The letter obtained by The Intercept was part of Patel’s personnel file at the Miami-Dade Public Defender’s Office, where he once worked. The document, written “per instructions of my employer,” describes incidents of alcohol-related indiscretions not uncommon for those in their teens and twenties.

Two decades later, as Patel pushes back against allegations that drinking is impairing his leadership of the nation’s top law enforcement agency, these arrests show how Patel’s alcohol use has been subjected to scrutiny before in his professional life.

One incident recounted by Patel occurred in 2005, about four months before he wrote the letter. At the time, he was a law student at Pace University in New York celebrating with friends.

“We went to a few of the local bars and consumed some alcoholic drinks,” he wrote.

When they walked home, they made a bad decision.

“In a gross deviation from appropriate conduct, we attempted to relieve our bladders while walking home,” Patel said in the letter. “Before we could even do so, a police cruiser stopped the group. We were then arrested for public urination.”

Patel paid a fine after the incident, he wrote in the letter.

“Kash’s entire background was thoroughly examined and vetted prior to him assuming this role,” said Erica Knight, a spokesperson for Patel. “These attacks are nothing more than an attempt to undermine a process that has already deemed him suitable to serve and a distraction to the record-breaking success of the FBI under Director Patel.”

During an earlier incident in 2001, Patel wrote that he was arrested for public intoxication for drinking underage as a college student at the University of Richmond in Virginia. Patel helped run the Richmond Rowdies, a student fan group, and attended a home basketball game to help lead cheers. In his letter, Patel wrote that he was escorted out of the arena by a school officer due to excessive cheering.

“Upon exiting the arena,” he wrote, “the officer placed me under arrest for public intoxication, as I was not yet of 21 years of age.”

Patel said in his letter that he’d had two drinks and paid a fine following the arrest. According to NBC News, which previously reported his 2001 public intoxication arrest, Patel was found guilty on a misdemeanor charge days after the incident.

Patel’s letter about the Florida Bar disclosures has not previously been reported. The Intercept obtained Patel’s personnel file through a public records request to the Miami-Dade Public Defender’s Office, where Patel was hired on a $40,000 salary after being admitted to the Florida Bar.

“Both of these incidents are not representative of my usual conduct of behavior,” he wrote to conclude the letter, “and it is my hope that the Board views them as an anomaly. I dually apologize for my improper behavior both to the Board and the community at large.”

Patel Drinking Allegations

Twenty years after writing the letter, Patel became the ninth director of the FBI. His tenure has been marked by controversies, including over the firing of agents who worked on investigations of President Donald Trump, the use of his government jet, and lawsuits filed by his girlfriend, Alexis Wilkins, over false claims that she is a former Mossad agent.

More recent concerns about Patel’s drinking followed the release of a viral video in February of the FBI director chugging a beer with the U.S. Olympic hockey team in Italy.

Pressure mounted with a report in The Atlantic alleging, through anonymous sources, that Patel has been intoxicated at the social club Ned’s in Washington and the Poodle Room in Las Vegas, another private club. The Atlantic reported that Patel’s drinking has been “a recurring source of concern across the government.”

Related

Kash Patel Is Using MAGA’s Favorite Tool to Muzzle the Free Press

Patel denied The Atlantic’s claims and filed a defamation lawsuit. “These claims about erratic behavior and excessive drinking are fabricated,” Patel’s lawyer, Jesse R. Binnall, wrote in the complaint.

“I have never been intoxicated on the job, and that is why we filed a $250 million defamation lawsuit,” Patel said at a press conference on Tuesday. “And any one of you who wants to participate, bring it on. I’ll see you in court.”

The post Kash Patel Got Arrested for Public Urination After a Night of Drinking appeared first on The Intercept.

“The hospital has become my home,” Annan said, exhausted.

Last week, an Israeli strike leveled the building where Annan’s family lived in Kayfoun, a town in the Mount Lebanon governorate, west of the Lebanese capital.

“I buried my father,” he said, “but my mother is still missing.”

Since then, his days have become a single-minded search for any sign of his mother, Fatima, who is 56. Like several others searching for missing family members, Annan gave a sample of his blood to the hospital, hoping he can get some closure with a DNA match to unidentified remains.

“I walk through hospitals in the Mount Lebanon region. I stare at injured faces. I go to the morgues. I look for a mole, a mark,” Annan said. “Then I come back here. Waiting for the sample results.”

The cold-storage units at the Hariri hospital have been fashioned into ad hoc laboratories to identify a relentless influx of dead bodies.

The unprecedented scales of DNA identification of corpses is born of a macabre need. Last week, after Iran and the U.S. agreed to a ceasefire, Israel pressed on in its Lebanese front with a ferocious blitz of airstrikes. The toll was staggering, leaving demolished buildings and infrastructure, along with the attendant skyrocketing casualties — the violence rending people into unrecognizable forms.

“The bodies arrive completely disfigured,” said Hisham Fawwaz, director of the hospitals and dispensaries department at the Lebanese Ministry of Health, which operates the hospital. “The remains are scattered and the features obliterated. We are often not dealing with whole bodies. We are dealing with human fragments that the force of the explosions has turned into medical puzzles.”

After the Iran–U.S. truce, Israel launched more than 100 strikes on Lebanon in just 10 minutes, with the Israeli government taking to social media to brag about its assault. The latest round of hostilities between with Israel had already brought weeks of ravages to Lebanon, but last week’s onslaught, dubbed “Black Wednesday” by the Lebanese, razed densely populated neighborhoods in the capital. At least 357 were killed and more than 1,000 were injured, according to the health ministry.

A week later, dozens of people are still missing. The ceasefire in Lebanon announced by President Donald Trump on Thursday will hopefully lead to fewer bombings, but it won’t slow families’ attempts to find their loved ones and, if worse comes to worst, identify their remains.

The families remain on a desperate quest to track them down, whether they’re pinned under the wreckage or hidden among the dismembered bodies at the morgues like the one at Hariri Hospital.

Related

Israel Will Keep Occupying Lebanon Despite Ceasefire

At one point, more than 90 unidentified bodies were held there, some stretching back to the initial days of Israeli bombardment. Each body has been assigned a temporary number, waiting for someone to claim it.

The Health Ministry established a central triage center to absorb the uninterrupted flow of bodies, along with a protocol: document tattoos, distinguishing marks, and remnants of burned clothing that a family member might remember. Hospital workers also cross-reference physical descriptions from families with what is recorded of unidentified remains.

If that proves too difficult, doctors draw blood from living relatives to match the DNA against the unclaimed fragments of victims.

“Suspended Loss”

Zahraa Aboud had just recently fled her hometown of Anqoun in southern Lebanon. Israeli ground troops had invaded the town in March, razing entire villages and displacing hundreds of thousands as they set up a buffer zone intended to stop Hezbollah from lobbing rockets into northern Israel.

When the Israeli airstrikes grew relentless, Aboud, 29, and her sister traveled to Beirut, to their aunts’ apartment in the Ain Al-Mrayseh neighborhood. In the capital, she thought, they would be out of reach of the violence.

Israel’s missiles would soon come down on her.

According to Aboud’s father, Qassem, when an airstrike hit the upper floors of the aunts’ building, everyone in the apartment upstairs — including six children — was instantly killed. A floor below, Aboud’s aunts were killed in the same strike, and her sister was taken to Clemenceau Medical Center with serious wounds.

Zahraa Aboud, though, hasn’t been seen since.

“We are not looking for rubble,” said Qassem, 56. “We are looking for life. Or at least for the certainty that will put out the fire in our hearts.”

Related

Gaza’s Civil Defense Forces Keep Digging for 10,000 Missing Bodies

Rescue teams gave up after a few days of searching, but families of those missing in the rubble refused to leave the scene and pressured them to keep going.

