the CAO. Gratacós made the International Finance Corporation (the World Bank’s finance arm) aware of the new allegations, asking for as much information as could be provided, and moved forward with an investigation. Reached by phone, Gratacós, who is now working as a realtor in northern Virginia, declined to comment. World Bank sources told The Intercept that his departure included a strict NDA.

    But the World Bank quickly moved to hobble the ability of its investigative unit to make public whatever it found. Chris Stephens, vice president and general counsel at the IFC, and Sonneborn, the senior director for disruptive technologies and funds, began negotiating a confidentiality agreement between the company and IFC, which covered the CAO’s investigation, according to emails reviewed by The Intercept.

    The World Bank quickly moved to hobble the ability of its investigative unit to make public whatever it found.

    Gratacós, in emails with the IFC, made clear that he did not want the CAO bound by any new nondisclosure agreement. Such confidentiality agreements are routinely used to thwart investigations and accountability; adding a new one after a probe had been launched would undermine the investigation, he reasoned. 

    Then on July 2, Sonneborn emailed Gratacós triumphantly: “It has been a battle, but we finalized an agreement with Bridge — we now have access to everything. Want to make sure you and your team are aware of the final agreement.” 

    The World Bank framed the agreement as a win for the investigation, but it was anything but. The NDA was as startling as it was sweeping. Bridge agreed to give investigators access to company records but won an agreement that the IFC and CAO could not disclose almost any of that information. The IFC went so far as to agree that “all information derived from information provided” could also be covered by the new NDA, making it extremely difficult, bordering on impossible, for the ombudsman to produce any sort of public report.

    Gratacós pushed back, but the agreement had already been signed. “The NDA was reached without CAO’s agreement or participation,” a spokesperson for the CAO confirmed to The Intercept. “While the NDA affirmed CAO’s access to client information, it included commitments from IFC that CAO would not disclose information that the client asserts to be confidential. … Obtaining access to client documentation was challenging due to the requirement to access client documents via a secure room. However, this has not impacted CAO’s ability to thoroughly carry out its investigation since we were able to access all necessary information from other sources.” 

    In September 2020, Gratacós formally initiated what’s known as a compliance appraisal. It was one of the final acts of his six-year tenure at the World Bank, which had unexpectedly not renewed his contract earlier that year, amid tensions over his pursuit of the Bridge investigation and other probes into Bank investments. 

    Civil society organizations slammed the CAO for his removal. “In 2020 CAO Vice President Gratacós’s contract was not renewed by the President of the World Bank after he resisted intense pressure to compromise the independence of the office from management,” a coalition of NGOs wrote in a letter defending the integrity of internal investigators broadly. Former IFC general counsel Ethiopis Tafara told Gratacós he “could have saved his job” if he had removed Adler from his, Gratacós told Adler, according to Adler’s complaint. A second World Bank source confirmed having heard the same claim directly from Gratacós. 

    Bridge, true to its discussion on September 12, 2020, filed a complaint against Adler that day. The Bank’s internal ethics department investigated and dismissed the complaint. 

    Notes from the 2020 call between Bridge and World Bank outlining a plan. The text in the image reads, “File complaint against Daniel … U.S. negotiated to let [David] Malpass fire him, leaving Dec. 15th. Neutralize Adler.”
    Photo: Obtained by The Intercept

    Later that month, roughly a week after the call between Bridge and World Bank officials, an applicant for Gratacós’s soon-to-be-vacant position sat down for an interview with top bank executives. After the routine questions about his background and approach to work, the interviewers asked one that caught him off guard: If he was the manager of an investigator who seemed too aggressive when probing IFC investments, how would he handle that person? The world of global development finance is small enough that the interviewee had no problem reading between the lines. “It was clear they were referring to Daniel [Adler],” the applicant told The Intercept, asking to speak anonymously so as not to jeopardize work he does in the field. He relayed the conversation to Adler, who included it in his official complaint. The applicant did not get the job.

    That honor went instead to Janine Ferretti. Her appointment raised alarms on both Capitol Hill and in the civil society community that interfaces with the CAO, because instead of an investigative background, she had spent her career in bank management. She was quickly read in on the problem of Daniel Adler. She told Gratacós that World Bank management had let her know that Adler “was a problem and should be removed.” Gratacós relayed that conversation to Adler, who memorialized it in his complaint.

    The conspiring would have remained in the stage of paranoid rumor had the notes from the critical September 12 call not fallen into the hands of the CAO. After the meeting, World Bank staffer Shannon Atkeson filed the notes internally. The notes are not always clear on who is doing the talking, though in some portions, initials are attached to particular comments. Efforts to reach Sonneborn, Atkeson (who has since left her post at the World Bank), May, and Kimmelman for clarification were unsuccessful. When the CAO asked bank officials to turn over all documents related to the Bridge investment, those notes wound up with investigators, and eventually into the hands of the U.S. government.

    NAIROBI, KENYA - MARCH 11, 2023:  The entrance of Bridge International Academies in Mukuru Kwa Njenga slum in Nairobi, Kenya. The for-profit education enterprise operates a network of low-cost schools in several African countries, including Kenya, focusing on providing affordable education to impoverished children. PHOTO BY BRIAN OTIENO for The Intercept
    Girls at the entrance to the Bridge International Academies in Nairobi, Kenya, on March 11, 2023.
    Photo: Brian Otieno for The Intercept

    Most major institutions have internal rules that at least purport to protect whistleblowers from retaliation. The World Bank is no different. In a standard bureaucracy, an institution’s leadership instead seizes upon a pretext to circumvent those protections. In the case of the Bridge investigation, however, the bank dispensed with such formalities. 

    In March, a spokesperson for the CAO told The Intercept that the long-delayed report on the World Bank’s Bridge investment would be completed by fall 2023. Adler filed his complaint regarding Bank interference in the investigation in September 2022. In early August of this year, Adler was placed on administrative leave, his draft report still unpublished. 

    “CAO has removed the former head of the compliance unit — who worked on the Bridge case — and advised staff that he is on leave until further notice, without providing further information,” reads an open letter that a coalition of more than 20 civil society organizations sent to the CAO and similar internal investigative bodies on October 2. “This is amidst reports that CAO staff who raise concerns about the erosion of the office’s independence are marginalized and retaliated against.”

    The Bank admitted in writing that Adler’s whistleblower complaint was a factor in the decision to place him on leave, according to two Bank staffers with knowledge of the situation. Adler declined to comment, saying that he had been instructed not to discuss any CAO matters while on leave.

    The day after Adler was placed on leave, the CAO finalized and circulated a revised draft of the Bridge report, which the Bank may never publish in full due to the nondisclosure agreement. On October 3, the report was sent privately to the World Bank board for review. 

    The coalition letter also referenced the controversial NDA and the failure to renew Gratacós’s contract amid broader complaints about the hiring of management-side personnel to staff an ostensibly independent bureau. “The personnel changes at CAO have occurred as the Office of the General Counsel has stepped up its interference, most notably through the approval of a non-disclosure agreement that impedes CAO’s ability to disclose a forthcoming investigation of child sexual abuse in an IFC project in Kenya,” the letter reads.

    “Ferretti understood the assignment: Rein in the CAO.”

