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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Related

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

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

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

Americans’ Loved Ones

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

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

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

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

Related

Judge Finds Rubio and Noem Intentionally Targeted Pro-Palestine Activists to Chill Speech

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

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

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

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

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

“Straight Up Unfair”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Related

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Related

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Related

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Related

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Related

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Related

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Related

Trump’s Formula for Forever Wars

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

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

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

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

William Lawrence is running a very different campaign.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Related

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

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

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

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

Mutual Endorsements

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

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

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

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

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

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

Related

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Related

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Botched Las Vegas Arrest

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Related

How Does TrackAIPAC Actually Track AIPAC?

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

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

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

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

Related

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

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

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

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

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

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

A crushing wave of attacks in Bahrain, Iraq, Jordan, and Kuwait left U.S. forces in “disarray,” causing significant damage to facilities, dozens of injuries, and the first troops killed in action since a June ceasefire collapsed, according to a U.S. official. Three Army soldiers were killed in “devastating” ballistic missile attacks on Muwaffaq Salti Air Base in Jordan, said the official whom The Intercept is not naming because they are not authorized to speak publicly.

Pvt. Isabella Gonzales, 19, of Carrollton, Texas, was killed in action on Friday. Lt. Tyler James Feehan, 25, of Ewa Beach, Hawaii, was killed on Saturday. The third soldier is provisionally listed as missing, but the official said that “unidentified remains” found after the attack were “certainly” those of the missing soldier. A second official confirmed this assessment. At least four and as many as 10 troops were also injured in the attacks in Jordan, according to the first official.

In northern Iraq, a U.S. service member was killed and another wounded on Saturday when ordnance from a downed Iranian drone exploded. CENTCOM claimed that the injuries occurred during a “controlled detonation” of the downed aircraft. 

The surge in deaths and injuries raise the official U.S. casualty count to at least 446. U.S. casualties have increased by more than 15 percent since the first ceasefire between the U.S. and Iran was struck on April 8. The first official told The Intercept that recent attacks had wounded “far more” personnel than are reflected in the Pentagon’s current casualty count. They did not provide numbers but said “dozens” had received medical attention.

Neither CENTCOM nor the Pentagon replied to numerous requests by The Intercept for information on the casualties, nor would either address the effort to cover up U.S. losses.

Reporting by The Intercept previously found that the Pentagon’s official tally of dead and wounded personnel is a gross undercount, stemming from what one U.S. government official called a “casualty cover-up.” The Defense Casualty Analysis System, or DCAS, which tracks “deceased, wounded, ill or injured” service members for Congress and the president, is missing hundreds of dead and wounded personnel. The official tally was also previously adjusted downward by 15 casualties without explanation. For months, the Pentagon has ignored requests by The Intercept for comment or clarification.

On Monday, the New York Times reported that the Pentagon withheld information on “dozens of U.S. military injuries in Iran War.” Pentagon spokesperson Sean Parnell called the article “baseless and malicious.”

Related

Israel Asked Facebook to Censor Iran War Content, Internal Documents Show

U.S. bases across the Middle East suffered “significant” damage over the last week, according to the official speaking on the condition of anonymity. That source said Iran had learned how to defeat U.S. air defense systems by overwhelming them using a mix of ballistic missiles and attack drones. They said multiple U.S. aircraft had also been damaged in the attacks. Videos circulating on social media showed the impact and aftermath of Friday’s missile strikes on Muwaffaq Salti Air Base.

“They’ve got some missiles. They’ve got some drones,” Trump said on Sunday of an Iranian military he has insisted, for months, had been annihilated. “We hit them very hard, again, tonight and we did that in honor of the probably three, probably three as opposed to two, great patriots.” 

U.S. Central Command announced later on Sunday night that it had “successfully completed the ninth consecutive evening of strikes,” claiming that the “U.S. military is holding Iran accountable at the Commander in Chief’s direction.”

The office of self-styled War Secretary Pete Hegseth attempted to keep information about the new casualties under wraps. “We have nothing to provide beyond what is listed on the website,” a representative of Hegseth’s office told The Intercept late Friday night, without specifying which website, when questioned about U.S. casualties. Hours later, U.S. Central Command acknowledged “two U.S. service members in Jordan were killed in action” on Friday amid “Iranian ballistic missile and drone attacks.” The command also disclosed that four other troops “were medically evacuated to Jordanian hospitals,” an unspecified number of other troops were evaluated for injuries, and “one service member is currently missing in action.” CENTCOM later stripped “in action” from the announcement of the missing soldier but would not explain the reason to The Intercept.

“Godspeed, heroes,” Hegseth wrote on X. “Their sacrifice only stiffens our resolve.”

Related

Trump’s Holy War Abroad and at Home

The spike in U.S. casualties over the last week followed the Pentagon quietly adding another fatality to its rolls earlier Monday. After Iran claimed to have killed three U.S. personnel in Kuwait last weekend, U.S. Central Command said last Sunday that there were “zero reports of U.S. service member deaths or injuries in the region.” But last Monday, the Pentagon’s official toll of injuries and deaths in the war quietly climbed upward.

After ignoring numerous requests for clarification, an official from Office of the Assistant to the Secretary of War for Public Affairs intimated the fatality added last week was Cmdr. Gabriel Edwards, the commanding officer of Helicopter Sea Combat Squadron (HSC) 5 who went missing almost two weeks prior, following his “helicopter’s emergency landing in the Arabian Sea.” But that official refused to confirm it.

Historically, there was little lag between a casualty occurring in the field and its inclusion in the DCAS system, according to two people who used to work on the official casualty tally.

Asked why it took a week after the search for Edwards ended to add him to the casualty rolls, the second official said a blend of incompetence and deliberate slow-walking of casualty data has slowed down the process of updating publicly available statistics. 

For months, the Pentagon list of the names of the dead has also been missing Maj. Sorffly Davius, a signals and communication officer with the New York Army National Guard who was assigned to the headquarters of the 42nd Infantry Division and reportedly died of sudden illness while on duty in Camp Buehring, Kuwait, on March 6. Davius’s death was widely acknowledged even as it was excluded from the official count: Rep. Mike Lawler, R-N.Y., spoke about him during a memorial service that month, and Gen. Dan Caine, chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, recognized Davius while “honoring our fallen.”

Counting Davius and the “missing” soldier in Jordan, the U.S. has suffered 19 deaths during the Iran war. Parnell said on Monday that “casualty information is publicly available and regularly updated online on the Defense Casualty Analysis System for everyone, including the media, to review.” DCAS was, uncharacteristically, not updated as of Monday afternoon and instead offered outdated figures posted Friday morning.

While DCAS provides a running tally of “non-hostile” deaths — meaning those who died from accidents or by illness — it doesn’t include “non-hostile” injuries. The DCAS figures show that 68 Navy personnel have been wounded in action. Missing, however, are the more than 200 sailors treated for smoke inhalation or lacerations due to a March 12 fire that raged aboard the USS Gerald R. Ford. The aircraft carrier had been conducting round-the-clock flight operations to, in Caine’s words, “project combat power” in the Middle East.

The casualty numbers also don’t include a sailor who suffered a non-combat-related injury aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln as it was involved in “strike missions in support of Operation Epic Fury” on March 25.

On April 21, the number of wounded-in-action troops declined by 15 without public comment from the War Department. Despite repeated questions over three months, the Pentagon has not explained the disparity in its casualty count.

The Trump administration began undermining transparency surrounding U.S. military casualties almost a decade ago. Not long after Trump first took office in 2017, and following an uptick of violence in the conflict, the Pentagon stopped releasing immediate information about American combat deaths in Afghanistan.

After an Iranian missile attack on Al-Asad Air Base in Iraq on January 8, 2020, Trump peddled a complete fiction to the public. “No Americans were harmed in last night’s attack by the Iranian regime,” he said at the time. CENTCOM ultimately admitted that 110 troops suffered traumatic brain injuries. An inspector general report indicated that the number of wounded may have been even higher, because “DoD cannot determine whether all Service members are being properly diagnosed and treated for TBIs in deployed settings.”

On the campaign trail in 2022, Trump claimed that for a year and a half of his first presidency, the U.S. suffered no deaths in the Afghan war. “In 18 months in Afghanistan, we lost nobody,” he said. But an Associated Press investigation found that there was no year-and-half span during Trump’s first term when there were no combat deaths.

Last spring, The Intercept reported on an effort by CENTCOM, the Pentagon, and the White House to keep casualties of the U.S. war against Yemen’s Houthis under wraps. It represented a departure from the Biden administration, when the Office of the Secretary of Defense and CENTCOM provided detailed data on attacks on military bases across the Middle East — including to this reporter. CENTCOM had provided the total number of strikes, breakdowns by country, and the total number injured, and even individual synopses of more than 150 attacks.

The post U.S. Official: Iran Attacks Injured “Far More” Troops Than Pentagon Admits appeared first on The Intercept.

Google then purges these reviews and blocks the ability to write new ones, according to newly published research.

“Google actively suppresses carceral information, narratives, and digital trace data related to the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) detention facilities,” wrote Muira McCammon, a professor at Tulane University’s Department of Communication who has been scraping and analyzing self-reported accounts of ICE imprisonment posted to Google Maps since last year.

Much of this record is now permanently deleted, erasing detailed testimony of people ingested by the U.S. deportation machine.

Last August, McCammon aggregated 1,636 posts from 26 different ICE facilities where Google still allowed users to post reviews and discovered there were 91 other immigration jails on Google Maps with no reviews.

“Google had already turned off reviews for the remaining 91 facilities,” McCammon told The Intercept. “Almost all of the Google reviews that I originally collected in 2025 are now no longer available.”

Only four ICE facilities appear to still permit reviews on Google Maps, she said.

Pulling the reviews has come with no public notice or explanation.

In 2023, Google said in a corporate blog post that it reserved the right to delete Maps reviews for locations that are “consistently unhelpful, harmful, or off-topic. This includes places that people go to without choice or places only accessible to people stationed or assigned there—such as police stations and prisons.”

Unhelpful to whom, however, is unclear: While some of the reviews in question were statements of protest that could have been left by anyone, many appeared to come from people directly affected by ICE. They described a variety of issues that would be of great material interest to anyone detained in the facilities or for people close to them.

“Reviews help people make decisions on where to go,” Google spokesperson Genevieve Park said in a statement, “and we don’t show reviews on several categories of places where people go without choice,” citing the company’s policy of removing Google Maps reviews that are “unhelpful, harmful, or off-topic.”

In the past, Google has complied with requests to censor speech about ICE. In 2025, the company blocked Android users from downloading ICEBlock, an app that alerted people to crowdsourced sightings of ICE agents.

Related

Google Fulfilled ICE Subpoena Demanding Student Journalist’s Bank and Credit Card Numbers

Asked if the Department of Homeland Security, ICE’s parent agency, had communicated with Google about the reviews, Park said the takedowns were “unrelated—it was about enforcing our policy that prohibits reviews for places that people go to without choice.”

In a statement to The Intercept, a spokesperson for DHS denied that ICE requested any reviews of detention facilities be removed.

“Being in detention is a choice,” the Homeland Security spokesperson said, citing the department’s program to encourage an app-based system for self-deportation.

Many of the reviews McCammon aggregated were from despairing friends and relatives.

“My friend’s dad was sentenced to one month in jail,” read one review. “He served the time and then was moved to this facility for another 3 months. How is it not illegal to hold someone 3x longer than what they were sentenced to serve?”

A Spanish language review McCammon collected read, “You can barely hear the detainee when you make a phone call.”

Other posts reflect what apparent former detainees described as poor conditions, such as “The place is infested with roaches crawling all over the inmates body there,” or “Very bad experience i spent 2 months in this hell . . . 99% of staff is cruel and racist.”