Qassem Aboud, meanwhile, hasn’t stopped circling Beirut for traces of his daughter. Back and forth, he checks private hospitals, government hospitals, and lists of unidentified patients. In ICU wards across the city, he peers at any face behind an oxygen mask that might be hers.

The Aboud family calls the tragic situation “suspended loss”: They can’t find a sign of life to suggest they may get Zahraa back, but they’ve also been denied a final farewell and the chance to see their daughter off.

Like the others, Qassem submitted a blood sample to the hospital in hopes of later finding a DNA match — and closure.

After days of searching, Qassem came to suspect that the force of the explosion may have thrown his daughter’s body into a neighboring building. When he checked, he found the apartments were either locked or abandoned by departed residents. So far, he can’t find anyone to let him in.

“I feel very helpless every day, but will keep searching until I bury her,” he said.

The rubble itself has become a legal obstacle.

Buildings destroyed by Israeli strikes are classified, under Lebanese law, as private property. Civil defense teams and relief organizations cannot fully clear or demolish them without prior judicial authorization. The red tape is meant to protect property rights, to preserve the legal record, and to avoid tampering with what the law considers a crime scene, according to a source at the public prosecutor’s office who asked to stay anonymous as he’s not authorized to talk to the media.

Some of the legal restrictions have slowed rescues. Families that want to utilize specialized search dogs, which can move through the wreckage faster than people, must file formal requests at the public prosecutor’s office.

“We submitted the requests. We begged the relevant authorities to expedite the judicial procedures,” said a relative of a missing woman who asked not to be identified. “But the Lebanese judiciary has not moved. Every minute that passes is a nail in the coffin of our loved ones, while the judiciary is still reviewing paperwork.”

When families sought exceptional permissions to allow rescue teams to remove the rubble, judicial authorities did not respond to their requests, families of missing people said. (Judicial authorities did not respond to a request for comment.)

Back at Hariri Hospital, families continued filing into a makeshift office opened by the Health Ministry designed to help families identify their lost loved ones. Inside, they recalled the tiniest details of their missing relative, from birthmarks to unique articles of clothing — anything that may lead to closing a case. Then they give their blood. And they wait.

“The goal is not accounting,” said Fawwaz, the Lebanese Ministry of Health official. “It is to return to each victim their name, and to give their families the right to a farewell that ends the spiral of doubt.”

This article is published in collaboration with Egab.

The post Israel’s “Black Wednesday” Massacre Leaves Lebanese Families Giving DNA to ID Loved Ones’ Remains appeared first on The Intercept.

President Donald Trump announced on Thursday that a temporary ceasefire agreement had been reached between Israel and Lebanon. The 10-day ceasefire, set to begin at 5 p.m. ET, will reportedly see a pause to Israel’s relentless assault on southern Lebanon, which has displaced over 1.2 million people and killed at least 2,000 since early March.

Any news of reduced annihilation by Israeli and U.S. forces in the region is, of course, to be welcomed. Just a week ago, Trump was threatening to wipe out the whole civilization of Iran. In Lebanon, Israel has targeted civilian infrastructure like hospitals and demolished villages and homes with ferocity.

In the Israeli context, however, the very meaning of “ceasefire” has been irreparably degraded. This is the lesson of Israel’s ongoing genocide in Gaza. Under the conditions of an alleged ceasefire in Gaza since October, Israel has killed over 765 Palestinians in the Strip and injured over 2,000 — while maintaining a ground occupation of at least half the territory.

Related

Israel Agrees to Stop Bombing Lebanon — So It Can Keep Bombing Gaza

Those concerned about Israeli occupation and ethnic cleansing in Lebanon, too, have little reason to believe a ceasefire will see an end to Israel’s expansionist violence.

None of this is a secret. “Israel has no plans to withdraw its military from southern Lebanon during the announced 10 day ceasefire,” an Israeli security official confirmed to Reuters.

Israeli officials frame unambiguous expansion into Lebanon’s territory as the creation of a security “buffer zone.” The plan to maintain control of southern Lebanon is an open one, with a long history, imbued with renewed fervor by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s extremist government.

Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz has said that, even after the current war ends, Israel intends to maintain control over the territory up to the Litani River in southern Lebanon, and that all villages near Israel’s ever-moving border would be destroyed.

“[T]he policy of occupying and annexing south Lebanon up to the Litani River has long held influence among parts of the Israeli government,” wrote Mireille Rebeiz, chair of Middle East Studies at Dickinson College.  She noted that it “dates back to influential Zionist leaders — secular and religious alike — before Israeli independence in 1948.”

Related

“I Want to Occupy”: Inside the Israeli Movement Pushing to Raze and Settle Southern Lebanon

Israel has invaded Lebanon seven times in the last half century. Between 1978 and 2000, Israel maintained an 18-year occupation of southern Lebanon — the occupation Hezbollah was formed to fight.

It’s worth stressing, too, that while Israel and the U.S. describe the war as one against Hezbollah, it is being waged against the Lebanese people. Much like it is an unacceptable euphemism to describe Israel’s genocide and ethnic cleansing of Palestinians as a war with Hamas.

Lebanese journalist Lylla Younes told “Democracy Now!” that in southern Lebanon, as in Gaza, Israel is carrying out a “scorched-earth campaign,” destroying whole villages, mosques, and cultural sites. Her family’s village in the southern border region was bombed earlier this week.

“What the world should know is that we will return to these villages, and when we do, we’ll return to rubble, and it will be an immense process of rebuilding,” she said. That is, if return is possible at all.

Hezbollah, for its part, will not be fighting through the ceasefire, the group’s representatives had said.

“We will be respecting the ceasefire and we will deal with it cautiously,” said Ibrahim Moussawi, a member of the Lebanese Parliament and a Hezbollah spokesperson. He added that “it should hopefully be a beginning of a course of the Israeli withdrawal from our occupied territories.”

Related

The Forever Spoiler: Netanyahu Has Been Blowing Up Diplomacy With Iran for Decades

Lebanon’s Prime Minister Nawaf Salam wrote on X on Thursday that he has “full hope” that the Lebanese civilians displaced from the south will be able to return to their homes.

It is an optimism at direct odds with Israel’s open commitment to annexation — and it is a hollow hope in the face of what we’re seeing in Gaza.

“Israeli forces continue their violent attacks and expand their military control of the Strip,” noted Médecins Sans Frontières in a report last week. “Living conditions of Palestinians remain dire, while Israel continues to deliberately obstruct aid, which is translating into entirely preventable deaths.” The humanitarian medical aid group put it plainly: “This is not a ceasefire.”

This cannot be what “ceasefire” gets to mean.

The post Israel Will Keep Occupying Lebanon Despite Ceasefire appeared first on The Intercept.

The ceasefire announced Tuesday night by President Donald Trump and confirmed by Iranian officials is on life support. If Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu gets his way, it may soon be dead. 

Over the first 36 hours of the supposed ceasefire, hundreds have been killed and thousands injured in Israeli strikes on Lebanon. The attacks extended beyond Israeli’s traditional targets in southern Lebanon and Beirut’s outskirts into the central parts of the capital — and may mark the heaviest bombardment of the country since Israel’s 1982 invasion.

Trump suggested the ceasefire remains intact because Israel’s attacks are “a separate skirmish,” but the official announcement of the agreement described “an immediate ceasefire everywhere including Lebanon.” The language was put forward by Pakistan’s prime minister, who had brokered the deal and, according to the New York Times, the U.S. had seen the text before it was publicly released.

The words “including Lebanon,” however, lasted no longer than it took for Netanyahu to talk to Trump immediately before the ceasefire announcement. Trump confirmed Thursday that he told Netanyahu to “low-key it,” appearing to give Israel a green light to immediately violate the ceasefire and put it at risk of collapse.

In response, Iran says it will not open the Strait of Hormuz so long as Israel is violating the ceasefire. And planned talks in Islamabad for the U.S. and Iran to hammer out a longer-term agreement during the two-week ceasefire window have been thrown into doubt.