    World Bank and CAO staff take a similar view. “It took a while to get investigated,” said a CAO source who is familiar with the Bridge case. “There is a lot of interference from the Bank’s management,” they said, adding that the interference continues to this day. A World Bank staffer familiar with the case agreed, saying that Ferretti, the CAO head, invited further meddling. “Ferretti understood the assignment: Rein in the CAO,” the staffer said. “She wants to work more closely with management, but she doesn’t appreciate the value of independence for the credibility of the Bank.”

    One of the signatories to the letter was Inclusive Development International, a civil society organization that advocates for communities impacted by corporate projects. The group’s executive director, David Pred, separately wrote to Treasury Department officials in late September, urging them to have the World Bank board investigate how the NDA came about.

    “It is inexplicable why the IFC’s Office of General Counsel would approve an NDA with a client that binds the CAO, in the middle of a compliance investigation,” he wrote in an email to senior officials. “This doesn’t just expose IFC to the risk of litigation but invites it, unless of course the intention of the NDA was to obstruct disclosure of the CAO investigation, and protect its client and itself by covering up the details of their complicity in a child abuse scandal.” 

    “This smacks of a child sexual abuse cover-up at the highest levels of the World Bank.”

    The NDA, he wrote, grossly infringed on CAO’s independence. “The Board should demand a full investigation into who authorized this agreement and why it was done and they should be held accountable.” Pred confirmed to The Intercept that he sent the email, adding that the NDA coupled with the retaliation against Adler were deeply disturbing. “This smacks of a child sexual abuse cover-up at the highest levels of the World Bank,” he said. “Why else would the IFC’s General Counsel approve an NDA with a client under investigation that binds the ostensibly independent office that is carrying out the investigation?”

    In a statement to The Intercept, a CAO spokesperson used more diplomatic terms, but similarly objected to the Bank’s NDA. “IFC should not make contractual confidentiality commitments that limit CAO’s ability to disclose information as allowed by the CAO Policy,” the spokesperson said. 

    The draft CAO report — which was subsequently leaked to civil society sources who shared it with The Intercept — shows a company aware of a string of child sex abuse allegations, and a Bank that routinely gave them a pass.

    CAO’s 82-page draft report shows that the World Bank was aware of a child sex abuse case at a Bridge school as early as 2013, citing analysis from a Kenyan law firm that the World Bank commissioned before investing in Bridge. The law firm noted that a recent conviction of a Bridge employee for sexual violence “would prejudice the associated entity’s ability to obtain registration under Kenya’s Basic Education Act 2013.” That, of course, would be a problem, and Bridge set about remedying the situation — by hiring an attorney who got the conviction overturned on appeal, according to the report. 

    The Intercept previously reported on the horrifying case, which involved an allegation of a Bridge teacher slashing a student’s scrotum. Bridge at the time responded by noting that the conviction had been overturned on appeal. The judge ruled that the child’s testimony was insufficient because he was a child. What Bridge did not disclose, but what the new report shows, is that Bridge paid for the teacher’s legal defense. 

    In December 2019, the World Bank was made aware of a three-year randomized control trial by the Center for Global Development that compared schools in the Liberian “LEAP” program — which prominently included Bridge schools — with other government schools. It found that nearly 4 percent of LEAP students surveyed in 2019 reported “sexual intercourse with a teacher” and 7.5 percent had “some form of sexual contact with a teacher.” The Bank “expressed concerns … about the findings to project leadership and also raised the findings with Bridge,” the report finds. “However, CAO found no evidence of follow-up action by IFC in response to the concerns.”

    The report further found that Bridge itself was aware of at least 21 cases of child sex abuse that had been deemed credible. “Despite these significant warning flags, CAO found no IFC project supervision documentation issued prior to February 2020 that addresses any incidents, risks, or concerns related to [child sex abuse] or [gender-based violence] against children,” the draft report found. Bridge consistently argued to the Bank that child sex abuse did not fall under the Bank’s oversight, and the Bank just as often acceded to that logic. The CAO report rejects the claim out of hand.

    Bridge, the report found, even expected survivors or their families to cover their own medical costs stemming from the abuse. The report encouraged the World Bank to create a restitution fund to compensate victims for the harm done to them.

    The IFC, in a statement, claimed it was implementing reforms in response to the sexual assault cases. “Since 2020, a global specialist in gender-based violence has worked with us to strengthen protections for vulnerable children and women in our projects and to educate IFC staff in how to identify and respond to instances of sexual abuse,” the spokesperson said in a statement. “We plan to hire additional specialists to focus on specific regions where we know the risks of gender-based violence to be high. In addition to our efforts to address gender-based violence in projects, we are also looking at measures to strengthen the capacity of the private sector to address this important issue more systematically. As an institution that is focused on fighting poverty and enabling people to improve their lives, we are deeply concerned about the allegations, and we are committed to working with our clients to strengthen preventive and response measures against such unfortunate incidents.” As The Intercept previously reported, the IFC quietly divested from Bridge in 2020, though maintains an indirect holding in the company through an education investment fund.

    Bridge, meanwhile, declined to engage with the allegations raised in this article. “Bridge has previously provided The Intercept with a comprehensive amount of material on safeguarding,” said a Bridge spokesperson. “These allegations are clearly false as is evidenced within the extensive and detailed responses — including the publically [sic] available 2020 Tunza report — shared with The Intercept in March 2023.” The spokesperson declined to specify which allegations she was referring to.

    Emily’s complaint to the CAO.
    Photo: Ryan Grim/The Intercept

    Over the summer, former students who were sexually assaulted by a teacher at the Bridge school in Kenya began filing their own complaints with the CAO, alleging that the school had failed to take action regarding the abuse. Several survivors from the school, now in their late teens, came forward to tell their stories. The Intercept is concealing their real names to protect their privacy.

    While each of them was abused in a slightly different way, the overarching details of their experiences aligned. They were preyed upon in the hours before or after school; they were taken to empty classrooms or offices; they were ordered not to tell a soul about what had happened. Their accounts paint a harrowing picture of systemic failure to protect children from a sexual predator and to get justice for the survivors. 

    As The Intercept previously reported, after the teacher was exposed by a student, he was confronted by the other teachers but then disappeared after a conversation with the school’s manager.

    “Bridge didn’t do anything; it was just the teachers [helping us]. The Bridge part of it, they didn’t follow up anything, because when we came back from the hospital, we got back to our homes, and then the next week it was just normal as if nothing happened,” said Susan, who has since graduated high school and is studying to become a beautician. “All of a sudden [the perpetrator] disappeared. We felt bad, actually, because he wasn’t caught after doing all that.” (In response to our previous story, Bridge said that it partnered with local institutions to provide counseling. The academy manager was fired.) 

    The impacts of the assault are long lasting. “It made me lose trust in any man,” said Nancy, another survivor who hopes to join an electrical engineering training college in January. 

    Emily, who is now 18 years old, grew up in the countryside with her grandmother, where she learned at school in her tribal language. When she was around 12, she moved to a tough informal settlement in Nairobi to stay with her father and enrolled in Bridge, where she began to study in English. The other students made fun of her rural accent, and Emily said she was a lonely and timid student.

    Her teacher would call her into an empty classroom, touch her private parts, and force her to touch him. “He pulled me in between his legs. I was like, ‘What’s wrong with this?’” she recalled. “I tried to pull back. I cannot tell anybody, because I feel like I’m not worthy.” 

    She is devastated that he has not been held accountable for his crimes against her and her friends. “This is a person who took advantage of us,” she said. 

