Wire flash
PoliticsJeffries opposes cutting off aid to Israel as Democrats split
Editorial responsibility
- No named human review is recorded for this page.
- Source reporting is collected, normalized, translated or condensed automatically when needed.
- Automatically published source-backed update
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries announced he will vote against Representative Thomas Massie's amendment to cut all U.S. aid to Israel, despite a majority of Democratic voters supporting the measure. In a letter to colleagues, Jeffries argued the amendment is overly broad, potentially limiting humanitarian aid, refugee resettlement, and counterterrorism efforts against Hamas and Hezbollah. He called for a 'new security arrangement' with Israel while opposing the full cutoff. The liberal group J Street hedged its opposition, allowing Democrats to vote 'no, present or yes' based on concerns over how U.S. weapons have been used in Gaza and elsewhere. Dozens of Democrats are expected to support the amendment. The article highlights a growing ideological gap between party leadership and the base, noting that even progressive figures like Ro Khanna and Gavin Newsom have stopped short of calling for a full embargo. Middle East analyst Omar Baddar condemned the stance as an 'inexcusable moral failure.'
Source report
Jeffries Opposes Bid to Cut Off Aid to Israel as Democrats Split
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries has announced that he will vote against Representative Thomas Massie's measure to cut off all aid to Israel—even though it's a policy that the vast majority of Democratic voters agree with.
"I will be voting no on Republican Amendment #8.… It is overly broad in that it prohibits or would limit the use of funds for longstanding initiatives related to humanitarian aid, refugee resettlement, peace-building and U.S. Embassy operations," Jeffries wrote in a letter to his Democratic colleagues Tuesday. "In addition, the so-called Massie amendment would restrict our country's ability to confront Hamas, Hezbollah and other terrorist organizations in the region who are sworn enemies of both the United States and Israel. In my view, there are more decisive ways to achieve the urgent change necessary when it comes to the far-right Netanyahu government."
In his letter, Jeffries noted that the liberal organization J Street also opposed the measure. In response, the Jewish group hedged its opposition, saying it supports Jeffries's position while also respecting that he won't whip against the measure. The group suggested that Democrats could vote "no, present or yes" to reflect their concerns about "the way American military assistance and American-supplied weapons have been used by the Israeli government in Gaza, the West Bank, Lebanon and elsewhere."
Jeffries opposed the amendment while mentioning that the U.S. and Israel need a "new security arrangement" that would "undergird the maintenance of Israel's qualitative military edge against Iran and other malign actors in the region."
Dozens of Democrats are expected to vote for the amendment, which would be attached to the spending bill.
Jeffries's letter reveals the ideological gap between party leadership and the party's base. The second-most-powerful Democrat in the country thinks that cutting off aid to Israel—which has been committing a genocide against Palestinians for nearly three years—is too extreme, and that the problem lies solely with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and not the decades of apartheid that preceded his nonconsecutive 20 years in leadership.
This isn't just coming from congressional Democrats. California Governor and 2028 presidential hopeful Gavin Newsom refused to call Israel an apartheid state and doubled down on his support for Israel in an interview with Axios on Monday. And even Democratic Representative Ro Khanna—who was just held at gunpoint by Israeli settlers on his trip to the West Bank—stopped short of calling for a full embargo against the Israeli government.
"Inexcusable moral failure by the 'opposition' party leadership," Middle East analyst Omar Baddar wrote on X. "If a genocide (sniper bullets in the heads of toddlers, systematically murdered medics & journalists, rape of prisoners … etc.) isn't a red line, then what the hell is?!"
Trump Finally Pays E. Jean Carroll
Donald Trump has finally paid E. Jean Carroll.
The columnist has received $5,625,000 from a court-controlled trust, according to court documents filed Tuesday.
Screenshot
The distribution of funds comes more than three years after Trump was found civilly liable for sexually abusing Carroll in a department store in late 1995.
"Three years ago, a unanimous nine-person jury found President Trump liable for sexually assaulting and defaming E. Jean Carroll," Carroll's attorney, Roberta Kaplan, told CBS News. "Today, we are pleased to report that she has received the damages payment the jury awarded her as a result of that verdict."
After many legal challenges, Judge Lewis Kaplan (who shares no relation to Carroll's attorney) decided last week that Carroll should receive the money, despite yet another pending appeal from Trump.
Editor's Pick: Trump's Forever War Is Finally Here
Source
The New RepublicWestern
Part of this Story
House Democrats Split on Massie Amendment to Cut Israel Aid