For his part, Netanyahu sought to dispel any notion that the Iran war was ending, emphasizing that the ceasefire is temporary and “a way station on the way to achieving all of our goals.”

When it comes exerting Israeli influence on the U.S., Netanyahu once infamously said, “America is a thing you can move very easily.” Indeed, according to reports, it was Netanyahu who convinced Trump to launch this war in the first place.

Now, potentially upending U.S. efforts to disentangle itself from conflict with Iran, the Israeli prime minister finds himself on familiar footing: playing the role of spoiler against any form of U.S.–Iran détente.

Decades of Détente-Busting

America’s supposed junior partner has worked ceaselessly to prevent any off-ramp from confrontation between the U.S. and Iran. In 1995, when Iran and the U.S. flirted with economic rapprochement by opening the Iran oil industry to American investment and development, Israel and AIPAC lobbied Congress and President Bill Clinton to block it.

In 2002, as Iran worked directly with the U.S. on Afghanistan in the aftermath of September 11, seeking a grand bargain, Israel interdicted a weapons shipment it said was bound for Palestinian forces, making questionable claims about the shipment’s Iranian provenance. The seizure helped tank the exploratory talks on Afghanistan and convinced President George W. Bush instead to infamously cast Iran as part of the “axis of evil.”

Related

For Netanyahu and the Saudis, Opposing Diplomacy With Iran Was Never About Enrichment

Over the course of President Barack Obama’s Iran nuclear talks from 2013 to 2015, Israel worked to block a deal — with Netanyahu engaging in unprecedented efforts to sabotage diplomacy. He even addressed a joint session of Congress against a nuclear deal over the White House’s objections. Ultimately, Netanyahu succeeded with Trump’s ascension: Under intense lobbying, Trump tore up the deal and nearly brought the countries to war before his first term ended.

Joe Biden campaigned on reentering the deal, but that aim was prematurely dispatched during Biden’s transition when Israel assassinated Iran’s top nuclear scientist in 2020, prompting Iranian hard-liners to pass legislation that blew up talks. When negotiations finally began in earnest in 2021, Israel launched an attack on Iran’s Natanz nuclear facility. Iran responded by announcing it would, for the first time, enrich uranium to nearly weapons-grade. The talks, predictably, failed.

Trump’s Second Term

Though Trump has proved to be a willing partner in Netanyahu’s push to increase tensions with Iran, Israel nonetheless now found ways to play the spoiler — much in the same manner it did with Clinton, Bush, Obama, and Biden.

The Israelis successfully turned two round of nuclear talks during Trump’s second term into cover for surprise attacks. Both the war on Iran in June 2025 and the current one were initiated not amid great diplomatic impasses, but when Iran put forward workable proposals. In both cases, U.S. officials said Israel was going to act regardless of the American position — and so the U.S. had to join the wars.

These were not wars to defeat Iran, but rather wars to defeat U.S. diplomatic efforts. They are the kinetic manifestation of Israel’s long efforts to keep the U.S. in a permanent state of war with Iran, sometimes cold, sometimes hot.

If U.S.–Iran talks do move forward and there actually is progress toward hammering out a sustainable cessation of hostilities, Israel will remain a wildcard. Any long-term ceasefire will require Israel’s acquiescence.

If Netanyahu tanks the ceasefire and the U.S. and global economy continues to suffer, Israel’s already plunging support among Americans is likely to falter even further. At this point, however, Netanyahu seems more concerned with his domestic political welfare than his credibility with American voters.

Related

Fool Me Twice: The Case for War With Iran Is Even Thinner Than It Was for Iraq

Netanyahu is widely thought to benefit from wars — from Gaza to Iran and now, most critically, in Lebanon — to shore up his political fortunes. He faces an election in October and losing could lead to the revival of corruption charges that might land him in prison.

The question now may unfortunately not be whether Iran and the U.S. can find a compromise. Instead, the fate of the global economy and, not least, Iranians themselves, could rest between Netanyahu and Trump, who faces his own political challenges in midterm elections this year.

It may once again be a question of whether it is America or Israel who blinks first.

The post The Forever Spoiler: Netanyahu Has Been Blowing Up Diplomacy With Iran for Decades appeared first on The Intercept.

The war in Iran has entered its first ceasefire — a two-week break from hostilities brokered largely by Pakistan that all sides have agreed to, with negotiations on a permanent end to the war to follow starting in a few days.

It’s hard to say who has emerged a “winner” in the war so far, but certainly when one examines what has been accomplished and what has not, the U.S. cannot claim a resounding victory, even as it demonstrated formidable military prowess.

Iran may, in fact, be the country that can claim the victory. It’s not just that the Islamic Republic of Iran survived, it’s also that the country demonstrated its control over the Strait of Hormuz — an outcome that establishes Iran’s position as both an influential regional force and a player able to exert sway over the entire world economy.

After the ceasefire announcement, Iran’s first vice president posted on social media: “Today, a page of history has been turned; the world has welcomed a new pole of power, and the era of Iran has begun.”

It sounds like Trumpian hubris, but it can’t immediately be dismissed as a far-fetched fantasy.

Survival — and More

First, the regime had to survive. And it did: Despite President Donald Trump’s self-serving claim, the regime in Iran hasn’t changed. In fact, the Iranian government may have become even more hard-line and less accommodating than before.

Iran took a beating. Despite the depletion of some of its strategic assets, however, the country has maintained many of its strategic capabilities.

Related

Lesson From Ukraine: Breaking Promises to Small Countries Means They’ll Never Give Up Nukes

The war hasn’t, for instance, eliminated the uranium stockpile Iran still possesses, though it is buried deep underground — leaving unmet another of the demands that the Trump administration. It is unclear if any of Iran’s thousands of advanced centrifuges survived the bombings in June of last year, but Iran’s ability to manufacture new ones has not been eradicated, despite the loss of some of its nuclear scientists over the past year.

Neither have Israel and the U.S. eliminated all of Iran’s missile launchers or its production lines, as evidenced by the ongoing attacks against Israel and neighboring Persian Gulf states with direct hits up to the ceasefire taking effect. Iran’s drone supply and production line also don’t appear to have been eliminated.

The war, in other words, hasn’t prevented Iran from being a threat to U.S. allies in the region — a threat that has shaken the Arab Persian Gulf states’ faith in U.S. security guarantees, to say nothing of investors’ confidence in the Emirates as a financial capital.

The Gulf is not the only region where the U.S. will suffer international consequences. The war also stoked tensions between Iran and Western nations — some of which assailed the U.S., while even staunch allies in Europe refused to cave to Trump’s admonishments to join the war.

Iran may remain one of the most geopolitically isolated states in the world, but U.S. isolation is rapidly on the rise as well.

The Clincher

Scoring the war and the previous attack on Iran’s nuclear sites like a boxing match, one might argue that Iran has “won” the second round, despite being bruised and bloodied in the fight.

Surviving intact after more than five weeks of intensive day and night bombing by two nuclear powers, the assassination of its supreme leader and some of its top leadership, and the destruction of infrastructure will itself be viewed by the regime and its supporters as victory.

Related

With Trump Threatening Genocide in Iran, Military Must Disobey His Orders, Former Pentagon Officials Say

The regime’s ability to keep fighting against arguably the greatest military power the world has ever seen will be viewed in Tehran and abroad as a remarkable show of strength, potentially establishing a deterrent against future rounds of fighting.

Ultimately, though, it is Iran’s demonstration of its ability to control the flow of oil, gas, and goods through the Strait of Hormuz that would clinch the match. It became evident that Iran’s sway over the strait, creating a toll booth of sorts, was virtually impossible to undo, short of a major ground invasion — something Trump and even his most reckless advisers were loath to authorize.