One reviewer said many detainees weren’t able to communicate with ICE staff because of the language barrier:

I stayed there for more than a month. The food there was okay, but very unpalatable. They were all very kind. Due to the language barrier, there was a big barrier to communication. I felt that most people couldn’t express their thoughts and needs. Why didn’t they have a translator? ! Even if it’s not expensive. The air conditioner there was very cold, and many people, including me, caught cold from the cold. Even so, they were unwilling to turn up the air conditioner temperature. When I slept at night, I only had a thin blanket to cover myself, and it felt very cold.

Although Google’s stance appears to be that the censorship is based on a common-sense, consumer-centric view of Google Maps’ purpose, McCammon argues in her paper that these are essentially political decisions, made by “suppressing the circulation of carceral information and counter-narratives [and] calling into question how the company approaches the ideology of search, when it concerns the reputation of the U.S. administrative state.”

The post Google Is Censoring Reviews of ICE Detention Centers appeared first on The Intercept.

The War Department’s Civilian Protection Center of Excellence has reduced its staff from 40 personnel in January 2025 to just nine by the end of the year, according to the report. Two current defense officials confirmed that staffing levels remain the same today. Current and former government officials say the massive cuts have left the Pentagon unable to protect civilians.

The tiny contingent that remains at the Civilian Protection Center of Excellence, the officials said, are also prevented from investigating major civilian casualty incidents like the U.S. attack on the Shajarah Tayyebeh elementary school in Minab, Iran, in February that killed more than 150 people, most of them children.

Wes Bryant, who served as the Center’s chief of civilian harm assessments, was one of the more than 30 people pushed out last year by the War Department. He told The Intercept that the Center was being kept on life support to provide cover for the Pentagon.

“The Hegseth regime held on to a thread of the program mostly in effort to be able to say they are following the law, but the reality is the Center and its efforts have had little to no influence on or oversight or visibility on operations,” Bryant said. “As long as they sit in the seat, they are continuing to try to put out good work, but the reality is, most of it is being thrown into the wind, and neither institutionalized nor operationalized.”

Before civilian harm mitigation and response (CMHR) efforts were sidelined and the staff downsized last year, the Center completed basic civilian harm mitigation training for 212 personnel from military combatant commands like Central Command and Africa Command, the intelligence community, the State Department, and other agencies, according to the report.

Established in 2023, the Civilian Protection Center of Excellence was just “hitting its stride” in late 2024, a defense official told The Intercept. When the center was staffed by 40 civilians, troops, and contractors at the beginning of last year, it was on track “to achieve Full Operational Capability” by the end of 2025, according to the report. That never came to fruition, as the Center saw its staff slashed to seven civilians and two members of the military. 

“The COE was cut down shortly after becoming fully operational,” Madison Hunke, the U.S. program manager at Center for Civilians in Conflict, told The Intercept. “They had minimal time to show value, but they were still able to inject critical CHMR expertise to all corners of the U.S. military, even as their staff dwindled down to a handful of people.”

The report also details financial constraints that have crippled the entire civilian harm mitigation and response enterprise across the War Department. “DoW-wide budgets for CHMR in FY26 were cut,” reads the report which notes that staff and programs across the entire Department of War — including at combatant commands like AFRICOM and CENTCOM — “were gradually reorganized, reduced, and/or terminated by the end of FY25.”

The 10-person civilian harm mitigation team at CENTCOM, for example, has been reduced to just one individual, according to Adm. Brad Cooper, the command’s chief. Reporting by The Intercept also found U.S. Southern Command was unable to cope with the volume of civilian casualty reports after the U.S. attacked Venezuela in January. When the U.K.-based watchdog group Airwars attempted to submit documentation of civilian casualties to SOUTHCOM, they learned the command had no mechanism for dealing with such reports. After reaching out to the Pentagon, Airwars was told to submit documentation to the Civilian Protection Center of Excellence.

Related

OpenAI on Surveillance and Autonomous Killings: You’re Going to Have to Trust Us

While the Pentagon slashed the center’s staff, the military has made greater efforts to utilize artificial intelligence for targeting and civilian harm mitigation, according to the report. It specifically references the Maven Smart System, a product of the defense firm Palantir that serves as the War Department’s signature AI-enabled software platform. The Center of Excellence “leveraged the rapid adoption of the AI-enabled Maven Smart System (MSS)” within the military to advance the development of a tool to give field commands a more complete picture of the civilian environment, the report notes. A current defense official said it provided a “better layer of protection” for civilians in war zones. 

The report also details the Center’s development of “an AI Assistant prototype that helps military staff rapidly analyze civilian environment data during operations by equipping AskSage, the Army’s enterprise AI platform,” with the CHMR data. During an Army training exercise, the AI assistant reportedly shortened the timeline to produce civilian assessments by 97 percent. Several additional Army units have requested access to the assistant, according to the report.

The report also references a database used for tracking civilian harm that the Pentagon abandoned last year. It notes that “progress on the development of a standardized CHMR data management process and a repository of civilian harm information stalled due to the cessation of the CHMR Data Management Platform (DMP) project during Department-wide realignment of priorities and resources.”

Without a database like the DMP, the Pentagon is unable to effectively track civilian harm. In May, Cooper, the CENTCOM commander, said the U.S. had no means to corroborate reports of strikes on hospitals and schools and was aware of just “one active civilian casualty investigation from the 13,629 munitions.” Months later, CENTCOM still has no additional information about civilian harm, telling The Intercept: “We have no new updates at this time pertaining to current investigations or munitions that were expended during Operation Epic Fury.” Airwars, by contrast, has chronicled hundreds of civilian casualty incidents in Iran since the start of the conflict.

As the Pentagon has starved the CHMR enterprise, the U.S. has killed and wounded thousands of civilians across the world, from Latin America to Africa to the Middle East. The World Health organization put the death toll in Iran at 3,375 people — before the ceasefire fell apart this month. The U.S. military has also conducted more than 220 extrajudicial killings during a campaign of boat strikes targeting civilians in the Caribbean Sea and Pacific Ocean.

Airwars also tracked reports of at least 224 civilians in Yemen killed during the Trump administration’s campaign of air and naval strikes — codenamed Operation Rough Rider — against Yemen’s Houthi government in the spring of 2025. This nearly doubled the civilian casualty toll in Yemen from U.S. attacks since 2002, meaning that the U.S. reportedly killed as many civilians in 52 days as in the previous 23 years of airstrikes and commando raids.

The Center of Excellence conducted a “qualitative lessons learned study” on Rough Rider, examining “how the operational environment shaped civilian harm mitigation and assessment to identify lessons for scenarios lacking air and information dominance.” The classified study, according to the report, is supposed to help commanders “safeguard civilians while maintaining operational effectiveness in contested environments.” But Bryant said the COE’s input to the study was “nominal,” and a current defense official said the Center was “boxed out” when it attempted to examine strikes during Rough Rider.

Hegseth’s office did not return a request for comment on the findings of the study.

For months, the Pentagon has failed to reply to requests to interview experts about civilian harm policies at the Civilian Protection Center of Excellence, the Office of the Under Secretary of War for Policy, or the Office of the Secretary of War.

Related

Top Pentagon Official Admits Boat Strike May Have Killed Victims of Human Trafficking

The “Annual Report on the Civilian Protection Center of Excellence for Fiscal Year 2025” is dated April 4, 2026, and states it will be made “publicly available on an appropriate website of the Department” but has yet to be posted online. On Friday, Hegseth’s office told The Intercept: “We anticipate release of the 2025 CPCoE report in the summer of 2026.”

In a letter sent earlier this month, a group of Democratic lawmakers told Hegseth that his “gutting civilian harm mitigation and response (CHMR) efforts” has left the Pentagon unable to “comply with the law and its congressionally-mandated CHMR responsibilities.” They added, “The Trump administration — potentially in violation of federal law — has defunded and impeded civilian protection efforts.”

The letter, sent by Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., and nine other lawmakers, echoed concerns raised by a recent War Department inspector general report that described civilian protection efforts as largely “inactive.” That May report by the Pentagon’s top watchdog says cuts to civilian harm mitigation and response efforts have been so severe under Hegseth that the United States cannot adequately protect civilians in conflict zones or track harm when it occurs. 

Hunke said the war with Iran demonstrates the need for a fully-funded and staffed COE. “Given adequate resources, the Center has so much potential to transform how the military thinks about and implements civilian protection,” she said. “This is needed now more than ever as the U.S. engages in ongoing and harmful operations in Iran.” A defense official was less sanguine, stating that Hegseth’s underlings would have sidelined even the efforts of a fully staffed and funded COE.

“This was never meant to succeed — whatever that means,” the official said. But that official and Bryant also praised the remaining COE staff and were strenuous in their support for their work.

Bryant, who was forced out of his job after blowing the whistle on the Pentagon’s dismantling of its CHMR enterprise, decried the department’s “tyrannical and imperialistic uses of lethal military force internationally.” He told The Intercept that the remaining personnel at the Center of Excellence are “supposed to shut up, keep their heads down, and pretend that the civilian harm mitigation and response mission isn’t simply a shell for legal CYA,” using shorthand for “cover your ass.” Asked to assess Bryant’s comments, a current defense official replied: “Yup. No notes.”

The Intercept has previously reported on Hegseth’s gutting of civilian harm mitigation and response efforts. Last spring, five current and former Defense Department officials described Pentagon efforts to eliminate or downsize offices, programs, and positions focused on preventing civilian casualties. One of the then-current officials said that it could result in “wanton killing and wholesale destruction and disregard for law.” His warnings were prescient.

The post Hegseth’s War Department Slashed Civilian Protection Staff, Brought in AI Assessments appeared first on The Intercept.

There is a tangible heat to being Black in America this summer. 

Every morning starts the same. A jolt of coffee and nicotine as my thumbs scroll a daily intake of Black death and indignity. 

It mostly comes dosed in tears. Tears of Black moms and aunties, projected behind stone-faced fathers and grandpops trying to hold it together behind press podiums. 

This summer, it was Nolan Wells, an 18-year-old who disappeared during a trip to Mississippi’s Horn Island over the Fourth of July. Wells, who traveled to the island with a predominately white group of friends, was found dead in the water two days later. Authorities have not announced a final determination of what happened, but Wells’s family has challenged the official timeline and sought an independent autopsy. The investigation remains ongoing, which is to say that another Black family is waiting for answers in the indeterminate dark. In a state synonymous with deep-seated anti-Black racism, and the highest number of recorded lynchings, speculators and community members have begun to fear the worst.

It’s an expectation that has set the tone for living while Black in this new era. Where at any moment you, as Black person, can be erased for the most negligible of offenses, and if you’re not careful, be discarded into the void.

Before Nolan Wells, we watched in June as another Mississippi family laid their Black boy to rest. Kohen Wiley, who was just a year old, was shot and killed by Senatobia police officers, who fired into the vehicle where Wiley was sitting on his mother’s lap. After a friend of Wiley’s mother was accused of shoplifting a box of diapers at a Walmart, police opened fire on their car under the pretense that the vehicle was “oncoming” toward the officers. Civil rights attorney Ben Crump has said the officers were not in the car’s path, citing a photo from the scene. A month later, investigators have yet to release body camera footage of the incident or provide any new answers. No charges have been filed.

Black Americans had already borne witness to those familiar echoes. Earlier that month, a jury in South Carolina acquitted 61-year-old Rick Chow of a murder charge after he shot and killed Cyrus Carmack-Belton, 14, for the alleged offense of stealing bottled water. Video evidence of the 2023 incident shows the store owner chasing Carmack-Belton out of the shop after falsely accusing him of theft. Chow, who had twice before shot patrons he suspected of shoplifting, would go on to shoot the teenager in the back as he fled. 