    In her formal complaint to the CAO, Emily wrote of her frustration and disappointment that Bridge failed to protect her both before and even after the sexual assault took place. “I wish to lodge a complaint with you following the incident which took place at my former school (Bridge Kwa Ruben) in 2014 and 2016 through one of the teachers [name redacted]. Nothing was done by the administration even after it was confirmed that I and the other girls were sexually abused and harassed. I am looking forward for justice to prevail and action be taken against them,” reads her handwritten note from June 16, 2023. 

    After the former students sent their complaints to the CAO, the office scheduled video conferencing interviews with each of them, according to a Nairobi source with knowledge of the situation. World Bank rules mandate that the CAO must decide whether to accept a complaint within seven weeks. More than three months passed, and the girls remained in limbo until The Intercept contacted the CAO for comment. “CAO is finalizing the eligibility process for 4 new complaints regarding Bridge which raise sexual assault allegations,” a CAO spokesperson said. In mid-October, one of the girls was approached by CAO to set up a new video call to explain how she could move forward with her complaint and she has decided to work through the CAO to seek justice.

    The CAO, in its draft report, revealed a detail that underscores the failure of Bridge and the World Bank to protect children in its care. After learning of Adler’s February 2020 trip to Nairobi, Bridge, perhaps erroneously, gave a World Bank official access to a list the company had compiled of roughly 70 known cases of child sexual abuse, the official later told the CAO during its investigation. 

    The bank official, according to the report, destroyed the document, thinking they were not supposed to have access to it. The banker subsequently asked Bridge to share it more broadly with other officials at the Bank who ought to have access. 

    Bridge never did so, and the Bank took no further action.

    The post Whistleblower: The World Bank Helped Cover Up Child Sex Abuse at a Chain of For-Profit Schools It Funded appeared first on The Intercept.

    This post was originally published on The Intercept.

  • On Tuesday, House Foreign Affairs Committee Chair Michael McCaul, R-Texas, and Ranking Member Gregory Meeks, D-N.Y., introduced a resolution pledging Congress would stand “with Israel as it defends itself against the barbaric war launched by Hamas and other terrorists.” Nearly every member of Congress announced their support for the resolution — with the exception of 13 Democrats.

    The resolution, however, does not mention Palestinian civilians, who face an ongoing siege of medieval proportions — with Israeli forces cutting off access to food, water, and electricity — and calls for further restricting and scrutinizing imports because of Hamas’s use of bulldozers and other rudimentary equipment to break down the border fence with Israel. 

    The lack of any attempt in the resolution to urge Israel to avoid civilian casualties, as the Palestinian territory stares down an apocalyptic and ongoing massacre, has led to a small pocket of resistance to the resolution among a handful of Democrats. 

    The liberal organization J Street is working to break down that resistance. J Street, which dubs itself both “pro-preace and pro-Israel,” often serves as a counterweight to the more hawkish American Israel Public Affairs Committee. On this resolution, however, there’s no daylight between the two. 

    J Street has been warning Democrats that if they don’t sponsor the McCaul–Meeks resolution, they will lose the group’s endorsement come reelection time, according to sources familiar with the position J Street has been relaying to members of Congress.

    Asked for comment, J Street confirmed it has made the resolution a priority, providing a statement from Kevin Rachlin, vice president of government affairs:

    An important part of being in political partnership is ensuring that one’s core values are shared — especially in moments of crisis. We have been reaching out to all of our endorsed candidates to let them know that for J Street, a pro-Israel, pro-peace, pro-democracy organization, signing on to the broad-based congressional resolution that condemns Hamas, and states support for the State and people of Israel, is a deeply important affirmation of one of our core values. We are urging our endorsed candidates and all Members of Congress to vote yes on this resolution if and when it is brought to a vote. 

    While the resolution has yet to officially pass, Israel has been buoyed by the United States’s continual assurance of unwavering support. On Thursday, Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin remarked that American military aid would remain unconditional, though President Joe Biden, in his more recent remarks, made an aboutface, and has begun to insist that civilian lives be protected in Gaza. On a call with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Friday, Biden said that “it is really important that Israel, with all the anger and frustration … that exists, is that they operate by the rules of war.” The resolution J Street insists all Democrats support does not include the type of admonition now being made by Biden himself.

    On the Hill, Democratic leadership has declined to defend members who’ve urged a ceasefire — among them the holdouts from the McCaul-Meeks resolution — when they have come under attack.

    Human Rights Watch has confirmed that Israel, in its airstrikes, has been using white phosphorus in violation of international law — an ordinance prohibited particularly for its risk of threatening civilians and surrounding buildings and structures. On Thursday, Israel’s Air Force boasted on Twitter of its use of 6,000 bombs to raze entire city blocks — or, as the military put it, “terrorist targets” — in Gaza; the account posted accompanying photos depicting the rows of buildings leveled by Israeli strikes.

    Later Thursday, Israel ordered 1.1 million people in northern Gaza to leave the area within 24 hours, in what is believed to be a warning of a looming ground invasion. Human rights organizations as well as the United Nations have called such a rushed evacuation impossible. Nevertheless, Israel has stuck by its order to evacuate half the territory, which houses Gaza’s main hospital. 

    Some 70 of the Gazan civilians who heeded the orders to flee were reportedly bombed and killed by Israel anyhow. Israel has also killed at least seven journalists.

    Israeli strikes have killed at least 1,900 people in Gaza, according to the Gaza Ministry of Health, since Hamas’s attack, which itself killed more than 1,000 Israelis, many of them civilians.

    J Street has also expressed support for a 55-signature letter, led by Reps. Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash., and Mark Pocan, D-Wis., urging the Biden administration to work to ensure that people in Gaza have access to food, water, and electricity, and that Israel follows international law. The letter discouraged hate crimes against both Jews and Muslims and asked Biden to guarantee that any supplemental funding requests include aid for Palestinians and Israelis.

    The signatories of the smaller letter, signed by just 26 percent of the Democratic caucus, also condemned Hamas’s attack and stated that Israel has the right to defend itself — but they wrote that Israel’s response must acknowledge the millions of Palestinian civilians in Gaza “who themselves are victims of Hamas.”

    The post J Street to Democrats: Unconditional Support for Israel’s Gaza War or Lose Endorsement appeared first on The Intercept.

    This post was originally published on The Intercept.

  • This was originally published as a newsletter from Ryan Grim. Sign up to get the next one in your inbox.

    Let’s assume for the sake of argument that Matt Gaetz is not serious. At all. About anything. 

    I don’t happen to believe that’s the case, but I can understand why somebody would. But I don’t think it matters. It doesn’t matter, because he’s now the equivalent of a free radical bouncing around the molecular structure of Congress, and nobody quite knows how the drama currently unfolding will end. Including Gaetz, as he conceded even before he launched his successful putsch against Kevin McCarthy, rendering the House speakerless since Tuesday. 

    On Wednesday, taking Gaetz’s grievances about the way the House is run seriously, Democratic Rep. Ro Khanna proposed a series of reforms that would reduce the power of big money in politics, bank stock trading by members of Congress, and democratize the functioning of the House.

    On Thursday, Gaetz responded: “Ok. Let’s negotiate.” 

    Gaetz noted that his GOP colleagues want to change the rules around the “motion to vacate,” which was the procedural tool he used to oust McCarthy. His colleagues don’t want a small handful of renegades to have that much leverage, so they want to require a higher number of members for the motion to be able to be brought up for a vote. “If we enact the reforms @RepRoKhanna lays out here,” Gaetz tweeted, “How high would you like the MTV threshold to be? Because I’ll basically give you whatever you want on the MTV for this stuff.”