Leaving aside the bonus Iran received from the jump in prices as it continued to sell oil during the conflict, the toll it began charging — which amounts to about $2 million per ship — will fill its almost empty coffers in short order.

In his remarks to the press, Trump did not seem to be especially concerned with the toll, even suggesting that he, like any mafia boss, would like a piece of it. Iran may, in the event a permanent peace deal is achieved, even agree to pay the protection money if it guarantees the safety of the regime.

Stronger Position in Talks

From the perspective of many in the West and certainly in Iran, the claim that Iran “won” the second round of the match rings truer than the U.S. claim of having accomplished its goals.

Related

The Regime Survives, Trump Has to Deal, and Iranians Are the Biggest Losers

The U.S. and Israel’s assassinations and destruction of military and civilian infrastructure were never contestable; Iran was never a match for the two countries’ conventional forces. To what end, though, was the question.

Whether there is a final peace deal or not, the ends of the war can hardly justify the U.S. and Israel’s means. It may be enough to dissuade military action even absent a deal.

And looking forward, in terms of a longer peace deal and nuclear agreement, Iran is arguably in a stronger position than the days before the war.

At the announcement of the ceasefire, Trump said the Iranian 10-point plan was a workable start to negotiations. Though there are some disputes about whether the proposal Iran presented publicly matched what was transmitted privately, many of the new plan’s pillars matched those presented and what Omani mediators had described as a workable proposal for a diplomatic solution.

By surviving a war and inflicting real pain — physical and financial — on both the aggressors and their enablers, Iran can probably extract more concessions from Trump than it could before.

With his eye on the markets, the price of gasoline, the unpopularity of the war, and the realization in the wake of his apocalyptic threats that there is universal opposition to actually taking Iran back to the Stone Age, it should be obvious by now that Trump wants to put the Iran issue behind him as soon as possible.

In this way, too, the Iranians have shown that they have the upper hand. While Trump and Israel have demonstrated that they don’t understand the Iranian political system, the Iranians have a solid grasp of U.S. politics. They know about the upcoming midterm elections. Perhaps now they think the survival of the Trump regime is actually what’s at stake.

The post How the War Strengthened Iran’s Hand Against the U.S. and Israel appeared first on The Intercept.

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court marked International Trans Day of Visibility with yet another ruling that puts the lives of trans people at risk. The justices ruled that Colorado’s statewide ban on conversion therapy for young people likely violates a Christian counselor’s First Amendment rights. The decision threatens conversion therapy bans nationwide, which are currently on the books in nearly half of all U.S. states.

The 8-1 ruling has far-reaching, terrifying potential consequences. And not only for trans youth: It indicates that speech delivered by licensed health care practitioners in a professional capacity, no matter how harmful and debunked the claims, cannot be banned as illegal conduct, because it counts as protected speech.

Only Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, the one dissenting judge, appeared to appreciate the grave stakes of this ruling.

“Before now, licensed medical professionals had to adhere to standards when treating patients: They could neither do nor say whatever they want,” Jackson wrote in a blistering dissent. “Largely due to such State regulation, Americans have been privileged to enjoy a long and successful tradition of high-quality medical care. Today, the Court turns its back on that tradition.”

The dangers of conversion therapy to trans and queer youth cannot be overstated. According to the Trevor Project, a nonprofit suicide-prevention organization for LGBTQ+ young people, “LGBTQ+ youth who experienced conversion therapy are more than twice as likely to attempt suicide and more than 2.5 times as likely to report multiple suicide attempts in the past year.”

Conversion therapy, however, may not be the only potentially harmful intervention the ruling would apply to. As Jackson added in her dissent, the ruling “might make speech-only therapies and other medical treatments involving practitioner speech effectively unregulatable — not to be reached via licensing standards, medical-malpractice liability, or any other means of state control.”

It is a ruling, then, completely in line with our Trumpian moment of decimated medical care standards and eliminationist assaults on trans people. Indeed, it was done with support from President Donald Trump’s Justice Department.

As journalist and trans rights advocate Erin Reed wrote, the court’s logic in the ruling holds that “any medical treatment delivered through words rather than instruments could now carry First Amendment protection — a framework that could shield a doctor who encourages a patient to commit suicide, a dietician who tells an anorexic patient to eat less, or a therapist who deliberately steers a vulnerable client away from life-saving treatment.”

Reed noted that the decision risks extending constitutional protections to “speech-based professional conduct” in other fields, like a lawyer giving knowingly harmful legal advice.

Speech as Medicine

The crux of the majority’s opinion rests on the contested line between speech that is protected against government interference, and conduct, which can be regulated.

“Her speech does not become ‘conduct’ just because a government says so or because it may be described as a ‘treatment’ or ‘therapeutic modality,’” wrote Justice Neil Gorsuch in the majority opinion, referring to the speech of Christian counselor Kaley Chiles, who sued the state of Colorado over the conversion therapy ban with representation from the right-wing legal giant the Alliance Defending Freedom.

Gorsuch’s opinion draws an extraordinary conclusion about the role of certain speech acts in professional health care settings.

The Colorado law did not ban Chiles from holding and expressing Christian views; the law, like regulations in over 20 other states, banned conversion talk therapy — that is, speech acts delivered with the specific aim to “change an individual’s sexual orientation or gender identity, including efforts to change behaviors or gender expressions or to eliminate or reduce sexual or romantic attraction or feelings toward individuals of the same sex.”

It is precisely professional conduct that the law regulates.

As Jackson noted in her dissent, “The Constitution does not pose a barrier to reasonable regulation of harmful medical treatments just because substandard care comes via speech instead of a scalpel.”

Every major medical and mental health association has condemned the practice of conversion therapy.

Other Liberal Justices?

Given the danger posed by the court’s decision, it may seem surprising that the two other liberal justices, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor, sided with the far-right majority. Their decision, according to their concurring opinions, related to the fact that Colorado’s law was not written in sufficiently “viewpoint-neutral” language. 

“We need not here decide how to assess viewpoint-neutral laws regulating health providers’ expressions because, as the Court holds, Colorado’s is not one,” wrote Sotomayor.

Related

Executive Lawlessness: Leah Litman on the Supreme Court Enabling Presidential Overreach 

With this far-right supermajority Supreme Court, however, even cautiously worded conversion therapy bans may not survive the conservative justices. In the last year alone, the court has bucked precedents and ignored medical expertise, not to mention basic humanity, in previous anti-trans decisions like banning trans youth health care and ejecting trans people from the military.

The court’s Tuesday decision did not in itself strike down the Colorado law, but in siding with conversion therapy, the justices returned the case to the 10th Circuit, where the highest form of judicial scrutiny will be applied. The law will almost certainly be struck down.

If existing bans are invalidated, those seeking to stop a further proliferation of conversion therapy may now have to use “creative methods,” Reed wrote, like tort law and malpractice law.

This is the grim legal terrain forged by the Trump regime and bigoted groups like the Alliance Defending Freedom, aided by too many negligent or complicit liberals. Medical malpractice and harmful speech acts are protected, whereas trans kids’ existence gets no protection at all.

The post Conversion Therapy Gets Speech Protections — But Trans Kids’ Existence Gets No Protection at All appeared first on The Intercept.

The data belies a common talking point made by the White House during the massive immigration operation: that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents were arresting thousands of “dangerous criminal illegal aliens.”

From December 2025 to mid-March 2026, ICE made 4,030 arrests in the state. Of them, a staggering 2,532 arrests, or 63 percent, were of people with no criminal convictions or pending criminal charges, according to the data, which was previously unreported.

On February 4, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said in a statement, “President Trump’s commonsense immigration enforcement policies are delivering the public safety results the American people demanded, with more than 4,000 dangerous criminal illegal aliens already arrested in Minnesota since Operation Metro began.”