Whether over a box of Pampers or a gulp of water, it is a startling reminder that for too many non-Black Americans, protecting even the most trivial property can take precedence over the sanctity of a Black life.

It’s an existential dread that has now turned into expectation, an anxiety meant for the mind to blunt the inevitable oncoming pattern of pain, disappointment, and injustice — in this case, being Black in America.

These deaths do not exist in isolation. They arrive amid a broader retreat from the institutions that, however imperfectly, once acknowledged Black Americans as a constituency deserving of protection and investment.

And the casualties of Black existence transcend more than just bodies. The Trump administration has waged full spectrum warfare on Black identity in every sense. 

Since Trump returned to office, Black workers have experienced rising unemployment, with Black men seeing some of the steepest job losses in recent memory, according to an analysis by the Economic Policy Institute.

Related

Trump Admin Wants to Make It Easier for White Men to Sue for Discrimination

This coincides with broader efforts by the Trump administration to dismantle federal diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives, directing agencies to terminate DEI programs and contracts while encouraging similar rollbacks throughout the private sector. The administration has also sought to reshape how race is discussed across the federal government, from education and museums to civil rights enforcement. 

At the same time, the administration has continued to chip away at the legal architecture of voting rights, with years of court decisions making it more difficult to challenge racial gerrymandering and voting restrictions. The Supreme Court’s recent decision dismantling key Voting Rights Act protections has opened the door for states to erase Black-majority districts, which threatens to strip Black communities of congressional representation across the South. 

If there was anything novel to the current pulse of American white supremacy, it is that it doesn’t seek domination but to erase Blackness altogether.

Trump’s supporters have come out in droves to support this mission, from swarms of masked white supremacists descending on the U.S. Capitol in honor of our nation’s 250th birthday to the endless viral videos of white men brandishing guns at Black people doing anything from swimming at the pool to handing out flyers. 

It is no surprise that, under the constant reminder that the market value of Black life has plummeted, many Black Americans are succumbing to despair. Suicide rates among Black Americans — especially young Black men — have risen sharply over the past decade. Researchers point to a convergence of untreated depression, limited access to mental health care, economic instability, exposure to violence, and the cumulative weight of racialized stress.

Related

Rebecca Nagle on the Boomerang of Empire 

None of those policies alone determine whether a police officer fires a gun, whether a jury reaches a particular verdict, or what pushes a broken down mind over the brink. But together they communicate something many Black Americans increasingly recognize: that America has further turned tail and ran away from its promise of an egalitarian society, or even the aspiration that it should be one. 

That departure has consequences well beyond Washington. It shapes who receives the public’s attention, which communities are viewed as worthy of investment, and whose fears are treated as matters of national concern. 

For Black Americans watching another summer marked by funerals, investigations, and courtroom disappointments, the sentiment is not simply that violence persists. It is that the country is becoming less interested in confronting why it persists at all. 

That is the understanding of it. But the feeling is something entirely different.

And that feeling is scary as hell.

The post It’s Scary As Hell Being Black in America Right Now appeared first on The Intercept.

Trump Adds to America’s Lethal Legacy of Treachery

Who can even remember it now? That giddy moment less than five months ago when President Donald Trump called on the Iranian people to rise up and take on the ruling regime. “When we are finished, take over your government. It will be yours to take. America is backing you with overwhelming strength,” Trump promised on February 28. “This is the moment for action. Do not let it pass.”

Like a million Trump pledges before it, it was part bluster, part bullshit. Last week, Trump admitted as much, stating he knew the Iranian opposition had no chance against the ruling regime. “Nobody is gonna take over. They have no guns, and the other side has machine guns,” he said at the NATO summit in Ankara, Turkey. “They can’t take over because they’re dead.” This was not, however, just a routine Trumpian lie; it was also part of a grand American tradition.

They say baseball is America’s national pastime, but you could make a solid case that it’s actually betrayal. Washington loves nothing more than to sell out its friends, betray its partners, leave its allies in a lurch, and call people into the streets and then abandon them to slaughter.

Related

Ahmadinejad Is Still Bad for Iranians — and Still Great for Israel

In an interview with the Washington Post on the Iran war’s first day, Trump said that “freedom for the people” of Iran was the goal of the conflict. It never was. But what would be lost in luring Iranian activists into the streets — aside from Iranian lives?

This type of lethal double-cross has been America’s stock-in-trade since its infancy — and has continued across the globe no matter the conflict, era, or president.

During the American Revolution, most Native peoples viewed America’s colonial rebels with skepticism and attempted to remain neutral or sided with the British. But some placed a bet on the revolutionaries, assuming that they would be rewarded with fair, if not preferential, treatment in the event of a win by the colonies. They were, in the end, wrong to assume their allies would act honorably.

The Oneida, for example, split from most of the Haudenosaunee Confederacy — the Mohawk, the Onondaga, and others — who allied with the British. “There would have probably been a lot more death for the Continental Army,” according to Heather Bruegl, a public historian and citizen of the Oneida Nation of Wisconsin who noted that the Oneida altered the tide of the war by breaking the famine at Valley Forge.

Even the Pentagon lauds the Oneida Nation, noting its “support for American independence saw the Continental Army through its lowest point in the Revolutionary War” but admitted that while Congress offered thanks, “that gratitude did not always translate into equitable treatment.” This is nothing but a mealy-mouthed reference to the fact that at the end of the Revolutionary War, the Oneida Homelands were estimated at between five to six million acres of land but were reduced to just 32 acres by the early 1900s.

Related

Rebecca Nagle on the Boomerang of Empire 

The Lenape people also threw in with the American rebels, signing a treaty that pledged their backing to the nascent United States in exchange for protection and the creation of a 14th state, governed by Native Americans. The agreement fell apart within weeks. As the official State Department history puts it:

First, the Lenape leader White Eyes died. While American officials insisted White Eyes died from smallpox as the cause, evidence indicated members of the [colonial] militia murdered him, and the circumstances remain unclear to this day. This act showed the Lenape that the Americans did not value nor honor the importance of kinship alliances.

Despite a failure by the Americans to protect Lenape lands, some Lenape warriors nonetheless assisted the Continental Army and a delegation went to the Continental Congress to attempt to repair the pact. But the Americans made no effort to salvage the agreement and said the Lenape had broken the treaty. Worse still, in 1782, Pennsylvania militia massacred a neutral, pacifist Christian Lenape community in Gnadenhutten, bludgeoning 96 unarmed people to death. Thirty-nine of those killed, many with a hammer to the back of the head as they prayed for mercy, were children.

Deception and Disloyalty

Still, it wasn’t until the 20th century that America hit its stride, selling out allies at an unbelievable clip. Approximately 250,000 Filipinos joined the U.S. military, for example, and fought for America during World War II. Washington promised them the same health and pension benefits as their American counterparts, a pledge that was even reaffirmed at the close of the war. But then Congress passed and President Harry Truman signed the Rescission Act of 1946 that said that the service of Filipinos “shall not be deemed to be or to have been service in the military or national forces of the United States or any component thereof or any law of the United States conferring rights, privileges or benefits.”

Also during World War II, the U.S. Office of Strategic Services, a forerunner of the CIA, armed, trained, and supported a guerrilla force in French colonial Vietnam fighting the Japanese and their French quislings. In 1945, with the Japanese defeated, the top local OSS agent — the charismatic Ho Chi Minh — proclaimed Vietnam’s independence, using the words of the U.S. Declaration of Independence as his template. “All men are created equal,” he told a crowd of half a million Vietnamese in Hanoi. “The Creator has given us certain inviolable rights: the right to life, the right to be free, and the right to achieve happiness.”

Related

The Vietnam War Is Still Killing People, 50 Years Later

Ho thought his allies would back him. He was wrong. They instead turned on Ho and his comrades, funded the French reconquest of Vietnam, and spent the better part of the next three decades propping up an ever more corrupt and repressive rump state in South Vietnam while advising, arming, training, and funding an allied South Vietnamese military, and fought a long, destructive war against revolutionaries in the South and Ho’s North Vietnam that left millions dead, wounded, or displaced.

Eager to turn the conflict over to the Potemkin state they fostered and extricate the U.S., President Richard Nixon pledged to re-enter the war with the “full force” of American power, to induce the despotic South Vietnamese government to sign a 1973 peace agreement with the North. Two years later, the U.S. ignored this guarantee and abandoned South Vietnam and millions of allies, collaborators, and hangers-on.

No single moment sums up this betrayal better than an incident recounted by Stuart Herrington, a counterintelligence officer who spent 30 years in the Army. Herrington made a vow to hundreds of Vietnamese who crowded onto U.S. Embassy grounds in Saigon on the final day of the U.S. evacuation in 1975. “Nobody is going to be left behind,” he assured them. One of the 420 Vietnamese who was there remembered his words: “I promise me and my soldiers will be the last ones to leave the embassy.” Herrington promised them that a large helicopter was coming to rescue them and then excused himself to go “take a leak.” Scurrying off into the shadows, Harrington slipped into the embassy building and onto a helicopter, abandoning those to whom he’d just given his word.

A U.S.-backed military regime in neighboring Cambodia also crumbled in 1975 and was abandoned to face the genocide of the Khmer Rouge. A proxy army in neighboring Laos was similarly discarded in the 1970s. Decades later, surviving troops and their families were still in hiding and on the run. “We want America to give us a place to live,” Va Chang, a then-60-year-old veteran found in the jungle in the mid-2000s told a reporter. “If the Americans don’t want to do that, they should drop a big bomb on us and end our misery.”

Prior to a 1956 uprising, the CIA air-dropped leaflets into Hungary with messages like “The regime is weaker than you think.” János Rainer, director of Hungary’s 1956 Institute Foundation, said, “Hungarians clearly got the impression that, in the event of a rebellion, the U.S. would support them effectively.” But the U.S. stood aside as the Soviet Union crushed the uprising, killing and wounding almost 20,000, imprisoning 13,000, and executing 229 others following trials, according to one count. The writer Tamás Aczél, who fled to the U.S. in 1956, wrote that Hungarians had been naive to put their faith in U.S. calls for “liberation” in Eastern Europe, writing: “[W]e learned what we didn’t know — that the West had written off these countries and only their propaganda machines pretended otherwise.”

In an even more egregious exercise, the CIA trained and armed Cuban exiles, landing them at the Bay of Pigs in 1961. The counterrevolutionaries were promised ample air cover — “the sky will be yours” — and led to believe they would be supported by 15,000 American troops. But the invasion of Cuba went south quickly, President John F. Kennedy canceled a second round of airstrikes, and the exiles ran out of ammunition, were pushed back into the sea, and were abandoned. Grayston Lynch, a CIA operative who participated in the landing, recounted that he called two American destroyers on the scene for help but was told by the captain of one: “My orders are not to become involved.”

While the U.S. has betrayed people the world over, one group stands preeminent in the sheer amount of American treachery. “Nothing in this world is certain except death, taxes, and America betraying the Kurds,” wrote Jon Schwarz for The Intercept in October 2019, recounting eight instances from the 1920s to that very moment when the U.S. used independence-seeking Kurdish peoples to further American aims and then cut them loose.

One of the most craven of these instances was a Nixon-era plot with then U.S.-allied Iran to use the Kurds to bleed the then-Soviet-aligned Iraqis.

Once the Kurds outlived their usefulness, however, U.S. aid was then cut and the Iraqi military killed thousands as the Kurds begged for help. As a congressional report later admitted, “Even in the context of covert action ours was a cynical enterprise.” But Secretary of State Henry Kissinger shrugged at the slaughter, explaining “covert action should not be confused with missionary work.”