    So what is this stuff? 

    Khanna laid out a five-point program:

    1. Ban money from lobbyists and political actions committees to congressional candidates 
    2. Ban members of Congress from trading stocks and from ever becoming lobbyists
    3. Term limits for members of Congress
    4. Term limits for Supreme Court justices
    5. An ethics code for Supreme Court justices

    The first objection from Democrats about Gaetz’s offer to implement these ideas in exchange for handing over his MTV weapon is that the stuff could never pass and he isn’t serious. But it doesn’t matter if he’s serious: He and his small crew of Republicans teamed up with Democrats to oust McCarthy. There is quite literally, and quite seriously, nothing stopping them from doing the same to reform the House rules. 

    Some immediate objections arise, of course. When I floated some of this on what’s left of Twitter, Chris Hayes noted, “you can’t do a term limit without a constitutional amendment so it’s a non-starter.” He is correct that constitutional scholars agree that term limits would require an amendment. 

    And I’d go further than Chris and say term limits are an actively bad idea. They’re the kind of thing that’s appealing as a last resort to an enormously frustrated electorate, but it’s merely nostalgia for a citizen legislature that never existed, where yeomen farmers would serve their country in Congress and then return to the fields. In reality, in states with term limits, politicians just race up the ladder as fast as possible and then when they’re termed out, they cash in as lobbyists. It makes the swamp swampier rather than draining it. 

    But some of the other reforms go the opposite direction, and turn public service back toward what it ought to be, serving the public rather than enriching oneself or one’s corporate backers. In response to Chris, Ro Khanna noted – in apparent acknowledgement of the constitutional hurdles – that his main bullet points are the ban on lobbying by members of Congress and the ban on contributions by PACs and lobbyists. He noted that the Supreme Court term limits would be constitutional, though the justices would have to be given seats on a lower court. The ban on stock trading would also be warmly met by the public.

    Knowing our Supreme Court, anything could be ruled unconstitutional, and those reforms, if passed, could be challenged, too — but it’s still a fight worth having. Make the justices overturn immensely popular ethics reforms while facing their own ethics scandal. 

    And even if some of these reforms wouldn’t make it through the Senate, they could be written into the House rules in such a way that they’d have a deterrent effect.

    Gaetz’s unprecedented ouster of a speaker has produced a rare moment in Washington, in which nobody can truly be certain how it ends.  The key part of his response was “let’s negotiate.” Term limits are counterproductive? Fine, ditch those and come up with something new to suggest – like, say, a requirement that the president get congressional authorization before deploying troops overseas. Republicans want to reform the rules to change the way you can boot a speaker. So while they have the hood up, let’s see what else we can do to that engine.

    Gaetz, at least, is continuing to negotiate. This evening, he responded to Chris’s response to my post, saying: 

    Things in Khanna-Gaetz that can happen merely by changing House Rules:

    – Ban lobbyist and PAC donations to members

    – Lobbyist/Foreign Agent Registration Ban for former members 

    – Ban Congressional Stock Trading

    – Increase MTV threshold

    – Single Subject Spending Bills requirement

    Most of that is self-explanatory, but “single subject spending bills requirement” was the bone he picked with McCarthy, complaining that the House hadn’t passed all 12 of its appropriations bills. Insisting the House does so is reasonable, and could also be overcome by suspending the rules to avert a shutdown, which requires two-thirds of the House. But if Gaetz thinks Congress can work the way it used to, and pass spending bills one by one rather than lumping them all together, let him try.

    Republicans plan to return next week to elect a new speaker – and even Donald Trump is threatening to go to Capitol Hill to see whether he wants the job. 

    Even if Democrats aren’t serious about seeing any of Khanna’s reforms make it into the rules or into law, they could at least behave cynically. Both parties are good at that, after all. Democrats who are so sure Gaetz and his gang are faking their offer to negotiate have nothing to lose by taking them up on it and making them walk away publicly. Let the Republicans kill the reforms that poll at 90 percent. And, if by cynically supporting these ideas in hopes of making Republicans look bad, Democrats accidentally turn them into law, oh well. We won’t tell anybody they never meant it to happen.

    The post Matt Gaetz Says He Wants To Negotiate. Democrats Should Take Him Up On It. appeared first on The Intercept.

    This post was originally published on The Intercept.

  • This was originally published as a newsletter from Ryan Grim. Sign up to get the next one in your inbox.

    First of all, a big thank you to everybody who became members of The Intercept last month during our fundraising drive. I know we send a lot of emails, and it can be overwhelming, but the resulting generosity from readers really is the thing that makes our work possible. We set an ambitious goal of $400,000 for the month, and it looks like we’re going to be extremely close to hitting it, within $5,000 or so, which is wonderful. The support from readers doesn’t just power us financially, it’s a reminder that what we’re doing matters, and it inspires us to keep pushing – on a Sunday, no less! – even when things can often seem hopeless.

    Of course, if you haven’t yet, or you want to become an even-more-generous donor, you can still do that here, we certainly won’t turn you away.

    It’s been a wild week in Washington, complete with a bizarre Republican presidential debate, a visit by the actual president to a picket line; another visit by the former president to a non-union plant in Michigan, where he complained that union workers were picketing in the wrong places; and growing calls for the resignation of a sitting Democratic senator who was indicted for corruption that even looks like espionage – all capped off with a last-minute measure to keep the government from shutting down signed just before the midnight deadline. 

    To get that job done, House Speaker Kevin McCarthy teamed up with Democrats, called the bluff of his right flank, stripped out money for Ukraine, added in disaster relief, and otherwise kept spending levels the same until November 17.

    The Freedom Caucus firebrand Matt Gaetz had promised he would depose McCarthy if he pulled something like this, and he tried to get recognized on the House floor after the measure passed, but the chamber’s session was gaveled to a close. His problem, though, remains the same, in that he doesn’t have an alternative speaker candidate who could get 218 votes, meaning he could gum up the works for a few days but the result would likely be McCarthy remaining in power. That means that when the next deadline comes in mid-November, his threats probably won’t be taken as seriously. The far right has six weeks to regroup and reorganize for that fight. We’ll see what they come up with. 

    Amid all of this jockeying, real clashes against corporate power are afoot: there is a landmark trial against Google underway, joined by a newly launched suit against Amazon. The mere fact of the confrontations is already reshaping power relations.

    That got me thinking about just how radically our politics around monopoly power have shifted in just a few years. In early 2016, as the Democratic presidential primary was wrapping up, Senator Elizabeth Warren sat down for what would become a pivotal dinner. What had been known for several years as the Warren Wing of the Democratic Party was morphing into the Sanders Wing, as the democratic socialist regaled massive crowds with talk of political revolution. Warren, meanwhile, had been readying her multi-year plan to stack the expected Clinton administration with her proteges, in line with her repeated mantra that “personnel is policy.” She had been particularly watching the work of Barry Lynn’s anti-monopoly team at the Open Markets Institute with interest, and it fit with her long-standing focus on breaking up and bringing to heel the big banks. While Sanders rose to prominence as a democratic socialist, Warren was a Republican before evolving into a Democrat in the 1990s. That legacy revealed itself in the way she framed her policy critiques and proposals as aimed at supporting the development of markets free of corporate concentration. “I am a capitalist to my bones,” she famously said. “I believe in markets. What I don’t believe in is theft, what I don’t believe in is cheating. That’s where the difference is. I love what markets can do, I love what functioning economies can do. They are what make us rich, they are what create opportunity. But only fair markets, markets with rules.”