ICE’s own data contradicts the White House’s claim that all 4,000 people arrested were “dangerous criminal” undocumented immigrants at a time when about two-thirds of them had no records. (The White House referred a request for comment to ICE, which did not immediately respond.)

“The data confirms what the American people have overwhelmingly known, which is that Operation Metro Surge in Minneapolis was a complete failure,” said Elora Mukherjee, director of the Immigrants’ Rights Clinic at Columbia Law School and a faculty fellow at the Deportation Data Project. “Instead of targeting the ‘worst of the worst,’ it was ordinary law-abiding people who were caught up in the immigration dragnet, resulting in the needless and cruel separation of families and inflicting untold suffering on American children.”

The findings are based on The Intercept’s analysis of federal government data provided by ICE in response to a Freedom of Information Act request by the Deportation Data Project. The new tranche of data, published on Monday, includes information on all ICE arrests made nationwide till March 10.

Skyrocketing Arrests

The proportion of ICE arrests in Minnesota of immigrants without a criminal record increased sharply during the winter operation, dubbed “Metro Surge” by the Trump administration.

Between Trump’s inauguration in January 2025 and the end of November 2025, 44 percent of all ICE arrests in the state were of people without criminal records. From December until February 12, the date that border czar Tom Homan said the operation was coming to an end, 64 percent of all ICE arrests in the state were of people without criminal records.

The period of the surge also represented a giant jump in the number of arrests themselves. Nearly 4,000 of the 5,998 ICE arrests in Minnesota since Trump took office occurred between December and February 12.

In January alone, there were 2,530 ICE arrests recorded in Minnesota, underscoring the impact of the operation. In comparison, there were 177 ICE arrests in the state in November, the last month before the surge began.

A vast majority — 97 percent — of ICE arrests in Minnesota between December 2025 and February 12 were “street arrests”; all of those were listed in the data as non-custodial arrests referring to detentions where the person is not taken from another agency’s custody.

In contrast, only 52 percent of all ICE arrests elsewhere in the country in the same period were non-custodial arrests.

After Renee Good Killing

The enforcement surge in Minnesota began in early December, then ramped up in January following the killing of Renee Nicole Good by ICE agent Jonathan Ross. The Trump administration responded to the killing by doubling down and sending hundreds more federal agents to the state to intensify the immigration enforcement crackdown.

Now, The Intercept’s analysis of ICE arrests data shows that after Good was killed, the rate of ICE arrests in Minnesota more than doubled.

Related

The Woman Alex Pretti Was Killed Trying to Defend Is an EMT. Federal Agents Stopped Her From Giving First Aid.

There were 1,225 ICE arrests, or around 32 arrests per day, recorded in Minnesota from December 2025 until January 7, 2026, the day Good was killed. 

Since then up until February 12, when Homan said the operation in the state was coming to an end, the rate of ICE arrests shot up to 74 arrests per day, with a total of 2.672 arrests being recorded. 

The rate of ICE arrests stayed high despite the killing of Alex Pretti by federal immigration agents in Minneapolis on January 24.

Few Somalis Arrested

Around the time that the surge was announced, Trump administration officials repeatedly spoke of targeting Somalis in the Twin Cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul. The metropolitan area boasts the largest Somali community in the country, and most of its members are U.S. citizens or permanent residents.

The ramped-up enforcement in the state dovetailed with a campaign by far-right figures with ties to anti-Muslim and anti-immigrant views against Somalis in the state. 

YouTube videos made by a far-right influencer were reportedly responsible for the White House’s focus on the Twin Cities. The videos alleged widespread fraud by the Somali community, but many of the claims have since been debunked or shown to have been blown out of proportion. 

According to The Intercept’s analysis of ICE data, however, only 112 ICE arrests recorded in Minnesota from December until mid-March were of people listed as having Somali citizenship.

Update: March 31, 2026
This story has been updated to include a response from the White House and a comment from Elora Mukherjee, a faculty fellow with the Deportation Data Project.

The post Two-Thirds of People Arrested by ICE in Minnesota Surge Had No Criminal Records, New Data Reveals appeared first on The Intercept.

Over the weekend, the U.S. and Israel bombarded two universities in Iran, the Isfahan University of Technology and the Iran University of Science and Technology in Tehran.

These are not, of course, the first attacks on civilian infrastructure in President Donald Trump and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s illegal war on Iran; hospitals, desalination facilities, power plants, and an elementary school have all been hit.

The U.S. and Israel claimed that the attacks on the universities were justified, because they said the schools were connected to Iran’s weapons programs.

In response, Iranian authorities said on Sunday that American university facilities in the region would be considered legitimate targets, should the U.S. not condemn the strikes on Iranian educational institutions.

In a statement, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps warned “all employees, professors and students of American universities in the region to stay at least a kilometer away.”

Iranian students and educators received no such warning. Iran’s university campuses have been closed since the U.S.–Israeli war began last month; the weekend strikes nonetheless severely damaged buildings and reportedly wounded at least four staff members.

Cynical Justification

Leaving aside the fact that nothing in Trump’s war of choice against Iran is justified, the U.S. and Israel’s purported grounds for targeting Iranian universities are hollow and cynical. It is true that both universities had ties to military research. Would American and Israeli leaders consider their own equivalent institutions fair game? Of course not.

By stated U.S. and Israeli rationale, however, were Iran able to launch airstrikes on American soil, direct ties to the U.S. and Israeli military-industrial complex would make valid targets of at least the University of California, Berkeley; the Massachusetts Institute of Technology; and Johns Hopkins University, among dozens of other schools.

Numerous Israeli universities, including Technion and Tel Aviv University, have research institutes dedicated to military technologies. And the Hebrew University of Jerusalem has a military base on campus for training intelligence soldiers.

Asymmetric warfare offers powerful aggressors the privilege of hypocrisy. It has long been pointed out that Israel’s justifications for mass slaughtering civilians — that Hamas uses civilian infrastructure — would in turn justify strikes on civilian areas in Israel. The Israeli government, after all, has facilities and even military installations within and near major cities and towns, not to mention the integration of the military into vast swaths of civilian Israeli life.

This is true almost everywhere that commercial and military technologies become intractably integrated, but that integration is especially robust in Israel.

Indeed, in this grim conjuncture, the idea that any site related to military research and development is a justified target could be used to attack any industrial, educational, and technological hub — which is precisely what the U.S. and Israel are doing in Iran. The U.S. and Israel’s own justifications for the Iranian university strikes de facto legitimize strikes against an MIT or a Technion, but American and Israeli leadership know that Iran and its allies don’t have the firepower to flatten whole campuses.

This is not to say that Iran will not retaliate and attempt to extract a cost from its enemies; this has been the pattern since the U.S. and Israel launched their illegal offensive in late February.

Universities including New York University, Texas A&M, Carnegie Mellon, Northwestern, and others have lucrative campuses in the Persian Gulf monarchies, primarily in Abu Dhabi and Qatar. These schools have all already moved to online instruction and most international students and faculty have left countries facing retaliatory Iranian strikes.

Related

“Liberate Their Bodies From Their Souls”: The Lies That Sell the Iran War

These international campuses are not known for housing advanced research labs connected to military and surveillance research, but, as the student-led Gaza solidarity movement made clear, U.S. academia at large is deeply invested in multinational arms manufacturers and U.S. and Israeli military industries. Dozens of American institutions of higher education are deeply involved in the government-funded weapons research that helps make the U.S. military the most potentially destructive force in the world.

“Systematic” Targeting

Let’s not pretend, however, that the ongoing war on Iran follows any sort of valid justificatory reasoning.

According to Helyeh Doutaghi, a post-doctoral fellow at the University of Tehran who spoke to Al-Jazeera, the university bombings reflect a “consistent and clear pattern, and that is the systemic de-industrialization and underdevelopment” of Iran’s capabilities.

“The targeting is very systematic,” she said, “and very designed to make Iran incapable of defending its sovereignty by relying on its iedingeounous development and indigenous industries.”