As the U.S. bombed Iraq during the Gulf War in 1991, President George H.W. Bush called on “the Iraqi military and Iraqi people to take matters into their own hands, to force Saddam Hussein, the dictator, to step aside.” Both Shias in southern Iraq and Kurds in northern Iraq answered the call, expecting U.S. military support. It never came, Hussein stayed in power, and some 20,000 Kurds and up to 60,000 Shias who rose up were slaughtered by the Iraqi military.

More than a decade later, another failed U.S. war in the Middle East fostered the rise of the Islamic State group and the creation of a brutal caliphate across a wide swath of Iraq and Syria. Between 2014 and 2017, Kurdish-led forces dismantled this quasi-state for the U.S. But after 93 percent of Iraqi Kurds voted for independence in 2017, America was nowhere to be found. Within weeks, Iraqi federal troops and Iranian-backed Hashd al-Shaabi militias launched a coordinated offensive. The Kurds lost the city of Kirkuk, the Nineveh Plains, and roughly 40 percent of the territory their fighters had held. Washington offered no military response and no assistance — not even a diplomatic protest to the government in Baghdad. Then in 2019, President Donald Trump withdrew U.S. troops from northeastern Syria, opening the door for a Turkish invasion of the very land the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces had taken from ISIS at the cost of more than 20,000 lives.

Hundreds of thousands of locals also served alongside U.S. troops, diplomats, intelligence officers, and contractors during the failed Afghan War. Despite 20 years of Americans mouthing the phrase “shohna ba shohna” (“shoulder to shoulder” in Dari), it meant very little. In the chaotic 2021 U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan, most Afghans who fought on the side of the U.S. and its coalition partners were left behind as the Taliban retook the country.

But even those who made it out have been abandoned. In April, the Trump administration floated plans to send Afghan allies stranded at Camp As Sayliyah in Qatar to the Democratic Republic of Congo. While that plan was reportedly shelved, rumblings of casting them to the winds elsewhere remain. And in May, the Department of Homeland Security formally ended Temporary Protected Status for roughly 10,000 Afghans who fled after the Taliban’s return to power.

“We made a promise to those who helped America in our time of need, and it’s wrong to turn our backs on them,” Rep. Jason Crow, D-Colo., a member of the House Armed Services Committee and a combat veteran who fought in Afghanistan, said last month, noting that they will likely face torture, persecution, and even death if they are returned to Afghanistan.

Won’t Get Fooled Again?

The principal proverb of personal responsibility has been kicking around since at least the 1600s: “Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.” But what happens if the “you” — in this case the United States — is always the same, and the “me” is always someone or somewhere different?

Related

Trump’s Formula for Forever Wars

The viceroys, envoys, and foot soldiers of American empire talk a good game. And the carrots offered and sticks wielded by the superpower are immense. But the U.S. hasn’t won a significant military conflict since the 1940s and when its wars go south, its proxies and partners — particularly smaller, weaker nations that it sees as disposable — are the ones sacrificed. People around the world need to take this long history into account when the United States comes calling with money, weapons, and offers of friendship.

The Trump administration is currently waging a war on history, white-washing America’s past to cast the country in a more favorable light. But other nations would do well to study — really examine — how America treats its friends. The people of Iran, even dissidents and those with a grudge against the ruling regime, resisted the urge to put their faith in the United States earlier this year. But many in Venezuela, Mexico, Ecuador, and elsewhere have forged closer ties with the Trump administration. History suggests those taken in by Americans bearing gifts will pay dearly for it. For 250 years, Americans have been double-crossing partners and selling out allies; betrayal — the past has shown — is in the nation’s DNA.

The post The United States of Betrayal appeared first on The Intercept.

Two-thirds of the money Thanedar raised in the last quarter came from AIPAC, which collects money from multiple donors and funnels it to the pro-Israel group’s preferred candidates, according to his campaign’s most recent FEC filing. Less than a quarter of those donors listed Michigan as their state of residence. Thanedar, who is facing a challenge from a democratic socialist in next month’s Democratic primary, was in the minority of House Democrats who voted against cutting $3.3 billion in military aid to Israel from a State Department spending bill this week.

“They’re not raising a lot of money from donors at this point,” said Brendan Glavin, director of insights at the watchdog campaign finance group OpenSecrets, about Thanedar’s filing. Asked about the investment losses Thanedar listed in the filing, Glavin said, “That’s a lot of money for a campaign to be losing, especially when the market is at record highs.”

Thanedar — who has made his money building, buying, and selling off companies — has heavily self-funded his campaign to stave off Donavan McKinney, a Michigan state representative aiming to maintain a wave of socialist success that’s seen challengers from the left topple establishment favorites in New York, Pennsylvania, and Colorado so far this midterm cycle. Thanedar gave himself $800,000 in June, the latest in more than $12 million he’s loaned his campaign since he first ran for Congress in 2021. He outraised McKinney last quarter, though Thanedar’s campaign carries his personal loans as debt.

In his most recent campaign filing, Thanedar reported more than $3.9 million in investment income losses this cycle.

Related

There’s a New Democratic Machine. It’s Unabashedly Socialist.

The August 4 Michigan primary is among the next races to pit a democratic socialist candidate against an incumbent. McKinney — whose endorsers include Justice Democrats, the Working Families Party, the Metro Detroit chapter of Democratic Socialists for America, several major unions, and Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt. — is running on Medicare for All, the Green New Deal, a national homes guarantee, opposing President Donald Trump’s war on immigrants, and ending military aid to Israel. He has hit Thanedar for buying his seat in Congress, paying campaign expenses with taxpayer money, and spurning his constituents.

Deep-pocketed donors “get a massive return on investment when Shri Thanedar votes with 99.9% of Republicans and against a majority of Democrats to keep spending our taxpayer dollars funding Israel’s genocide, or when he votes for Trump’s crypto corruption, or even when he simply refuses to answer his constituent’s calls during a crisis,” said Justice Democrats spokesperson Usamah Andrabi, calling Thanedar’s service in Michigan’s 13th Congressional District “representation for the 1% at the expense of one of the poorest districts in the country.”

“We cannot be the party of the working class when we’re represented by multimillionaires, bankrolled by AIPAC donors, doing the bidding of corporate interests,” he added.

It’s not unusual for candidates to put campaign funds into investment vehicles, but Thanedar’s decision to invest campaign funds in the cryptocurrency industry in 2024 was notable, said Glavin. At the time, the pro-crypto lobby was ramping up its spending on elections. 

“There are examples of candidates who have lost significant funds in putting their money into the market,” Glavin said. “But you’re usually going to find that they’re going to put it in something a little less volatile than the crypto market.”

The campaign’s investment losses were only partly offset by contributions from AIPAC bundlers. Glavin said the debt incurred from Thanedar’s loans to the campaign and the share of his most recent fundraising haul boosted by AIPAC suggest the campaign isn’t doing much on the fundraising front. 

“It’s not like the campaign is actually going out and soliciting those funds,” he said.

Thanedar was a target of AIPAC during his first congressional run; the group endorsed his opponent and its super PAC spent millions against him in 2022. Since then, however, Thanedar has faced scrutiny for his increasingly cozy relationship with the pro-Israel lobby. AIPAC endorsed him during his 2024 reelection campaign, and a pop-up political action committee funded by AIPAC’s super PAC spent more than $2 million against his opponent that cycle. 

The Michigan congressman is featured on AIPAC’s political portal for donors, which it uses to funnel contributions to its preferred candidates. As the primary election nears, Thanedar’s critics have recirculated a video he filmed while on an AIPAC trip to Israel in 2023. His campaign did not respond to a request for comment.

Thanedar is facing a potential upset as some members of the Congressional Black Caucus reportedly consider endorsing McKinney against him — an unusual move given that the group tends to side with incumbents. Outside groups have spent just over $2 million on the race so far, all backing McKinney or opposing Thanedar. It’s not clear whether any other groups plan to spend for Thanedar in the final weeks of the race. 

In May, Thanedar requested an extension on this year’s financial disclosure until August 13, after the primary. Members of Congress are required to file reports each May, though it’s not necessarily unusual to ask for an extension. Thanedar also filed his last disclosure in August. 

At the end of 2025, Thanedar reported to the FEC $11.5 million in debt from loans he’s given his campaign since 2021, when he first ran for Congress and initially loaned himself $5 million. 

It’s becoming more common for candidates to spend upward of $1 million self-financing their campaigns, Glavin said. The massive spending of personal wealth became less risky after a 2022 Supreme Court ruling lifted limits on how much campaigns can spend to pay back a loan from a candidate.  

Before, candidates understood themselves to be on the hook for the money they use to self-finance, Glavin said. Now, they figure that with the power of incumbency, “I can start raising money, and then I build up a donor base, and then I can get some of that money back, even if it’s five, six years down the road,” Glavin said. “A campaign committee can carry that debt for any amount of time.”

The post Two-Thirds of Shri Thanedar’s Campaign Cash Came Through AIPAC as He Lost Over $600K appeared first on The Intercept.

President Donald Trump blew up the temporary ceasefire after the U.S. launched a series of airstrikes against Iran over the weekend. The two nations have continued to exchange strikes throughout the week, with Iran targeting U.S. allies in the Middle East, as Congress debates further entangling the United States military with Israel — a proposal that would give Israel enormous leverage over U.S. defense policy.

“This is a formula for a forever war,” national security reporter Spencer Ackerman tells The Intercept Briefing. A major champion of such forever wars was Sen. Lindsey Graham, who passed away over the weekend. “Lindsey Graham never met a war he didn’t like, never met a war he didn’t want to send other people’s children to wage,” says Ackerman, who writes the Substack Forever Wars. “The white whale for Lindsey Graham and many others in the bridge between neoconservatism and MAGA was Iran — assaulting Iran not only at home, but rolling back its regional challenge to U.S. and Israeli power in the Middle East.”

“Whatever else MAGA says about wars,” says Ackerman, “what it wants is domination. It wants domination not only at home, but abroad. That’s where Graham recognized — that instead of being someone like John McCain, who sought to occasionally butt against, fight against Donald Trump — that Graham could help maneuver Trump into being a vehicle for their shared project. And he did that with really tremendous success.”

“You are seeing a more rent-seeking U.S. empire than ever before as a defining characteristic … of the Trump-era empire,” says Ackerman, on the administration’s thirst to turn countries in its orbit, like Venezuela, into “vassal that pay tribute.” “This is the sort of thing that an empire in decline does. Rather than figuring out new strategies to growth, it redistributes wealth from its own people to its driving oligarchic sectors.”

Politics reporter Akela Lacy also drops in to discuss how the turmoil at home and abroad is impacting the midterms. After Democratic Senate candidate Graham Platner dropped out of the race, Lacy says, “Maine Democrats are in a situation where they’re all trying to become the nominee that the party picks to replace Platner on the ballot to go against Collins in November. Many of those candidates have now come out and called to abolish ICE outright after the shooting in Maine.”

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

Transcript

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

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

AL: Jessie, we were anticipating having a slow July, but the news has not slowed down. Trump reignited the U.S. war with Iran, resuming airstrikes on the country, and said we’re taking over the Strait of Hormuz. 

Meanwhile, Congress is trying to pass the National Defense Authorization Act after several weeks of gridlock, asking for a record $1.15 trillion in funding. On Tuesday, Senate Democrats blocked the bill in protest of the Iran war and over a provision that would more closely integrate the U.S. and Israeli military. On Wednesday, more than half of House Democrats voted to strip $3.3 billion in aid to Israel from the measure, though the effort failed in the broader House.