    Warren reached out to Lynn to set up the dinner, and Lynn brought along a deputy named Lina Khan and an attorney named Jonathan Kanter. Khan and Kanter laid out their idea for reimagining and reinvigorating antitrust policy, and Warren saw in it a reflection, and an extension, of her anti-corruption politics, which helpfully contrasted with a democratic socialist reluctance to embrace markets. In June 2016, she delivered a major speech on antitrust policy at Lynn’s Open Markets Institute, laying down a marker in what would become a hot issue on the populist right as well as left in coming years. 

    (I write about Warren’s dinner with Khan and Kanter, and her effort to stack the administration, in my book on the American left that’ll be out in December, but it’s available for pre-order now.

    Of course, Warren never got a chance to staff up a Clinton administration. Instead, Khan went to the House Judiciary Committee, where she led a major investigation into the monopolistic practices of Apple, Amazon, Google, and Facebook. Kanter formed his own law firm targeting those types of firms. By the time Joe Biden was elected, Warren’s rolodex of populist staffers had grown deeper, and she successfully placed many in key positions, including Khan as chair of the Federal Trade Commission and Kanter as head of the Justice Department’s antitrust division. The most corporate-friendly Biden cabinet member, Gina Raimando, wound up as commerce secretary, and was horrified at the number of progressive staffers she saw salted throughout the Biden administration. “You know, they didn’t elect Elizabeth Warren president,” she fumed to Chief of Staff Ron Klain, according to Franklin Foer’s new book on the early Biden administration. 

    This week, Kanter’s team was in court squaring off against Google, accusing it of abusing its market power over search, while Khan teamed with 17 state attorneys general to file a landmark suit against Amazon, alleging abuse of third-party sellers and other unfair competition practices. It was years in the making, but the showdown over corporate power is now underway. 

    All that is a backdrop for this week’s Deconstructed episode, which you can find here or on any other podcast player you use. I’m joined by Matt Stoller, director of research for the anti-monopoly group American Economic Liberties Project, and Amanda Lewis, who heads a coalition of third-party sellers taking on Amazon. 

    The post Amazon and Google Are Finally Facing the Music appeared first on The Intercept.

    This post was originally published on The Intercept.

  • This was originally published as a newsletter from Ryan Grim. Sign up to get the next one in your inbox.

    In a rather striking split screen today, Joe Biden became the first president ever to walk a union picket line, grabbing a bullhorn and using the word “we” to rally striking autoworkers. His Federal Trade Commission teamed with 17 attorneys general to sue Amazon for unfair competition (which was fun to see Jeff Bezos’s Washington Post report). And the FCC, finally under the control of Democratic commissioners, announced it would be moving to restore net neutrality rules undone by Trump. 

    Over on the Republican side, the House GOP continued barreling toward a government shutdown over…what exactly? “Madam Speaker, forgive me, but what the hell is going on here?” wondered Democratic Rep. Jim McGovern from the House floor this evening. And Trump will be skipping Wednesday’s Republican debate to speak at a non-union auto parts company that has nothing to do with the UAW strikes against the Big Three. 

    It’s a tale of two parties taking unusually divergent governance paths. 

    It’s not all rosy for Democrats, of course. The dam broke for New Jersey Sen. Bob Menendez, with more than twenty of his colleagues and counting calling for him to resign after being indicted for over-the-top levels of corruption – while interestingly not a single Republican senator has done so. He’s holding out for one simple reason: His number one goal at this point is not re-election, it’s staying out of prison. One thing he can offer prosecutors is resigning. The Justice Department, when it targets politicians, often offers reduced sentences or no prison time in exchange for stepping down. Resigning now would be giving up that card for nothing. (Menendez is one of the most hawkish supporters of Israel in the party, and AIPAC is standing by him.)

    We’re headed for a government shutdown on Saturday, September 30, for no reason at all. Indeed it’s hard to think of a single person who could benefit from one, except, perhaps, someone facing a few federal indictments and hoping to drag out their trials beyond the coming election. For that person, you can see an upside in a shutdown. 

    Republicans spent Tuesday evening jawing at each other. Florida Rep. Matt Gaetz, one of the Republican firebrands leading the shutdown charge, to his credit, had the night’s best joke, saying that federal spending had so devalued the dollar that you need gold bars to bribe Democratic senators now. He also lashed out at Speaker Kevin McCarthy on Twitter, calling him “pathetic” for a paid advocacy campaign Gaetz said attempted to pay Republican influencers to trash-talk Gaetz and his shutdown effort. McCarthy issued a cease-and-desist order to a consulting firm, which appears to be – or is accused of being? – Democratic. What a mess.

    I don’t think people quite have a grasp of how thoroughly absurd the Republican position is on a government shutdown, and I’m not speaking from a partisan perspective, or saying that I disagree with their approach. What I’m saying is that it’s just completely insane. 

    To put it simply, Republicans previously agreed to a very specific deal to fund the government, have not made any serious demands or proposed any way forward that would keep the government open, yet they are still pushing for a shutdown. When I read that sentence back to myself, it sounds unusually partisan, but it’s just the simple truth, and I don’t see any other way to say it honestly. 

    They can’t even pass a bill through their own chamber, the House, that would fund the government. They’re not even proposing big changes to federal spending, because they already took that off the table during Biden’s State of the Union.

    At least when Trump shut the government down in 2018 he had an actual demand: money for his border wall. (He eventually caved, got no money, and built some of the wall illegally anyway, by moving money from other places.) 

    Taking a close look at the legislative situation really reveals how absurd it is. Let’s run through it quickly.

    Perhaps it seems like too long  ago, but this whole thing was already worked out in May. Biden and McCarthy, as you’ll recall, sat down to craft a deal to avert a default and a global financial crisis. 

    The deal was straightforward and announced publicly: the debt ceiling would be lifted until January 2025  (so a lame duck Congress can lift it again). Discretionary and military spending for the next fiscal year would be capped at $1.59 trillion: $886 billion for the war-making folks and $704 billion for the rest. Cuts to spending for Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and veterans  benefits were off limits, because Biden had boxed Republicans in when they all hooted and hollered at him during his State of the Union. 

    So all of this has already been hashed out. As Hank Williams Jr. would put it, “It’s all over but the crying.” 

    The holdouts are calling for budget numbers several hundred billion below what was already agreed on, which is fine — that’s their right — but it doesn’t mean anybody should listen to them. Today McCarthy suggested he needs another meeting with Biden, which the White House quickly rejected, noting they already cut a deal and his problem is with Matt Gaetz and that crew, not with the White House. AOC suggested McCarthy be told to go “pound sand,” which is one of my favorite cliches.  

    How This Is Completely On Republicans

    There are only a few different ways to fund the government: 

    1. You can do it the way Congress was designed to work but doesn’t: by passing a dozen individual spending bills through the House and the Senate and having the president sign them. How quaint. That hasn’t happened since 1996. 
    1. Then there is a CR, or a “continuing resolution.” A CR essentially keeps things as they are until a certain date, though you can also have an amended CR that includes policy and spending changes.