Strikes against civilian infrastructure follow the same genocidal logic that saw every university in Gaza razed to rubble within 100 days of October 7, 2023. In a video shared by members of the Israeli military on social media in 2024, a soldier walked through the rubble of Al-Azhar University.

“To those who say, ‘There is no education in Gaza,’” he says, “we bombed them all. Too bad, you’ll not be engineers anymore.”

The point, that is, is the devastation of a place and a people, foreclosing their capacity to rebuild.

The post What Would We All Say If Iran Razed MIT Because of Military-Related Research? appeared first on The Intercept.

The night before we were set to fly out of John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York City, I approached my partner with a confession: For the first time that I can remember, I was afraid of flying with a Latino last name.

It was a new sort of affront I had to steel myself against. Air travel is filled with moments — buying basic economy tickets, being herded through winding security lines like cattle, squishing your limbs into a compact seat — that smoosh you until you feel subhuman, usually along class lines.

In the days leading up to our flight to Las Vegas, however, I saw the indignities of the airport mount as President Donald Trump deployed U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents into America’s terminals, turning an already-debasing necessity into something more chilling.

Certainly, that’s how I felt after my experience. At JFK, an ICE agent was taking the customary Transportation Security Administration role of checking IDs at security. Everything, though, seemed to be running as normal. When I handed over my passport, however, he asked me a question I hadn’t heard him ask anyone else in front of me — most of whom presented as white: “Do you have a second form of photo ID?”

I can’t be sure what motivated the agent to ask me, and apparently no one else near me, this question, but his request of me was difficult to separate from ICE’s role not only as brutal enforcers of Trump’s deportation regime, but also its use as his personal police force. If one thing has been consistent in ICE’s ever-expanding mission, it’s that the agency is being used by the administration to instill fear.

Related

Federal Agents Are Intimidating Legal Observers at Their Homes: “They Know Where You Live”

Later, it was impossible not to think about what my brief, eventually harmless encounter with the agent might portend. Shortly after Trump deployed ICE agents to airports, his former chief strategist Steve Bannon may have tipped the administration’s hand. Bannon speculated on his “War Room”podcast that the immigration force’s presence at TSA security checkpoints was a “test run” ahead of the November midterms.

Maybe, Bannon seemed to suggest, it was a rehearsal, meant to test how far the administration can stretch our tolerance for agents as part of the landscape of our daily lives without pushback.

If ICE’s invasion of American cities as part of Trump’s broad-based crackdown on immigration and dissent alike was a sledgehammer, what I experienced was more akin to a scalpel. It represents an agency that is understanding the criticisms against its methods and looking for new, more sophisticated ways to terrorize people.

If we can accept the reality that Trump’s personal army is requiring more documentation from us just to board an Airbus, how long until we are forced to tolerate them in our voting booths and beyond?

Training Us to Terror

It was hard not to feel that surgical instillation of terror during my airport visit.

The heightened scrutiny of airport security already makes me feel like a criminal, one who doesn’t even know he committed a crime. In the days leading up to my flight, I prepared for that same kind of interaction, amplified by the presence of someone with a gun and near-unlimited state power. I knew I’d have to get much closer to an ICE agent than I ever had before.

Related

How to Keep ICE Agents Out of Your Phone at the Airport

Instagram videos of JFK suggested lines might be long, but when we arrived on Thursday morning, the terminal was mostly empty and the estimated wait time in my reserve line was only about 15 minutes.

It ended up taking twice as long. As we got closer to the security checkpoint, I realized what the holdup was: A TSA agent was standing behind two ICE agents, training them on how to do her job. As she stood there — working without getting paid, unlike the heavily armed agent sitting in front of her — she walked them through the steps.

I got a closer look at one of the ICE agents. He was white and bald, wearing military fatigues and a tactical vest that announced his employment with ICE.

People in front of me walked through without incident, performing the usual routine: passport, boarding pass, then on to remove their belts and unsheathe their laptops.

When I stepped up to the podium, I wondered if I was about to interact with someone who would be suspicious of me merely for my name and skin color.

I let out an involuntary smile — perhaps as a subconscious signal that I am friendly and low-risk. The ICE agent asked for my passport, which I handed over, as usual, and waited while a machine took my picture. I anticipated moving on quickly.

That’s when he asked me for another form of ID. At that moment, I started to feel my face turn hot, as if I were being accused of something. A U.S. passport is considered one of the most powerful forms of identification in the world. Why did he need a second document?

Though I had already started to grab the wallet in my coat pocket, he followed up with, “You know, like a driver’s license?” I handed over the plastic driver’s license — not a REAL ID, which is why I brought my passport — and waited for his verdict.

He looked back and forth between my documents and the monitor and then OKed me to walk forward.

My partner, who is white, walked through behind me without incident.

Later, as I was sitting in my seat toward the plane’s rear, I began to gain a greater perspective on what I had just undergone. That interaction — the kind that I had worried about for a few hours before waking up and schlepping to the airport — was designed to happen to people like me. It represented a moment of friction, designed to jolt me at first, but then get me used to the fact that people with weapons will now ask more of me just to do the same thing I had done a few weeks before, when I flew to Puerto Rico without any ICE agents at the TSA checkpoint.

Free passage would be harder, the stakes of any interaction would be higher. The fear that I was feeling in that moment had been designed, as if in a lab, to train me to accept a violent overreach that would’ve seemed absurd mere weeks ago.

It’s easy to see how this creep might affect people — Latinos and other immigrants who have citizenship — at their polling places. It will bring a little terror. And then instill a little normalcy.

The post ICE at Airports Trains Us to Accept Being Terrorized in Our Daily Lives appeared first on The Intercept.

The U.S.–Israel war on Iran was supposed to end quickly in either an “unconditional surrender” or regime change. Weeks into the conflict, none of it has happened. There appears to be little cause for celebration in Washington, notwithstanding Secretary of War Pete Hegseth’s daily jingoistic proclamations.

There is, of course, even less cause for celebration among the population living under nightly aerial assault in Iran. Pro-war Iranians in the diaspora, too, seem to have tamped down their initial exhilaration over the death of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei.

It appears that neither the U.S. nor Israel had any plan if the Iranian nezam, or regime, decided to punch back after being subjected to a massive surprise attack on February 28. Those counterpunches have led to the deaths of U.S. service members, Israeli civilians, and migrant workers living in the Arab monarchies of the Persian Gulf.

Then there is the economic cost. Oil and gas production and transit are frozen in the Gulf, thanks to Iran’s missile strikes that hit regional energy infrastructure and its closure of the Strait of Hormuz. The markets, accordingly, are in disarray.

“Everyone,” Mike Tyson once said, “has a plan until they get punched in the mouth.”

Iran’s leaders seem to think they have the upper hand right now — they have rejected a ceasefire offer from the U.S. outright — but Donald Trump might have more tricks up his sleeve.

The U.S. is moving troops into the Persian Gulf, potentially with a limited ground invasion looming. Trump, reports suggest, is most likely to go after a small island where Iran keeps an oil terminal for its tankers, or one of the islands closer to the actual Strait, which he would like to see open to all sea traffic.

For now, talks might not be in the offing, despite Trump’s proclamations — most recently that, despite the “fake news,” talks are ongoing and going well. Even by seizing Kharg Island or any other Iranian territory, however, Trump will not make the Iranians buckle. Short of a full-fledged regime change invasion, taking an Iranian outpost in the Persian Gulf may shift the balance of power, but not topple the government. Talks will still be necessary to end the war.

So, the assumption at this point is that the regime will survive — and the ones who really pay for that will be the Iranian people.