And within the last week, there have been four ICE-related deaths. Federal immigration agents shot and killed two fathers: Lorenzo Salgado Araujo in Texas and Johan Sebastián [Durán] Guerrero in Maine. That brings the total number of people fatally shot by immigration agents in Trump’s second term to 11. On Tuesday, a third man was struck by a truck fleeing agents in Florida. And a Venezuelan man died in custody in Georgia after being denied medicine, reported by our former colleague Jose Olivares at The Guardian. 

At least 52 people have died in ICE custody during Trump’s second term. It’s the highest level in a decade according to a new report from Physicians for Human Rights [and Human Rights Watch]. 

Jessie, this week you covered how lawmakers are responding, or not, to Trump’s deadly immigration agenda. What did you find out?

JW: When I was looking into it, I was wondering where is this momentum that we saw in January and February around immigration, around at least saying, ICE is wrong, the actions that ICE is taking are immoral, are against the code of our nation. Those were the kinds of things you were hearing in January and February.

That was in response, obviously, to the killings of Renee Good and Alex Pretti in Minnesota that elicited a huge response — not just from Congress, but also you saw a massive response in the streets, people coming out in droves to support their community to say this isn’t right, to say that you can’t just rob us of vital members of our community.

We’re really not seeing that same intensity either in policies that were put out, even policies that were going to go nowhere. Obviously, Democrats caved on DHS spending in April. We just really haven’t seen the same moment that we did in January and February. 

I had a long conversation with Congresswoman Delia Ramirez, who introduced the “Melt ICE” Act in January. That bill would end the Department of Homeland Security’s funding to detain and monitor immigrants. She’s characterized it as a first step, but really when she’s had conversations with her colleagues in the wake of these two really horrific shootings, she’s found that there just isn’t that same intensity, there isn’t that same momentum for action. 

There’s two things happening from her perspective, from what she told me. One of them is racism and the fact that the people who were killed most recently were not U.S. citizens. Alex Pretti and Renee Good were, and they were also white, and that obviously changes the tenor, at least for the media and the public.

Then there’s the fact that without the large national outpouring, without voters really pushing politicians, they aren’t motivated because their donor class is not motivated. They benefit from a broken immigration system where people are forced to take these low-wage jobs. So in an absence of kind of a massive public outcry of people pushing their politicians, you just aren’t going to see that action, and that’s really coming from my conversation with her.

But I think you can see that in the way that Democratic politicians have not risen in this moment — and I would argue they didn’t rise in January and February — but certainly we saw more energy.

The other big news of the week was as the world closely watched for updates on Sen. Mitch McConnell’s health, Sen. Lindsey Graham died from a heart condition. This of course happened in the backdrop of the looming midterms where Republicans currently hold a slim majority in the senate. 

Maine Sen. Susan Collins who is running in a chaotic Senate race, is facing protests for voting to give DHS $70 billion for immigration enforcement after ICE agents fatally shot Guerrero in Maine. Akela, there is so much to unpack here. Can you talk about the political implications unfolding here and what you’re watching for in the midterms? 

AL: This is really shaping what was already a tumultuous situation in the Maine Senate race, where obviously, Graham Platner dropped out last week over an allegation of rape. Now Maine Democrats are in a situation where they’re all trying to become the nominee that the party picks to replace Platner on the ballot to go against Collins in November.

Many of those candidates have now come out and called to abolish ICE outright after the shooting in Maine. That was something that Platner had campaigned on, obviously, prior to the shooting. Our colleague Noah Hurowitz is actually working on a story about this that you can read at The Intercept.

Related

Would-Be Platner Replacements in Maine Rally Around “Abolish ICE” (or Something Close)

We see candidates adopting this sense of urgency around ICE that is shaping the campaigns of insurgent candidates and frustration among voters right now. Jessie, you’re talking about feeling like the momentum on the ground against ICE is not being matched in Congress, something that’s animating the midterms and emphasizing this sort of split-screen where people don’t feel like Democratic leadership or longtime incumbents are meeting the moment. We’re seeing that shape now not just this race in Maine, but we’ve seen that be a rallying call for many of the candidates who have won their races already this primary cycle.

One thing that I thought was interesting about how this is unfolding in Maine is that one of the candidates, Dr. Nirav Shah, who I spoke to actually before Platner dropped out of the race — he had stopped short of calling to abolish ICE outright. He said it can’t exist in its current form, whether we reform it or dismantle it or transfer its duties to another body, it has to go.

But earlier this week, he came out and said “Abolish ICE” outright, after the shooting. So we are seeing this have a real effect on how candidates are running their races. Even people who might have thought saying “Abolish ICE” a week ago — wasn’t the right strategy.

JW: That’s one thing in my conversation with Congresswoman Ramirez that came up, is that people are not feeling as if Congress is meeting this moment or meeting them where they’re at.

They’re saying, we’re in the streets. We’re risking our lives, our freedom, in some cases. Obviously, we’ve seen the prosecutions that came out of Prairieland, those protests. So people are saying, “We’re risking our lives, we’re risking our freedom, and you’re going to lunches and meetings on the Hill like everything is normal.”

I do think that’s going to be a motivating force in these midterms, and we’ll see if candidates meet that moment. Or if they end up on the side of most of Congress, which seems to be doing not much of anything on this really horrific issue.

AL: You mentioned that there’s been protests against Collins in Maine after the ICE shooting, pointing to the fact that she voted for ICE funding without any conditions. I’m interested to see if the most recent killings and deaths related to ICE have any effect on what appeared — even in the week where the last Platner scandal broke — she was still leading him in polling. I’m curious to see if this will affect that in the coming months.

JW: That’s definitely something to look out for. The way that it’s worked has been very regionally specific. I think we’ve seen Minnesota really come together and come out on this issue. Now we’re seeing it in Maine, and perhaps in Texas as well. 

There’s obviously so much to get into. The Iran war, the proposed U.S.–Israel partnership, Lindsey Graham’s death and his foreign policy legacy. We’re going to talk about all of this with national security reporter Spencer Ackerman, who’s reported on the war on terror since 2002.

His most recent piece reflects on Graham’s legacy of warmongering and preserving Guantánamo Bay, or as Ackerman describes it, “an extrajudicial cage that is still swallowing people.” 

Ackerman is the author of “Reign of Terror: How the 9/11 Era Destabilized America and Produced Trump,” which traces the political, legal, and cultural evolution of the last 25 years and how the boomerang has come back home.

Ackerman has reported from Iraq, Afghanistan, Guantánamo Bay, and many U.S. bases. He’s won a Pulitzer Prize and National Magazine Award, and currently writes for Zeteo and Forever Wars, where you can sign up for his newsletter. 

[Break]

JW: Spencer Ackerman, welcome back to The Intercept Briefing.

Spencer Ackerman: Thank you for having me back, Jessica.

JW: There’s a lot that we have to discuss with you, but first, we’re going to start with the broken temporary ceasefire deal between the United States and Iran. The United States launched a wave of airstrikes over the weekend against Iran; the two countries have exchanged strikes throughout the week.

On Monday, President Donald Trump announced the U.S. military would reinstate its blockade of the Strait of Hormuz and implement a 20 percent cargo charge. The latter, he has since scrapped.

Spencer, what is known at this point about why we’re at war again with Iran, and why the U.S.–Iran memorandum of understanding to bring a permanent end to the war failed?

SA: The simple answer is the fifth paragraph in the memorandum of understanding, which despite what I think fairly counts as a clear concession by the United States that Iran henceforth will be able to control and hence impose some manner of cost on shipping transiting the Strait of Hormuz, the United States rejects that interpretation and rejects that outcome.

Most importantly, that paragraph in the memorandum of understanding indicates just how deeply Iran has triumphed in this conflict that the United States and Israel brought to it. Before February 28, there were no costs, no fees on transits across one of the world’s most economically important waterways. That was the result of Iranian decision-making up to this point, a lot of which we don’t have a great deal of fidelity on, but basically represented a step that Iranians, even under the decades-long enmity with the United States and Israel, never felt that it had reason to impose.

Related

Putting Fuel on a Ceasefire: Israel Tries to Kill U.S.–Iran Talks

It is a really historical shift. It is a pivot away from what has been an absolutely central aspect of not just U.S., but Western economic hegemony going back centuries. Which is to say what we in the West like to call free trade, freedom of navigation — that is a major thing for the United States to lose, and the Trump administration knows that. The shipping industry knows that. 

The Trump administration, when it reached the memorandum of understanding, appears to have operated in such a way that it would agree, as negotiated by Trump’s envoys — his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, and his buddy Steve Witkoff — to do whatever necessary once the markets reacted with such shock to this war to get Iran to stop firing and to make it appear for those markets like there was going to be a resolution of the conflict.

The memorandum of understanding represents the pathway to that resolution, and so the Trump administration had been hailing it as a way back to normalcy and a way out of dire economic straits. So the U.S. needed that memorandum of understanding for the shooting to stop, but it would not accept the state that it had agreed to under the memorandum of understanding, which basically saw Iran agree to waive fees during the 60-day period authorized under the memorandum of understanding to achieve a lasting peace deal, some form of resolution over the nuclear file, and also explicitly authorized Iran and its neighbor Oman — which also has significant territorial waters in that strait — to come up with essentially a lasting mechanism to provide for continued access in transit, a new way of doing business for global shipping.

Once the United States started seeing Iran basically keep control over those shipping routes, it started attacking Iran. Iran replied not just by harassing shipping, but also by resuming its missiles and drone strikes at U.S. facilities in Gulf countries that host them — and that basically broke down the ceasefire.

I think the question going forward now is what new or expanded capacity the United States has not only to open the strait but keep it open. I think that we saw during the month of shooting that preceded the ceasefire that led to the memorandum of understanding, that the United States lacks that.

This is not either a military or an economic calculation that favors U.S. power, that the Iranians have leveraged this rather intelligently in order to hold something very, very desired by the United States and indeed the global economy at risk. That’s where this stands.

JW: It’s hard to imagine under these circumstances an end to the war in a real sense. And even Trump, when asked by CNN reporter Kaitlan Collins if bombing Iran was the new normal, said, “We were in Vietnam for 19 years.”

Kaitlan Collins: Mr. President, you noted the United States is bombing Iran again. You’ve been bombing Iran for months now. Is this just the new normal for the American people?

Donald Trump: No. We were in Vietnam for 19 years. We’re here for four months. I think we’ve done a lot. We’ve knocked out their navy in a period of one month.

JW: At this point, where do you see this heading? Trump hasn’t ruled out sending ground troops to Iran, but he also hasn’t done it yet. Do you think there’s a possibility or are there signals that there could be an off-ramp? Or is this a forever war that’s about to happen?

SA: It’s absolutely a forever war. I think that the future looks a lot like the present here, where you have essentially an unresolved situation where the United States does not accept Iranian control over the strait, regardless of the fact that it conceded as much in the memorandum of understanding.

The Iranians will not relinquish this concession over the strait now that it achieved it in this memorandum of understanding, however much a dead letter it might formally be. That deadlock is going to persist. There’s also the dire math of the U.S. missile interceptor magazine, which is to say that a whole lot of very expensive missile interceptors that the United States possesses will have to, over now an extended period, be placed in the Middle East, in the Gulf countries that host the U.S. presence up against far, far, far cheaper Iranian missiles and drones.

Related

A Point-by-Point Breakdown of Trump’s Failed Iran War Objectives

You heard the president say that the Iranian navy has been knocked out. Well, if the Iranian navy can swarm around, as we’ve seen them able to do even during the so-called ceasefire, shipping in the Gulf, then that kind of raises a question of how, even with whatever higher-end capacities the U.S. military has knocked out, whether that represents an actual defeat of the Iranian navy or whether Iranian naval capabilities remain sufficient to keep this kind of harassment going.