    That’s it. If you don’t pass one of those, the government shuts down. And there are enough Republicans opposed to each one of those pathways that none of them are viable. 

    So Republicans are spending this week belatedly attempting option 1, passing all 12 appropriations bills. That’s impossible to do in this short amount of time, and the party is only going to try to actually pass four. It’s just for show, and if I were a betting man, I’d take the under. Maybe they can pass the defense bill. The homeland security one is a remote possibility. The next two – State & Foreign Ops and Agriculture – are going to be tougher. Late this evening, they passed a rule on the House floor that allows them to start debating those four bills. It got 216 Republican votes (Marjorie Taylor Greene voted no) and Republicans gave themselves an ovation on the floor, even though passing a rule is standard stuff. Nancy Pelosi never lost a rule vote in her entire tenure. 

    Their next plan will be to draft a CR and stuff it full of right-wing priorities, such as dewokeifying the military, attaching symbolic border-related provisions, and slashing social spending. All of that is DOA in the Senate and not even a sure thing in the House. 

    Each one of these votes is a trap for Republicans, because they’ll never be good enough for the most ardent conservatives and they’ll include draconian cuts and extreme social policy that will then be used against moderate Republicans running in Biden districts. 

    Here’s how the Washington Post framed the latest proposed cuts: “Cutting housing subsidies for the poor by 33 percent as soaring rents drive a national affordability crisis. Forcing more than 1 million women and children onto the waitlist of a nutritional assistance program for poor mothers with young children. Reducing federal spending on home heating assistance for low-income families by more than 70 percent with energy prices high heading into the winter months.” 

    That’s not just terrible for people, it’s terrible politics.

    Once that theater is over, the only option will be a normal, clean, bipartisan CR. The Senate voted 77-19 (!) to move forward on a CR this evening to keep the government open another 47 days. But it includes some $6 billion for Ukraine, and House Republicans want to reject that outright.

    Here is where McCarthy faces a choice. He can prevent the Senate bill, which has the support of Mitch McConnell and a host of Republicans, from coming to the floor. His right-wing rebels have said that if he passes it with Democratic votes, they’ll depose him. And they might, but A) they don’t have an alternative who could get 218 votes and B) Democrats could vote to save him which would be C) hilarious. 

    The other option for House Republicans is to say that a spending bill supported by a majority of Senate Republicans is simply unacceptable, and so the government needs to shut down. 

    There are other mechanisms a coalition of Democrats and Republicans could use to end the standoff, including either a discharge petition, defeating the previous question and seizing the floor (don’t worry about it), or temporarily ousting McCarthy and installing a caretaker speaker who puts the bill on the floor, lets it pass, then turns the gavel back to Republicans to fight over. Unlike in the Senate, in the House, where there’s the will of a majority, there really is a way. All of that will take time, though. 

    Because the shutdown will be so obviously pinned on Republicans – Trump himself has demanded they do it, promising, absurdly, that Biden will get the blame – the thinking in Washington is that Democrats won’t help Republicans resolve their internal problems, preferring to let them burst into public display. 

    So it’s all spectacle all the way down. Which, ultimately, is what Gaetz is after. This shootout inside the Republican Party is all about showing Trump and his supporters who’s willing to fight the hardest, regardless of whether any of it makes any sense even for them – and with the rest of the country caught in the crossfire. 

    The post House Republicans Are Hurtling Toward the Most Pointless Shutdown Ever appeared first on The Intercept.

    This post was originally published on The Intercept.

  • Leading up to the August Republican presidential primary debate, an official from Google’s Civics and U.S. Campaigns team reached out to the Republican National Committee with a standard question, according to a cache of emails obtained by The Intercept: “[D]oes the RNC have live stream plans that I can share with the product team?”

    The question made sense: For major events, people flock to Google to find out when a live event is occurring — yielding the now-legendary 2011 HuffPost article “What Time Is the Super Bowl?” — and also, just as importantly, where that event can be watched.

    An RNC official told Google via email that the debate would be streaming exclusively on the upstart video platform Rumble. The August 23 debate was broadcast on Fox News and streamed on Fox Nation, which requires a subscription, while Rumble was the only one to stream it for free.

    On the day of and during the debate, however, potential viewers who searched Google for “GOP debate stream” were returned links to YouTube, Fox News, and news articles about the debate, according to screen recordings of contemporaneous searches. Rumble was nowhere on the first page.

    For Rumble, which is currently in discovery in an antitrust lawsuit against Google in California, this is a case of Google suppressing its competitors in favor of its own product, YouTube. “The first Republican presidential debate was yet another example of Google’s determination to squash competing video platforms,” said Rumble general counsel Michael Ellis. “In its own words, Google uses search to highlight other major election events but chose not to offer the same feature to Rumble’s livestream. We look forward to proving Google’s continued anticompetitive conduct in court.”

    For Google, it was merely a miscommunication. “The facts here are very mundane,” said a Google spokesperson. “People could easily find information about where to watch the debate in Google Search results. And as part of our ongoing effort to build dedicated features in Search to more prominently showcase events like debates, we reached out to the RNC and Rumble, but unfortunately it didn’t come together in time to test and create the livestream feature. We’ve already worked with the RNC and Rumble to get this feature set up for the next debate, as we would do with any livestream provider.” 

    Twelve days before the debate, on August 11, Google asked the RNC for a link to the livestream or a proper contact at Rumble, explaining, “As we often do for major election events, we’re exploring linking to the Livestream on Search and our product team is asking for a link to test the feature.” The following Monday, August 14, Google followed up again, telling the RNC it needed the link that same day if it was going to be featured on the day of the debate. The RNC looped in the Rumble team. “Amazing, thank you!” the Google official responded on August 14, asking Rumble for a URL for the debate stream. 

    A Rumble official asked for “clarity” on what exactly Google needed, asking to set up a call. 

    Google didn’t respond, and Rumble bumped the email the next day, without success. From there, both sides let it drop, according to the emails reviewed by The Intercept.

    YouTube is owned by Google, and it has regularly been the subject of anticompetitive allegations from rivals, who charge that Google unfairly and illegally favors YouTube in its search algorithm. Google, in fact, is in the middle of a landmark antitrust trial, charged with anticompetitive practices by the Department of Justice. 

    Now, to be charitable to Google, the company’s request for a URL that day was clear, and there’s nothing more annoying in office life than asking for a phone call when email will do. But, to be charitable to Rumble, requiring that an event have a URL nine days in advance is also a bit annoying. A Rumble official told The Intercept that the company wanted to jump on the phone to see what exactly Google needed, because their system doesn’t produce a live link that far in advance. 

    The conversation between the two companies, in the end, is irrelevant as a matter of law, beyond establishing that Google was aware Rumble would be streaming the debate. Even though Google offered to feature it, the company would not have been required by antitrust law to promote a competitor’s link above its organic search results. It would, however, be barred from suppressing the competitor’s link from organic results. The fact that Rumble’s link did not appear on the first page even though it was the most relevant link the search could return means either the search engine failed at its task or the link was suppressed.

    The post Rumble Had Exclusive Rights to Stream Republican Debate — Yet Was Buried in Google Search appeared first on The Intercept.

  • Secret Pakistani arms sales to the U.S. helped to facilitate a controversial bailout from the International Monetary Fund earlier this year, according to two sources with knowledge of the arrangement, with confirmation from internal Pakistani and American government documents. The arms sales were made for the purpose of supplying the Ukrainian military — marking Pakistani involvement in a conflict it had faced U.S. pressure to take sides on.