Who to Talk To

There is a generous view about Trump’s intentions: that there actually was a realistic plan, one that wasn’t about forcing capitulation or actual regime change. Though some Iranians, especially the former crown prince Reza Pahlavi and his supporters, had certainly hoped for a war of regime change, it’s plausible that Trump was merely seeking a regime adjustment, as he secured in Venezuela.

Even that plan, though, has fallen apart more than once. As Trump himself has said, when Khamenei and his family were targeted for assassination by Israel in the opening salvo of the war, some of the people that the U.S. had identified as potential Delcy Rodríguez types were also killed.

Related

“Liberate Their Bodies From Their Souls”: The Lies That Sell the Iran War

It all makes one wonder whether the close coordination between Israel and the U.S. didn’t extend to letting the Israelis know that Trump would be satisfied with a Venezuela outcome. Or, if the Israelis did know, then whether they intentionally undermined those plans.

If that’s what happened, it would also explain the later Israeli assassination of Ali Larijani, secretary of the Supreme National Security Council, who appeared to be Iran’s top official in the physical absence of the new supreme leader, Mojtaba Khamenei.

Killing Larijani would have helped to forestall any deal that Trump might make with the regime. Larijani, a conservative but known as a pragmatist who, as parliament speaker, had supported the 2015 nuclear deal between Iran and the U.S., could be someone that Trump may have been able to leverage as a partner in a peace deal. Like the other potential interlocutors Trump had in mind, however, he ended up very dead.

Now the person being openly talked about in Washington as someone to talk to is perhaps the last pragmatic conservative in the top leadership, Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Qalibaf, a former commander in the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps like Larijani. Trump has hinted this is who he is speaking to but hasn’t name-checked him, for fear, he said, that Qalibaf too would end up somehow targeted by the Israelis. (This perplexing mouse-and-cat game recalls Bill Clinton’s quip after a meeting with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in 1996: “Who’s the fucking superpower here?”)

It’s unclear at this stage if Qalibaf has the mandate to negotiate a deal with Trump — or whether the Iranian leadership even wants a deal yet. Instead, the Iranians may prefer to continue bleeding the enemy — and the world economy — while creating chaos in the region, all to establish a deterrence against future attacks.

That possibility is only made more likely because ultra-hardliners in Iran are ascendant — no thanks to Israeli assassinations of anyone who might be likely to deal or want a deal.

Larijani, after all, was replaced as Iran’s top security official not by a fellow pragmatist, but by an arch-conservative hardliner and former Revolutionary Guard commander Mohammad Bagher Zolghadr. And the former head of the IRGC, Mohammad Pakpour, who was killed in the strike on Khamenei’s compound on February 28, has been replaced Ahmad Vahidi, arguably more hardline as compared to his two immediate (and assassinated) predecessors.

Bad to Worse for Iranians

With reformers, moderates, and proponents of engagement with the West sidelined and irrelevant to decision-making, it seems pretty obvious that whatever plan B the Trump administration is cooking up, the options range from bad to worse, both for America and the Iranian people.

Iran’s leadership believes it’s in the driver’s seat at this stage in the war. Its most powerful tool has been economic: the effective closure of the Strait of Hormuz, which is driving Trump and others in the administration mad. Hegseth said the Strait would be open if Iran hadn’t closed it, and Secretary of State and national security adviser Marco Rubio said the Strait will be open if Iran opens it. Indeed.

Short of complete regime change, however, opening the Strait by force will be an extremely difficult challenge.

Related

Pentagon Claims It Needs Additional $200 Billion to Pay for War on Iran

Trump’s bad-to-worse choices are to make a deal that will be viewed by many as a loss for American credibility and a win for Iran — or to double down with a ground invasion that not only will result in American casualties, but also might fail to even secure leverage to open the Strait. An Iraq-style invasion with tens of thousands of troops and a prolonged war might result in the U.S. being able to impose a supplicant leader, but it is hard to imagine that Trump would make the decision to make such a move.

As for the Iranian people, the Islamic Republic will be more repressive than even before and will mercilessly put down any revolt by its citizens. Iranians will suffer first in the aftermath of a war that has killed innocent civilians and destroyed infrastructure and cultural heritage sites. Then they will have to live under a system that will be suspicious of any dissenter or opposition activist as an agent of Israel or the CIA.

Iran’s Islamic system post-war will be more radical and more militarized in a less centralized form; Khamenei’s death will become a cold comfort to Iranians inside and outside the country.

Trump’s own misunderstanding of Iran, Iranians, and especially the leadership in Iran has brought him to this bad-to-worse choice. If he chooses his least bad option, however, the elephant in the room will be Netanyahu. What he will decide to do if a ceasefire and a deal leaves the Iranian regime in place able to project power?

Israel’s attempts to block an early end to the war and its continued campaign to destroy as much Iranian civilian infrastructure as possible has shown that Netanyahu cares as little for the Iranian people as Trump and his supporters do, including Iranians who celebrate the war as bombs fall on their compatriots.

Maybe Trump will decide to go completely rogue and continue his war of total destruction, irrespective of what the end game is. That, sadly, would be yet another way the Iranian people will be paying the bill.

The post The Regime Survives, Trump Has to Deal, and Iranians Are the Biggest Losers appeared first on The Intercept.

It started on President Donald Trump’s very first day in office in 2017. Over 200 Inauguration Day protesters were mass arrested and charged with hefty riot and conspiracy felonies for simply being present and wearing black at a rowdy demonstration.

Since then, the government has sought and failed to convict left-wing activists on thin, unconstitutional claims of collective guilt.

Just as the J20 prosecutions, as the inauguration cases were known, fell apart, so too did cases accusing dozens of participants in the Atlanta-based Stop Cop City movement of domestic terrorism, racketeering, and conspiracy.

It became a pattern of sorts. Prosecutors on both the federal and state level throwing extreme and overreaching charges at leftists, based on infirm theories of collective liability, aiming to paint antifascist, anti-racist movements as criminal terrorist networks. The evidence marshaled in these cases was consistently no more than typical First Amendment-protected activity, like making protest signs, raising bail funds, or being present at a demonstration. The cases drained movement energies and resources.

Again and again, though, they failed.

This was the pattern repeated in the malign, overreaching cases against protesters in Fort Worth, Texas. The anti-ICE activists had mounted a demonstration at a U.S. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement jail in nearby Alvarado.

There were consistencies with other anti-protest cases. There had been some illegal activity outside the Prairieland Detention Facility last July, and a police officer was shot. The government latched onto these circumstances to build its strategy of criminalizing dissent through guilt by association.

Even in conservative Texas, I didn’t think a jury would buy the government’s case that these defendants were “North Texas Antifa Cell operatives” — an organization fabricated whole cloth by the Trump administration — who had orchestrated an elaborate ambush of the ICE facility.

Related

Anti-ICE Protesters Convicted on Terrorism Charges for Wearing All Black

Last week, a jury found eight of the defendants guilty of terrorism charges for simply being present and wearing black at the protest. The government scored a resounding victory: A few of the protesters, none of whom had fired any weapons, were acquitted of attempted murder charges, but the Justice Department won on almost all the other charges.

“Most people looking at this case are still stuck on the shooting aspect, but the jury decided the shooting was beside the point,” a member of a support group for the defendants told me. “The verdict is that a normal noise demo deserves to be called terrorism and people should spend potentially the rest of their lives in prison. The implications of this are obvious, and people should know that the DOJ is going to try this again.”

Grim Precedents

The convictions mark a number of grim precedents. It was the first successful effort in court to paint anti-ICE, antifascist protest activity as not only criminal but also terroristic; the first time federal terrorism charges have been deployed in association with the “antifa” label; and the first time the Trump government’s collective guilt strategy won in court.

The terrorism-related charges in the case were filed just a month after Trump announced that he was designating antifa, which is not an organization, a “major terrorist organization” — a designation that does not exist under law for domestic groups.