When we hear the president compare this war to Vietnam, that’s a five-alarm fire. Yes, the Vietnam War lasted a very, very long time. That’s what now we’re looking at even in month four of this war, I guess more like month five at this point. This was a war that both Marco Rubio and Pete Hegseth said was over.

Marco Rubio: Operation Epic Fury is concluded. We achieved the objectives of that operation.

Pete Hegseth: Operation Epic Fury was a historic and overwhelming victory on the battlefield.

SA: And clearly it’s not over. We are in just a shape change of this. There will be periods, I would imagine, of continued diplomacy. But until the United States is able to either, A, deliver some sort of finishing blow against the Iranians that they find intolerable, which I don’t really see much indication of them doing, or the Iranians decide through whatever coercive measures that they will give up control of the strait — this situation will persist.

All of the drivers of this conflict, and we haven’t even gotten to Israel here, which would prefer to both destroy the regime and collapse the Iranian state. This is a formula for a forever war. This is a formula for — if not necessarily every single day seeing exchanges of U.S., Iranian, and even potentially Israeli fire — a situation where, like the questioner said, this is a new normal. This is what the Middle East risks looking like. The coercive ability of the United States to break this logjam, the diplomatic will necessary, has simply not been in evidence.

JW: So Congress obviously has a role here. We’re speaking on Wednesday, July 15, and things may have changed by the time people are hearing this.

But as of Wednesday, the National Defense Authorization Act, which authorizes Pentagon spending, is stalling in the Senate. Democrats are refusing to take up the NDAA, arguing that it’s a “permission slip” for the Trump administration as they wage war on Iran.” Others balked at the fact that the proposal would increase authorized defense spending by $80 billion. And the NDAA includes the United States–Israel Defense Technology Cooperation Initiative, which would facilitate between the two countries technology sharing from weapons development to artificial intelligence.

Here is Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Fox trying to sell it.

Benjamin Netanyahu: I’m calling it from aid to partnership. So we take away the money that is given to Israel, which is one part. But the other part is we invest, co-invest in equal measures in the new technologies that are needed to give our military and your military the advantage. So we want — there are some unbelievable projects.

JW: Spencer, what’s at stake in this National Defense Authorization Act fight?

SA: The U.S. has co-production deals for military hardware and technological development with a number of countries that’s part of the AUKUS partnership with the U.K. and Australia that the Biden administration spearheaded. It also has co-production deals with Israel for things like the Iron Dome missile defense system.

It is nevertheless completely unlike any other bi- or multilateral defense technological production agreement, ever. This will enmesh the U.S. and Israeli defense technological, both research and manufacturing capabilities like never before, like nothing that the United States has.

It puts Israeli firms that are nominally competing, in some cases with American firms across various aspects of the defense technological enterprises, into licensing agreements that give them intellectual property stakes over their American competitors and their nominal competitors. Perhaps most importantly, it puts Israeli firms, academic institutions, and so forth, into the supply chains of the U.S. military’s technological enterprise and production capabilities.

Related

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

That gives Israel enormous leverage over U.S. defense policy, U.S. defense decision-making. And as well, unlike any other co-production deal that the U.S. military has with any of its partners, it creates an executive agent within the Pentagon who is empowered to override existing bureaucratic processes, procurement issues, and decision-making to basically be, essentially, an Israeli commissar in the Pentagon advocating for greater and greater production and technological integration.

There’s just nothing like this that exists outside of this proposal. There isn’t, as best I can tell, much of a precedent for it. And think of the implications of that. By the time this is out, I’ll have a piece on my newsletter, Forever Wars, about this. You’re already seeing real questions during the Iran war and Iran’s ability to hit U.S. infrastructure hosted in the Gulf about the viability of keeping the network of about 18 or so U.S. bases that span the Gulf from Kuwait to Bahrain.

You could see that bivouacking for reasons of both defensibility and certainly ease of integration into Israel. You’re already seeing a U.S. general placed in charge of the force that’s supposed to be essentially occupying Gaza under Trump’s imperial Board of Peace proposal.

The amount of missile strikes from Iran and drone strikes that Israel had to absorb during this war of aggression that it and the United States launched — if those Israeli firms, academic institutions, and so on are part of the U.S. military supply chain, and they’re vulnerable to Iranian missiles, then the United States has a direct interest in protecting those firms, installations, and so forth.

So now U.S. defense of Israel will be a matter of U.S. defense necessity. So this is an epochal, I would argue, tectonic shift in the U.S.–Israeli military relationship. It needs to be said that right now Israel is committing a genocide in Gaza, it’s committing an ethnic cleansing in the West Bank, and it’s undergoing a process of territorial conquest in Lebanon and Syria.

This is what the United States would be far deeper yoked to than ever before, and all of this is occurring precisely as you heard the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu say, to make U.S.–Israeli economic integration, particularly over defense, seamless, invisible, and far less susceptible to the rising political challenge that’s happening in the United States as the result of Israel’s genocide.

JW: The irony to what you’re saying, of course, is that on the campaign trail, Donald Trump effectively sold himself as a non-interventionist, promising no new forever wars, declaring himself a peace president. Many pundits, podcasters, journalists, others backed up that claim, despite the fact that during his first term, he assassinated an Iranian general, escalated conflicts in Iraq and Syria, and loosened the military’s rules of engagement.

One of his biggest cheerleaders on this foreign policy front was the now late Sen. Lindsey Graham, who passed away suddenly on Saturday as a result of a tear in his heart, while the world was actually awaiting news of his longtime friend Sen. Mitch McConnell’s health. Recently, you wrote, “It’s darkly poetic that Senator Lindsey Graham left this world the same weekend that the Iran ceasefire collapsed. Graham had wanted this war for a very long time. While it would be nice to think that its rapid emergence as a fiasco would have redounded to Graham’s political detriment, absolutely nothing in his political biography as one of Capitol Hill’s premier warmongers suggests that would have happened.” Talk about Graham’s foreign policy legacy.

SA: Lindsey Graham never met a war he didn’t like, never met a war he didn’t want to send other people’s children to wage. He treated war as a game, and a game that the United States and Israel, and also Ukraine — he was a very big proponent of Ukraine’s defense against the Russian invasion — that really animated Graham as much as criminalizing abortion and limiting the bodily autonomy of pregnant people animated his domestic vision.

The litany is great. An advocate of all aspects of the war on terror, from the Afghanistan War, to especially the Iraq War, to the global drone campaigns, to keeping Guantanamo Bay open, establishing, he didn’t succeed in this, but attempting to establish a globally applicable system of U.S. wartime detention that was non-judicial, that would basically be a major, major entrenchment and expansion of what we see at Guantanamo Bay.

The Libya war, attacking Bashar al-Assad in Syria, on and on it goes. But especially the white whale for Lindsey Graham and many others in the bridge between neoconservatism and MAGA was Iran — assaulting Iran not only at home, but rolling back its regional challenge to U.S. and Israeli power in the Middle East.

As you saw from the true media saturation ahead of the February 28 kickoff for the war, there was Lindsey Graham constantly advocating for it, talking with Trump, liaising behind the scenes between the White House and Benjamin Netanyahu, serving as one of the greatest advocates for launching this new forever war, and also attempting to conceal what an epochal both commitment of military power and, naturally following this would be.

I wrote that to indicate that the main reason why Graham was able to operate this way is that there was never any political consequence that he experienced despite various changes in national mood, especially like elite political mood toward the war on terror, Graham never felt that personally. He never felt that as a real genuine challenge to his political career. 

Then when there’s no consequences, there’s no accountability for that, there’s no reason for Graham to have changed, and he never did. In fairness, by all indications, he did this not just because of the campaign contributions, not just because of rise in popularity for such bellicose policies, but for the love of the game. This man was by all measures a committed militarist, someone who believed deeply in the American imperial project and was always a committed advocate of it, even when he saw that it inhibited the political careers even of his allies, John McCain, Joe Lieberman being important examples of that.

JW: Graham seems to have viewed Trump as a vehicle for his warmongering ambitions. What do you think Graham understood about Trump that the people who thought he would be a peacetime president missed?

SA: First, I think anyone who wrote that Trump would be a peacetime president or an anti-war president committed a great disservice to the public discourse.

You can read my book, “Reign of Terror,” about why this would never, ever be actually the case. It is not an accident that Trump escalated the wars that he inherited and launched new and epochal ones, especially, Venezuela we didn’t even mention, which the U.S. now has imperial control over.

Graham understood that Donald Trump is a malleable, impressionable figure, that he is protean, that there are certain things that Trump responds to as someone who formed his political self-understanding primarily in the Reagan era and before, and that’s a healthy receptivity, to put it mildly, to U.S. militarism, that whatever else MAGA says about wars, what it wants is domination. It wants domination not only at home, but abroad.

That’s where Graham recognized that instead of being someone like John McCain, who sought to occasionally butt against, fight against Donald Trump, that Graham could help maneuver Trump into being a vehicle for their shared project. And he did that with really tremendous success.

Related

Lindsey Graham Is the Most Shameless Man in American Politics

It occasionally cost Graham dignity, but Graham, throughout his career, has never been someone who placed a great deal of shall we say, emphasis on having political dignity as long as it meant having political success. So he saw that as an easy trade-off if it meant maneuvering Trump into a kind of position that Graham, had he been president, had he been secretary of state, had he been secretary of defense, would’ve wanted to pursue.

JW: One thing that I’ve been thinking about is, does someone else come in to fill his place as a champion for endless war in the Senate? Or, at this point, does there not even need to be a congressional champion for war to continue at this point?

SA: It’s a good question. Lindsey Graham’s probably a singular figure in Republican politics at the moment. But that’s not to say that someone similar, though not identical, could fill the same void — as material conditions, it’s fair to say, probably produced Graham, and so they’ll produce, as long as they persist, another figure like Graham to take political advantage.

I think probably the figure in Republican politics, certainly in the Senate, that best fits a Graham-type profile is Tom Cotton, the Republican senator from Arkansas. Like Graham, also a lawyer. Like Graham, an Iraq veteran, although Graham was in the reserves in the Air Force, Cotton was in the Army.

Similarly bellicose, and bellicose in many of the same ways on the same footings. Both were fierce advocates of U.S. support for Ukraine after the Russian invasion. Similarly, never met aspects of the war on terror they disliked, and seek the aggression against Iran, fervent support for Israel. Characterologically similar in the sense that you could often see aggrieved-lawyer come out in them. So I would say probably Tom Cotton.

JW: On a holistic sense, we are now well into Trump’s second term. The U.S. is at war with Iran. The administration has conducted an undeclared war in the Caribbean Sea and Pacific Ocean, killing scores of civilians by deploying drone strikes on boats they allege are carrying drugs. Marco Rubio is effectively running Venezuela from afar after the U.S. kidnapped the country’s president and his wife.

How would you characterize the Trump administration’s foreign policy at this point?

SA: Purely imperial. The dream of the Teddy Roosevelt administration is alive within the Trump one. I’ll never be able to forget the interview that Stephen Miller gave to Jake Tapper right after the Maduro kidnapping.

This is worth watching. Reading the transcript doesn’t really do it justice because you’ve really gotta see the way Miller performs in this interview. But it’s this expression of what the French used to call hyperpuissance: invincibility applied to an imperial level. A sense that the United States was capable militarily of imposing its will — militarily, economically — over the entire world in a way that the war on terror represented a drain of resources and capabilities from this was despite those material realities persisting, represented a declaration that Trump was going to make the American empire both more ambitious and recrafted in his image. 

It is very explicitly rent-seeking. It seeks to make the countries in its orbit, whether traditional allies or new conquests like Venezuela, truly into vassals. Vassals that pay tribute. Tribute that provides the United States, which looks to be in pretty substantial economic decline, with new sources of revenue that stave off what will probably be politically unacceptable shocks economically to the system. 