    The revelation is a window into the kind of behind-the-scenes maneuvering between financial and political elites that rarely is exposed to the public, even as the public pays the price. Harsh structural policy reforms demanded by the IMF as terms for its recent bailout kicked off an ongoing round of protests in the country. Major strikes have taken place throughout Pakistan in recent weeks in response to the measures.

    The protests are the latest chapter in a year-and-a-half-long political crisis roiling the country. In April 2022, the Pakistani military, with the encouragement of the U.S., helped organize a no-confidence vote to remove Prime Minister Imran Khan. Ahead of the ouster, State Department diplomats privately expressed anger to their Pakistani counterparts over what they called Pakistan’s “aggressively neutral” stance on the Ukraine war under Khan. They warned of dire consequences if Khan remained in power and promised “all would be forgiven” if he were removed.

    “Pakistani democracy may ultimately be a casualty of Ukraine’s counteroffensive.”

    Since Khan’s ouster, Pakistan has emerged as a useful supporter of the U.S. and its allies in the war, assistance that has now been repaid with an IMF loan. The emergency loan allowed the new Pakistani government to put off a looming economic catastrophe and indefinitely postpone elections — time it used to launch a nationwide crackdown on civil society and jail Khan.

    “Pakistani democracy may ultimately be a casualty of Ukraine’s counteroffensive,” Arif Rafiq, a nonresident scholar at the Middle East Institute and specialist on Pakistan, told The Intercept.

    Pakistan is known as a production hub for the types of basic munitions needed for grinding warfare. As Ukraine grappled with chronic shortages of munitions and hardware, the presence of Pakistani-produced shells and other ordinances by the Ukrainian military has surfaced in open-source news reports about the conflict, though neither the U.S. nor the Pakistanis have acknowledged the arrangement.

    Records detailing the arms transactions were leaked to The Intercept earlier this year by a source within the Pakistani military. The documents describe munitions sales agreed to between the U.S. and Pakistan from the summer of 2022 to the spring of 2023. Some of the documents were authenticated by matching the signature of an American brigadier general with his signature on publicly available mortgage records in the United States; by matching the Pakistani documents with corresponding American documents; and by reviewing publicly available but previously unreported Pakistani disclosures of arms sales to the U.S. posted by the State Bank of Pakistan.

    The weapons deals were brokered, according to the documents, by Global Military Products, a subsidiary of Global Ordnance, a controversial arms dealer whose entanglements with less-than-reputable figures in Ukraine were the subject of a recent New York Times article.

    Documents outlining the money trail and talks with U.S. officials include American and Pakistani contracts, licensing, and requisition documents related to U.S.-brokered deals to buy Pakistani military weapons for Ukraine.

    The economic capital and political goodwill from the arms sales played a key role in helping secure the bailout from the IMF, with the State Department agreeing to take the IMF into confidence regarding the undisclosed weapons deal, according to sources with knowledge of the arrangement, and confirmed by a related document.

    To win the loan, Pakistan had been told by the IMF it had to meet certain financing and refinancing targets related to its debt and foreign investment — targets that the country was struggling to meet. The weapons sales came to the rescue, with the funds garnered from the sale of munitions for Ukraine going a long way to cover the gap.

    Securing the loan eased economic pressure, enabling the military government to delay elections — a potential reckoning in the long aftermath of Khan’s removal — and deepen the crackdown against Khan’s supporters and other dissenters. The U.S. remained largely silent about the extraordinary scale of the human rights violations that pushed the future of Pakistan’s embattled democracy into doubt.

    “The premise is that we have to save Ukraine, we have to save this frontier of democracy on the eastern perimeter of Europe,” said Rafiq. “And then this brown Asian country has to pay the price. So they can be a dictatorship, their people can be denied the freedoms that every other celebrity in this country is saying we need to support Ukraine for — the ability to choose our leaders, ability to have civic freedoms, the rule of law, all these sorts of things that may differentiate many European countries and consolidated democracies from Russia.”

    KARACHI, PAKISTAN - FEBRUARY 13: President of Azad Jammu And Kashmir, Sardar Masood Khan attends the 9th International Maritime Conference with the theme "Development of Blue Economy under a Secure and Sustainable Environment - A Shared Future for Western Indian Ocean Region" organized by National Institute of Maritime Affairs (NIMA) in Karachi, Pakistan on February 13, 2021. (Photo by Muhammed Semih Ugurlu/Anadolu Agency via Getty Images)

    Masood Khan attends the 9th International Maritime Conference in Karachi, Pakistan on Feb. 13, 2021.

    Photo: Muhammed Semih Ugurlu/Anadolu Agency via Getty Images

    Bombs for Bailouts

    On May 23, 2023, according to The Intercept’s investigation, Pakistani Ambassador to the U.S. Masood Khan sat down with Assistant Secretary of State Donald Lu at the State Department in Washington, D.C., for a meeting about how Pakistani arms sales to Ukraine could shore up its financial position in the eyes of the IMF. The goal of the sit-down, held on a Tuesday, was to hash out details of the arrangement ahead of an upcoming meeting in Islamabad the following Friday between U.S. Ambassador to Pakistan Donald Blome and then-Finance Minister Ishaq Dar.

    Lu told Khan at the May 23 meeting that the U.S. had cleared payment for the Pakistani munitions production and would tell the IMF confidentially about the program. Lu acknowledged the Pakistanis believed the arms contributions to be worth $900 million, which would help to cover a remaining gap in the financing required by the IMF, pegged at roughly $2 billion. What precise figure the U.S. would relay to the IMF remained to be negotiated, he told Khan.

    At the meeting on Friday, Dar brought up the IMF question with Blome, according to a report in Pakistan Today, which said that “the meeting highlighted the significance of addressing the stalled IMF deal and finding effective solutions to Pakistan’s economic challenges.”

    A spokesperson at the Pakistani Embassy in Washington declined to comment, referring questions to the State Department. A spokesperson for the State Department denied the U.S. played any role in helping procure the loan. “Negotiations over the IMF review were a matter for discussion between Pakistan and IMF officials,” the spokesperson said. “The United States was not party to those discussions, though we continue to encourage Pakistan to engage constructively with the IMF on its reform program.”

    An IMF spokesperson denied the institution was pressured but did not comment on whether it was taken into confidence about the weapons program. “We categorically deny the allegation that there was any external pressure on the IMF in one way or another while discussing support to Pakistan,” said IMF spokesperson Randa Elnagar. (Global Ordnance, the firm involved in the arms deal, did not respond to a request for comment.)

    “My understanding, based on conversations with folks in the administration, has been that we supported the IMF loan package given the desperate economic situation in Pakistan.”

    The State Department’s denial was contradicted by Maryland Democratic Sen. Chris Van Hollen, a leading voice in Washington on foreign affairs. Earlier this month, Van Hollen told a group of Pakistani journalists, “The United States has been very instrumental in making sure that the IMF came forward with its emergency economic relief.” Van Hollen, whose parents were both stationed in Pakistan as State Department officials, was born in Karachi and is known to be the closest observer of Pakistan in Congress.

    In an interview with The Intercept at the Capitol on Tuesday, Van Hollen said that his knowledge of the U.S. role in facilitating the IMF loan came directly from the Biden administration. “My understanding, based on conversations with folks in the administration, has been that we supported the IMF loan package given the desperate economic situation in Pakistan,” he said. 