Every empire throughout history has sought to bring in resources from the periphery into the metropole. That’s absolutely what’s happening here. That Miller interview with Jake Tapper from January was the same one where Miller sounds like he’s cutting a wrestling promo threatening Denmark over Greenland — which now during the NATO summit, Trump brings back up. You are seeing a more rent-seeking U.S. empire than ever before as a characteristic, a defining characteristic, I would say, of the Trump-era empire. 

I will leave it to listeners, viewers, historians to figure out where we are historically on the long trajectory of American decline. But this is the sort of thing that an empire in decline does. Rather than figuring out new strategies to growth, it redistributes wealth from its own people to its driving oligarchic sectors.

Related

AI’s Imperial Agenda

This is [the] civilizing mission that you see in Silicon Valley now from companies like Palantir that talks about the need for, essentially, they don’t say it exactly like this, but the need for U.S. public subsidies to keep the AI booming, going in order to make sure that the West doesn’t, in some sense, fall behind, whatever that means, or doesn’t become vulnerable to Chinese power.

We haven’t even talked about Somalia, which is now essentially been subject to 200 drone strikes in the course of just 18 months, which makes a completely invisible war that the United States has conducted for 20 years in an East African nation.

So this is a very erratic moment in American imperial history, but it absolutely has to be understood as a moment of American imperial assertion.

JW: Yeah. No, I’m getting thoughts of the Romans when they stopped making their own food and just expanded their empire out too fast. It’s giving a lot of those history flashbacks.

SA: Those Egyptian grain imports, right?

JW: Yeah. [Laughs] And we have so much that we could get into, but we’re going to have to leave it there for time. Spencer, thank you so much for joining us again on The Intercept Briefing. 

SA: Once again, I mentioned Eastern Roman history and killed a podcast. Thank you very much, Jessica. [Laughter]

JW: For more from Spencer Ackerman, visit Forever Wars, where you can subscribe to his newsletter. We’ll add a link in the show notes. 

We want to hear from you. Tell us what you’re following or want to see more coverage of. Email us at podcasts@theintercept.com or leave us a voicemail at 530-PODCAST. That’s 530-763-2278. 

That does it for this episode.

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

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

Slip Stream provided our theme music.

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

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

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

Until next time, I’m Jessica Washington.

The post Trump’s Formula for Forever Wars appeared first on The Intercept.

By early March, after federal immigration agents shot and killed Renee Good and Alex Pretti in Minneapolis, 32 Democratic members of Congress had called to either abolish or dismantle Immigration and Customs Enforcement, including three members who had previously voted to “express gratitude to ICE.” Democrats rapidly introduced legislation to restrict, defund, or abolish the federal immigration agency. And for months, Democrats in the House successfully blocked funding of the Department of Homeland Security with the unrealized goal of obtaining minor restrictions on immigration agents. 

Although protesters took to the streets in Maine and Texas in the ides of summer to object to ICE’s killing of 25-year-old Johan Sebastián Durán Guerrero in Biddeford and 52-year-old Lorenzo Salgado Araujo in Houston, that glimmer of enthusiasm for action appears to have died down in the halls of Congress.

“I’ll be honest. I’m not seeing [anger] to the extent I saw when Alex and Renee were executed by ICE in Minnesota. … I’ve seen some statements come up, and some conversations, but it has not been elevated to the extent that I would expect from a number of my colleagues,” said Rep. Delia Ramirez, D-Ill. “It feels like we’re normalizing it.”

Democrats caved on DHS funding in April, and with some exceptions, most of the caucus has been silent on the existing bills to restrict the agency. Progressives have criticized their colleagues for not continuing to fight against funding the Department of Homeland Security, and for only acting in a moment of heightened political attention. 

Related

Would-Be Platner Replacements in Maine Rally Around “Abolish ICE” (or Something Close)

In January, Ramirez and Rep. Yvette Clarke, D-N.Y., introduced the Melt ICE Act, a bill that would end DHS funding to detain or monitor immigrants. The legislation, which Ramirez says is “not all things” but represents a meaningful step toward dismantling the entire agency, currently has 12 co-sponsors, including members of the progressive Squad and two retiring members who will leave Congress at the end of the current term.

Ramirez said she had hoped to pick up additional backing in the wake of Durán Guerrero and Salgado Araujo’s killings, but she has yet to hear from any additional co-sponsors — even from colleagues who were calling to “Abolish ICE” in February and sharing press releases with the words “Melt ICE” in them.

The Chicago congresswoman said she worried that the lack of action had to do in part with the fact that Pretti and Good were white U.S. citizens, and Durán Guerrero and Salgado Araujo were noncitizens from Colombia and Mexico, respectively. She noted that one of the first fatal ICE shootings under the second Trump administration — of undocumented Mexican immigrant Silverio Villegas González last September in Chicago — rarely gets mentioned.

“Why is it that for some, when the person seems to be lighter-skinned, a U.S. citizen, the uproar seems to be deeper?” Ramirez said. “And why was it that his name seems to be a name that many people don’t know?”

While political energy remains low, the Department of Homeland Security continues to be a lethal force. On Tuesday morning, a man in Florida running from immigration officers was struck by a semi-truck, marking the third time a person had been killed during an encounter with immigration agents within a week.

Violence has surged within detention centers as well. Within the first 500 days of Trump’s second term, 52 people have died in ICE custody, the highest mortality rate in over a decade, according to a recent report from Human Rights Watch and Physicians for Human Rights. On Monday, Jesús Manuel Arenas-Silva, a 45-year-old Venezuelan man died in a private prison used for ICE detention in Georgia in an apparent case of medical neglect. 

Meanwhile, ICE has punished protesters who object to its brutality with more violence. Physicians for Human Rights and the UC Berkeley Law School’s Human Rights Center documented 412 incidents between June 2025 and May 2026 where law enforcement agents used excessive force or chemical weapons on ICE protesters, children, journalists, legal observers, and bystanders.

Dr. Rohini Haar, an adjunct professor of epidemiology at UC Berkley’s School of Public Health and lead author of the use-of-force study, said lawmakers should not allow these attacks to be met with “impunity” just because there is less impending political pressure.

“Do not ignore this just because it’s less newsworthy,” said Haahr, who is also a medical adviser for Physicians for Human Rights. “You’re going to keep getting [violence] when no one is held accountable.” 

Related

It’s Time for Concrete Action on ICE. Sadly, We Have the Democrats.

Progressives, including Ramirez, have criticized their colleagues for not anticipating that the violence would continue once DHS funding was fully restored. In April, House Democrats agreed to fund the Department of Homeland Security under a two-track model that would immediately fund most of the Department and push ICE and Border Patrol funding through a separate process that would not require any Democratic support. In June, Republicans voted to fund ICE and Border Patrol to the tune of $70 billion.

“I said this a couple of weeks ago, that I would not be surprised if, when ICE funding started up again, we would start to see more civilian deaths at the hands of ICE,” Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., who did not co-sponsor Melt ICE, told reporters on Monday. “And that’s exactly what has happened.”

The Intercept asked whether the congresswoman planned to co-sponsor Ramirez’s legislation and was directed to her public statements on the DHS funding measure. The Intercept also reached out to Progressive Caucus Chair Greg Casar, D-Texas., who is also not a co-sponsor of the legislation, to ask if he planned to co-sponsor the bill in the wake of the Texas shooting, but did not receive a response.

Although anger has bubbled up again in protests across the country, the public’s attention does appear to have waned since its peak in January after federal immigration agents fatally shot Good and Pretti. 

Manisha Sinha, an American history professor at the University of Connecticut, said there are several potential reasons for lowered attention on Salgado Araujo and Durán Guerrero’s deaths. The Trump administration has changed its tactics to deemphasize cities where protesters and local leaders could jointly resist immigration enforcement, as they did in Minnesota. And, undoubtedly, the fact that “Alex Pretti and Renee Good were citizens” added to the public outrage over their killings, said Sinha. 

Without the same intensity of pressure from voters as there was in winter and spring, Ramirez said many of her colleagues are not motivated to take principled positions on immigration that might anger their deep-pocketed donors. But she said she understands that people may also be wary of risking their lives while members of Congress go about their business as usual. 

“People in the street don’t feel like the members on the inside really have the pulse of what’s happening to them, and that frankly they’re fucking tired,” Ramirez said. “And I hate that I have to ask them to keep showing up. But knowing this body, I know that this body only moves from pressure.”

The post In the Wake of Fatal ICE Shootings, Democrats Drag Their Feet appeared first on The Intercept.

Related

How ICE Arrests Went Quiet — and Got Even More Deadly

After an ICE officer shot and killed a 25-year-old Colombian national this week in Biddeford, Maine, Secretary of Homeland Security Markwayne Mullin reportedly told Sen. Angus King, I-Maine, that officers involved in the shooting were not wearing body cameras.

Yet the ICE officials who spoke with The Intercept, all of whom requested anonymity to protect their livelihoods, identified cameras among the equipment worn by two ICE officers nearby in the immediate aftermath of the shooting.

The body-worn devices were not designed solely to capture evidential video, and are used primarily as remote microphones for ICE officers’ radio communications. (ICE did not respond to a request for comment.)

ICE officials who spoke to The Intercept identified the accessories worn by ICE officers on the scene of the Maine shooting as Motorola SVX Video Remote Speaker Microphones, a wireless radio mic with one other important feature: a camera. (Motorola did not respond to a request to comment.)

Although the Motorola SVX worn by ICE officers are designed to work as body cameras, the ICE official said the function isn’t used.

“They have multiple functionalities,” one ICE official who identified the Motorola SVX at the scene in Maine told The Intercept. “However, we are currently only using them as mics because of the AXON contract.”

The Department of Homeland Security, ICE’s parent agency, purchases body-worn cameras through a contract with Axon, a law enforcement tech firm. (Axon did not respond to a request for comment.)

Another ICE official showed The Intercept where, on their own Motorola SVX, a cover can be attached to the top of the device where the camera lens is, comparing it to the tech worn by officers at the Maine shooting scene.

“This is where the cover clips over the camera lens,” the second ICE officer said. “Since the cameras don’t work they just leave the cover on.”

The SVX mics worn by ICE are designed to record internally, capable of storing over 100 hours of standard-definition video, according to Motorola promotional materials and a technical support line. The video-recording function on the SVX mic, however, requires a subscription.

No Bodycam Footage

Motorola is a giant in the world of government law enforcement and security work.

Related

Two Companies Fight to Corner the Police Body Camera Market

According to a document published on the Department of Homeland Security’s website, ICE alone expects to spend more than $100 million on a six-year contract for Motorola’s line of APX Next All-Band Smart Radios and accessories, which would include the SVX mic.

The deadly ICE shooting of Johan Sebastián Durán Guerrero in Maine stoked national outrage, coming on the heels of another fatal ICE shooting of Mexican immigrant Lorenzo Salgado Araujo in Houston.

Neither man, according to news reports, had been the intended targets of the ICE arrest teams. And neither man’s death was captured by federal officers’ body-worn cameras, according to official reports.

Shortly after the Maine shooting, ICE ordered its officers in the field to halt nearly all traffic stops. After reports of the order emerged and Trump complained, border czar Tom Homan pivoted to say the ICE vehicle stops would continue.

Widely known today for its body cams, Axon used to be called Taser, named for the stun gun that built its reputation and which it still carries. The company does brisk business with ICE.

Last month, presidential financial disclosures raised eyebrows over an ICE public request for a $220 million stun gun contract that appeared tailor-made for Axon’s Tasers. Only two weeks before the request for information went out, according to the disclosures, President Donald Trump purchased as much as $5 million in shares from Axon.