    Eleventh-Hour IMF Deal

    The diplomatic discussion about the loan came a month before a June 30 deadline for the IMF’s review of a planned billion-dollar payment, part of a $6 billion agreement made in 2019. A failed review would mean no cash infusion, but, in the months and weeks ahead of the deadline, Pakistani officials publicly denied that they faced serious challenges in financing the new loan.

    In early 2023, Dar, the finance minister, said that external financing assurance — in other words, financial commitments from places like China, the Gulf states, or the U.S. — were not a condition the IMF was insisting Pakistan meet. In March 2023, however, the IMF representative in charge of dealing with Pakistan publicly contradicted Dar’s rosy assessment. IMF’s Esther Perez Ruiz said in an email to Reuters that all borrowers need to be able to demonstrate that they can finance repayments. “Pakistan is no exception,” Perez said.

    The IMF statement sent Pakistani officials scrambling for a solution. The required financing, according to public reporting and confirmed by sources with knowledge of the arrangement, was set at $6 billion. To reach that goal, the Pakistani government claimed it had secured roughly $4 billion in commitments from Gulf countries. The secret arms deal for Ukraine would allow Pakistan to add nearly another billion dollars to its balance sheet — if the U.S. would let the IMF in on the secret.

    “It was at an impasse because of the remaining $2 billion,” said Rafiq, the Middle East Institute scholar. “So if that figure is accurate, the $900 million, that’s almost half of that. That’s pretty substantial in terms of that gap that had to be bridged.”

    On June 29, a day before the original program was set to expire, the IMF made a surprise announcement that instead of extending the previous series of loans and releasing the next $1.1 billion installment, the bank would instead be entering an agreement — “called a Stand-By Arrangement” — with fewer strings attached, more favorable terms, and valued at $3 billion.

    “Had that not happened, there would have been a full-blown economic meltdown in the country. So it was a make-or-break moment.”

    The agreement included the conditions that the currency would be allowed to float freely and energy subsidies would be withdrawn. The deal was finalized in July after Parliament approved the conditions, including a nearly 50 percent increase in the cost of energy.

    Uzair Younus, director of the Pakistan Initiative at the Atlantic Council’s South Asia Center, said that the IMF deal was critical to Pakistan’s short-term economic survival. “Had that not happened, there would have been a full-blown economic meltdown in the country,” Younus said. “So it was a make-or-break moment.”

    The question of how Pakistan overcame its financing obstacles, has remained a mystery even to those following the situation professionally. The IMF issues public accounting of its reviews, Rafiq noted, but doing so if the financing relates to secret military projects presents an unusual challenge. “Pakistan is very strange, in many ways,” he said, “but I don’t know how a secret, covert, clandestine military program would figure into their calculations, because everything’s supposed to be open and by the books and all that.”

    PESHAWAR, PAKISTAN, MAY, 09: Police fire tear gas to disperse supporters of Pakistan's former Prime Minister Imran Khan protesting against the arrest of their leader, in Peshawar, Pakistan, Tuesday, May 9, 2023. Khan was arrested and dragged from court as he appeared there to face charges in multiple graft cases, a dramatic escalation of political tensions that sparked violent demonstrations by his supporters in major cities. (Photo by Hussain Ali/Pacific Press/Sipa USA)(Sipa via AP Images)

    Police fire tear gas to disperse supporters of Pakistan’s former Prime Minister Imran Khan protesting against the arrest of their leader in Peshawar, Pakistan, on May 9, 2023.

    Photo: Hussain Ali/Pacific Press/Sipa via AP

    Imran Khan, Ukraine, and Pakistan’s Future

    At the start of the Ukraine war, Pakistan was in a markedly different geopolitical and economic position. When the conflict began, Khan, at the time the prime minister, was in the air on the way to Moscow for a long-planned bilateral meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin. The visit outraged American officials.

    As The Intercept previously reported, Lu, the senior State Department official, said in a meeting with then-Pakistani Ambassador Asad Majeed Khan two weeks after the invasion that it was the belief of the U.S. that Pakistan had taken a neutral position solely at Khan’s direction, adding that “all would be forgiven” if Khan was removed in the no-confidence vote. Since his ouster, Pakistan has firmly taken the side of the U.S. and Ukraine in the war.

    The U.S., meanwhile, continues to deny that it put its thumbs on the scale of Pakistani democracy — for Ukraine or any other reason. At an off-the-record, virtual town hall with members of the Pakistani diaspora at the end of August, Lu’s deputy, Elizabeth Horst, responded to questions about The Intercept’s reporting on Lu’s meeting with the Pakistani ambassador.

    “I want to take a moment to address disinformation about the United States’s role in Pakistani politics,” Horst said at the top of the call, audio of which was provided to The Intercept by an attendee. “We do not let propaganda, misinformation, and disinformation get in the way of any bilateral relationship, including our valued relationship with Pakistan. The United States does not have a position on one political candidate or one party versus another. Any claims to the contrary, including reports on the alleged cypher are false, and senior Pakistani officials themselves have acknowledged this isn’t true.”

    Senior Pakistani officials, including former Pakistan Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, have confirmed the authenticity of the cable, known internally as a cypher, published by The Intercept.

    Van Hollen, in his press briefing with Pakistani journalists, took the same line as the State Department, saying that he had been assured by the administration that the U.S. did not interfere in Pakistani politics. In his interview with The Intercept, he clarified that he meant the U.S. did not engineer Khan’s ouster. “I’m not disputing the accuracy of the cable,” Van Hollen said. “Look, I have no idea where the administration is on what their view is on the final result, but I do not read that [cable] to mean that the United States engineered his removal.”

    After orchestrating Khan’s removal, the military embarked on a campaign to eradicate his political party through a wave of killings and mass detentions. Khan himself is currently imprisoned on charges of mishandling a classified document and facing some 150 additional charges — allegations widely viewed as a pretext to stop him from contesting future elections.

    Horst, at the town hall, was also pressed as to why the U.S. has been so muted in response to the crackdown. She argued the U.S. had, in fact, spoken up on behalf of democracy. “Look, I know many of you feel strongly and are very concerned about the situation in Pakistan. I’ve heard from you. Trust me when I say I see you, I hear from you. And I want to be responsive,” she said. “We do continue to speak up publicly and privately for Pakistan’s democracy.”

    While Pakistan reels from the impact of IMF-directed austerity policies and the political dysfunction that followed Khan’s removal, its new military leaders have made lofty promises that foreign economic support will rescue the country. According to reports in the Pakistani publication Dawn, Army Chief Gen. Asim Munir recently told a gathering of Pakistani businessmen that the country could expect as much as $100 billion in new investment from Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states, hinting that there would be no more appeals to the IMF.

    There is little evidence, however, that the Gulf nations are willing to come to Pakistan’s rescue. Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, or MBS, recently announced major investments and economic partnerships with India during a visit there for the G20 summit. Despite reports in the Pakistani press expressing hope that MBS would pay Pakistan a visit, none materialized, let alone any major new investment announcements.

    The absence of other foreign support left Pakistan’s embattled military regime further dependent on the IMF, the U.S., and the production of munitions for the war in Ukraine to sustain itself through a crisis that shows no sign of resolution.

    The post U.S. Helped Pakistan Get IMF Bailout With Secret Arms Deal for Ukraine, Leaked Documents Reveal appeared first on The Intercept.