During Trump’s winter immigration crackdown in Minnesota, ICE announced that it would be purchasing and distributing body cameras to every arrest team in the agency.

After the deaths of Durán Guerrero and Salgado Araujo over past week, however, the Trump administration said the distribution was incomplete.

“The body cameras have been ordered,” Homan, Trump’s border czar, said in a press conference. “There’s a deployment schedule on the books.”

The Homeland Security Department said that half of ICE field offices already had body-worn cameras and the rest were expected to get them in the next two months.

The new body cameras were funded through a $20 million congressional appropriation to expand ICE’s camera program, which includes contracts with Axon for the devices.

The post ICE Officers at Maine Shooting Scene Were Wearing Body Cameras. They Were Not Turned On. appeared first on The Intercept.

At least five of the candidates to replace Platner have come out in favor of abolishing or “dismantling” U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement after federal agents gunned down Johan Sebastián Durán Guerrero in Biddeford, Maine.

The scramble to denounce ICE by would-be Democratic Senate nominees came days ahead of a scheduled debate on Thursday evening, where the hopefuls will face off to make the case for why they should take on incumbent Republican Sen. Susan Collins.

Panagioti Tsolkas, a spokesperson for the Maine Immigrants’ Rights Coalition, said he was “heartened” to see the outpouring of anger from candidates in the wake of the shooting, but cautioned that a sustained effort would be needed from Maine’s politicians.

“We want to see the state of Maine step up right now and take action on a full investigation and accountability in this killing,” Tsolkas said. “It’s gotta be more than lip service, and it has to be more than just showing up at the vigils when you have a chance to speak on stage.”

Related

How ICE Arrests Went Quiet — and Got Even More Deadly

Durán Guerrero died early Monday morning after an ICE agent shot the 25-year-old during a traffic stop targeting another man, according to a spokesperson for the agency.

Durán Guerrero’s father told a news station in his native Colombia that his son was in the country legally, according to a report in the New York Times, and worked two jobs as a food delivery driver and cleaner at a veterinary clinic. Durán Guerrero leaves behind a wife and 3-year-old daughter.

The killing sparked furious protests across the state and turned immigration enforcement into a centerpiece issue of Maine political chatter and the crowded mini-race, which kicked off last week and is set to culminate in a nominating convention in Bangor, Maine, on July 25. 

Platner — who dropped out of the race last week after allegations emerged that he had sexually assaulted a former girlfriend, which he denies — had also called for ICE to be abolished. In his July 10 letter removing himself from the race, he signed off by saying, “F*ck ICE.”

The unusual circumstances of Platner’s self-ejection from the race — despite the popularity of the movement that won him the primary in June — has set a curious political mood in Maine. Candidates seeking to replace him are hewing to his message while differentiating themselves from his scandal-plagued personal brand. 

With just days left to make their pitch to Mainers, many of the candidates to replace Platner veered toward the nearest solidarity rally or anti-ICE protest as news of the killing filtered out of Biddeford.

Related

Maine Senate Candidates Claim They’re Just Like Platner — But Entirely Different

The candidates calling for ICE to be abolished include Troy Jackson, a progressive from northern Maine who’s swept up a raft of endorsements from local politicians and labor groups despite an underwhelming showing in the recent gubernatorial primary; fellow gubernatorial also-ran Dr. Nirav Shah; social worker Paige Loud and former political operative and fundraiser Jordan Wood, both of whom ran in the Democratic primary for Maine’s 2nd Congressional District; and Dan Kleban, the founder of a beer company in Maine who threw his hat into the ring for the Senate race last week.

While most Democrats in Maine have been highly critical of ICE and President Donald Trump’s mass deportation agenda — especially in the wake of a surge of federal agents to the state in January — only Jackson and Loud appear to have called for the agency to be abolished prior to Monday’s shooting. With a majority of the candidates now declaring a full-throated commitment to scrapping ICE altogether, this week marked a sharp leftward shift in immigration discourse in Maine in the wake of Durán Guerrero’s killing.

Other candidates, while sharply criticizing ICE for the killing of Durán Guerrero, stopped short of calling for the agency to be abolished. Shenna Bellows, the current Maine secretary of state, spoke in Biddeford about having denied Border Patrol the use of undercover license plates in the state during the surge earlier this year. On X, she employed the slogan “ICE off our streets.”

The post Would-Be Platner Replacements in Maine Rally Around “Abolish ICE” (or Something Close) appeared first on The Intercept.

Crow — magnate of a Texas real estate empire, longtime Republican donor, and past dual citizen of St. Kitts and Nevis — has come under increased scrutiny in recent years after ProPublica reported that he financed luxury travel for and bought property from conservative Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, who did not disclose the dealings. Crow also reportedly paid tuition for Thomas’s grandnephew at a private boarding school in Georgia. 

Crow did not immediately respond to a request for comment about the contribution to Fetterman’s campaign. 

Fetterman has drawn ire from his previous supporters and Democratic colleagues for what they’ve characterized as a stark shift in his ideological and policy stances since he was first elected to the Senate. That shift has attracted Republican donors who said they appreciated Fetterman’s vocal embrace of pro-Israel policies since entering office. A recent poll found that a majority of Democrats in Pennsylvania want Fetterman to leave the party, and that his approval rating is higher among Republicans than Democrats. Last week, Fetterman launched a bipartisan joint fundraising committee with Sen. Dave McCormick, R-Pa.

Crow contributed the FEC’s maximum of $7,000 to Fetterman’s campaign on June 30, less than a week before Fetterman’s new committee with McCormick, Common Ground PA, filed paperwork with the FEC. Crow is currently listed as the chair of the board of Crow Holdings. In the contribution to Fetterman’s campaign, Crow listed his employer as the Trammell Crow Company and his occupation as real estate developer, rather than head of Crow Holdings, as he’d listed in other FEC filings earlier this year. (Trammell Crow was Harlan Crow’s father.)

Related

Fetterman Campaign Bleeds Money

Fetterman, who campaigned for Senate as a progressive and endorsed Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., for president in 2016, has faced criticism for breaking with his party and voting with Republicans on key issues from immigration to U.S. attacks on boats in international waters to the war with Iran, as well as also voting for nominees of President Donald Trump. Over the last two years, he’s seen an exodus of staffers, some of whom complained that they were “working on Israel all the time,” had donors request refunds, and brought registered Republicans into his fold. 

The right-wing megadonor has given sparingly to Democrats in previous cycles, with recipients including Rep. Jimmy Panetta, D-Calif.; Jared Golden, D-Maine.; and Josh Gottheimer, D-N.J. 

Fetterman’s campaign did not immediately respond to a request for comment. 

The post Harlan Crow Maxed Out Campaign Donations to John Fetterman appeared first on The Intercept.

Under questioning from Democratic senators, Clayton, who currently serves as the top federal prosecutor in the Southern District of New York, defended the process that resulted in FBI agents showing up to the reporters’ homes to hand-deliver subpoenas seeking the source of disclosures about security flaws in the Qatari-donated new Air Force One jet.

Clayton declined to answer questions, however, on whether the White House or top officials at the Justice Department ordered him to send the subpoenas.

“I’m not going to get into the details,” Clayton said under questioning from Sen. Michael Bennet, D-Colo. “But what I can tell you is that we followed the procedures, and those procedures, for the reasons that I believe firmly and you believe — protecting the freedom of the press, being the least intrusive possible — require consultation.”

Clayton’s role in sending the subpoenas, which went out under his signature Friday shortly after FBI Director Kash Patel met with Trump, has emerged as a flashpoint in his nomination to replace Tulsi Gabbard as director of national intelligence.

A press freedom advocate said he found Clayton’s testimony about the subpoenas to be “totally disingenuous” because Trump’s own subpoena guidelines say the government must exhaust other means of getting evidence before going to journalists.

“Yet these subpoenas were issued less than two days after the story came out, and just hours after Patel’s reported White House meeting with Trump,” Trevor Timm, executive director of the Freedom of the Press Foundation, said in an email. “All evidence points to Trump ordering this action for retribution because he’s embarrassed about the plane debacle, not because of anything to do with ‘national security.’”

Housing czar and Trump loyalist Bill Pulte is currently serving as the intelligence chief on a temporary basis, and some centrist Democrats have argued that Clayton should be swiftly confirmed to shut off Pulte’s access to classified information.

For Democrats on the intelligence committee, however, Clayton’s role in the subpoena to New York Times journalists suggested that he may be just as eager as Gabbard and Pulte to use the powers of public office to appease the president.

Related

Trump’s Intel Pick Played Key Role in NYT Subpoenas — But Some Democrats Still On the Fence

Those concerns about the subpoenas dovetailed with worries about Clayton’s views on election fraud. Democratic senators repeatedly questioned Clayton on whether former President Joe Biden won the 2020 election, which has emerged as an important litmus test in light of Gabbard’s role in an ongoing administration effort to relitigate the president’s loss.

Clayton repeatedly confirmed the fact that Biden’s election was certified by Congress but declined to say whether he thought Biden actually won the race.

“Isn’t it humiliating to be unable to answer this question? To have to indulge the president’s delusions?” Sen. Jon Ossoff, D-Ga., said at one point. “Why can you not give it?”

On the subpoena issue, Clayton’s answers offered little new light on why the subpoenas were swiftly delivered to journalists. He repeatedly said that the subpoenas were the “least intrusive” means possible to discover the source of the New York Times’s reporting on the new Air Force One.

The reporting revealed that Trump was forced to use an older version of the presidential airplane on his return from a recent trip to Turkey because the new one lacked missile defense systems despite a pricey retrofit.

Administration officials reportedly asked the newspaper not to publish its report on the jet’s security flaws, but it went ahead. The Times and other outlets have reported that the White House ordered Patel, the FBI director, to oversee a probe into the leaks about the jets. Patel reportedly spent eight hours Friday at the White House overseeing the investigation.

Related

FBI Raid on WaPo Reporter’s Home Was Based on Sham Pretext

Under Justice Department policies, investigators seeking to subpoena journalists must receive approval from the attorney general, in this case Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, who had his own, separate confirmation hearing on Wednesday. The government must first have made “all reasonable attempts” to obtain the information from alternative sources.

Press freedom groups have questioned whether the Justice Department really did try to discover the source of the Air Force One leaks. They also raised alarm bells about the FBI sending agents to deliver the subpoenas by hand, rather than going through the newspaper’s lawyers.

“The subpoenas were issued so closely after a very long meeting at the White House. There seemed to be an unnecessary urgency behind it,” said Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y. “Delivering it to a private home seems quite aggressive.”

Clayton, in his response, seemed to suggest that the White House was worried that following a more typical, slow-moving process would have resulted in the destruction of evidence.

“How quickly you would do something following the process depends on those facts and circumstances of the investigation including the potential spoliation of information, and the timeliness of the threat. I think I’m going to leave it at that,” Clayton said. “But this was a judgment, and it should always be a judgment, that is made collectively, that’s the way I look at these things.”

The White House declined to answer a question from The Intercept about whether Trump ordered the subpoenas in a statement sent Tuesday.

“Jay Clayton is a highly qualified legal expert who also possesses a significant degree of national security experience,” said Davis Ingle, a White House spokesperson. “He will undoubtedly do an excellent job in leading the Office of the Director of National Intelligence under President Trump, and the White House looks forward to his swift confirmation.”

Update: July 15, 2026, 2:00 p.m. ET
The article was updated with a statement from the Freedom of the Press Foundation.

The post Intel Pick Jay Clayton Won’t Tell Congress Whether Trump Ordered Subpoenas of NYT Journalists appeared first on The Intercept.