It’s little wonder that the Justice Department is celebrating the convictions. Trump’s Attorney General Pam Bondi said in a statement that the “verdict on terrorism charges will not be the last as the Trump administration systematically dismantles Antifa and finally halts their violence on America’s streets.”

The prosecution’s case was extraordinarily weak — all they really proved was that the activists, some of whom knew each other, planned and attended a late-night demonstration during which certain illegal acts took place.

Related

Trump Calls His Enemies Terrorists. Does That Mean He Can Just Kill Them?

If that can be sold to juries as the work of an organized terrorist cell, deserving of decades in prison, then Trump’s fantasy of rounding up and imprisoning leftists en masse becomes a reality. This was entirely the idea behind Trump’s National Security Presidential Memorandum 7, or NSPM-7, released last September, which directs federal law enforcement agencies to target left-leaning groups and activities. One of the defense attorneys involved in the Prairieland cases told news outlet NOTUS that it “wouldn’t be a terrorism case if it weren’t for that memo.”

Throughout the trial, the prosecution treated it as a given that antifascist, anti-government, left-wing sentiment was itself evidence of criminal conspiracy. As The Intercept’s Matt Sledge reported, “prosecutors bombarded jurors with images of radical zines” and “anti-government internet memes, drawings of burning cop cars, and a video of an unidentified street brawl between far-left and far-right protesters.”

The fact that demonstrators wore black and covered their faces — a reasonable tactic in an era when federal forces are filming and openly harassing legal observers and anti-ICE protesters — was presented as material support for terrorism, for which the jury convicted eight defendants.

Another defendant was convicted for the crime of moving a box of zines and pamphlets.

What should have at most been individualized cases relating to a shooting and minor property damage were instead spun by the government into a delusional story of a planned ambush involving “explosives” — protesters set off retail fireworks — and “terroristic acts,” according to a Justice Department statement.

Whether certain illegal activity took place outside the Prairieland Detention Facility last July 4 was never up for debate in this case. Protesters spray-painted vehicles in the parking lot, and a police officer was shot in the neck by one protester, Benjamin Song. (Song was convicted of one count of attempted murder and could face up to life in prison.)

Keep Up the Fight

The material support for terrorism and related convictions must be challenged in appeal. They are unconstitutional and were obtained in a trial riddled with irregularities.

For one, the Trump-appointed judge, U.S. District Court Judge Mark Pittman, abruptly declared a mistrial during jury selection based on the initial jury pool reportedly showing too little sympathy for ICE.

When the trial restarted, the judge himself took charge of jury selection — a highly unusual move.

Pittman also barred Song from presenting a self-defense argument. In closing arguments, his defense attorney said that Song only shot at the ground after police officers fired first, and that the injured cop was grazed by a ricocheted bullet.

And access to the court for supporters, observers, and the media was also extremely limited.

“All the odds were stacked against the defendants from the start,” Xavier T. de Janon, a defense attorney representing one of the defendants, told Unicorn Riot. “The rulings of the judge, the way the courtroom was closed, the fact that the first jury was declared a mistrial, where this was happening, the very strict rules on who can even take these cases in north Texas, the sanctions that the judge imposed on defense attorneys for filing very normal motions — all of this piled up to end in this result.”

It’s notable, too, that the defense attorneys did not mount a defense in court. Once the prosecution rested its ideology-drenched and inconsistency-filled case, the defense rested too, and closing arguments proceeded.

“We do not know how things would have gone otherwise, but the assumption that the state’s glaringly weak case was enough to convince a North Texas jury pool to vote not guilty was delusional,” a close friend of a number of the defendants who helped with court support efforts told me. “This is not merely 20/20 hindsight, many of the supporters and loved ones of the defendants disagreed with the decision when it happened.”

With the Prairieland defendants also facing state charges, and with appeals processes ahead, there is a clear need to present a robust case against the government’s pernicious and dangerous lawfare. Outside of future trials and court challenges, it is crucial that anyone invested in challenging Trump’s fascist deportation machine understand the stakes of these cases and show solidarity with defendants accordingly.

The Prairieland case, as I’ve previously noted, provided a convenient testing ground for state repression, in part because it has not been lifted up as a national cause célèbre against Trumpian overreach. The reasons why should be obvious: not only were there acts of minor vandalism, but also a police officer was shot — a highly unusual event at these sorts of demonstrations.

No matter how unique, however, the Texas case reveals precisely the strategies the Trump administration will use, with the assistance of state forces, to target whole movements and communities with prosecutorial overreach and a logic of guilt by association. In the face of Trump’s escalations, this is no time for anti-ICE activists to distance themselves from protests where militant activity might occur; this is the chilling effect the government seeks.

It is the nature of contemporary far-right governance to throw everything against the wall, repeatedly, until something sticks to achieve its goals. Anti-trans laws that once roundly failed are now on the books in multiple states; once-constitutionally protected reproductive rights have been decimated.

With brute force, repetition, and relentlessness, Trump and his acolytes hack away at established protections. First Amendment-protected protest activity is no different. The Trump regime has been seeking to criminalize leftist dissent since the president’s first inauguration. For years, nothing stuck. We cannot let Prairieland be the turning point.

The post Why We Have to Fight Back Against ICE Protesters’ Terror Convictions appeared first on The Intercept.

It was a Saturday in February, and I was checking my email inbox on my phone for no particular reason, during a conference. A Mother Jones reporter had written a note, so I opened it.

It’s not so unusual for me to receive press inquiries ­— I am a feminist writer who touches on hot-button issues — but this particular email I never could have predicted. It was about an infamous federal case against people arrested in connection to a protest against U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

Last July 4, a group of people had gathered for a demonstration against ICE’s Prairieland Detention Facility in Alvarado, Texas. It was a noise demo during which a police officer was shot. Some 18 people were arrested and charged for the protest.

The government’s indictment against the Prairieland protesters stood as a chilling development in President Donald Trump’s war on dissent: It was the first time that terrorism-related charges had been brought against people for allegedly being part of an “antifa cell.”

Did I have any thoughts, the Mother Jones reporter wanted to know, on the prosecution using an essay by me in a terrorism trial?

Excuse me?

The essay in question: a film review I wrote in 2019 about the horror movies “Hereditary” and “Midsommar.”

I blinked twice, rubbed my eyes, and then began digging around on the internet to understand.

To my astonishment, prosecutors had introduced my seven-year-old analysis of feminism’s relationship to horror cinema as “evidence of ideologically driven intent” the previous day.

Although I published the piece in “Commune” magazine, the review had been printed in zine format — and that was what authorities seized from the Dallas home of one of the defendants, Daniel Sanchez Estrada, last summer.

“Guilt by Literature”

The appearance of my review in the trial is a brazen attempt at conjuring “guilt by literature” — just one of the tactics prosecutors have used to criminalize speech and use First Amendment-protected speech as a legal weapon against the Trump administration’s political enemies.

Nobody, by the way, is suggesting that Estrada shot or conspired to shoot the officer. He stands accused of two crimes: attempting to conceal documents “by transporting a box containing numerous Antifa materials” and conspiracy to conceal those zines. He faces up to 20 years in prison.

Related

The Feds Want to Make It Illegal to Even Possess an Anarchist Zine

Estrada isn’t himself facing terror charges, but he being tarred with the label by his association with this so-called “antifa cell.” What Estrada’s case most acutely represents is the way the President Donald Trump conflates antifa and terrorism to do things like criminalize the transportation of zines — in other words, simple First Amendment protected activity.

Trump pulled this off by deeming antifa a “major terrorist organization” — a legal designation that doesn’t even exist for domestic groups — ignoring the fact that antifa is an orientation, not a group.

The feds, as Natasha Lennard notes, tend to try to evidence such charges by collecting circumstantial evidence of individual crimes alleged to have taken place “in the context of” legal protest activity — even when there is no direct link between those charged and the alleged crimes.

The charge may or may not stick — often they don’t — but the lawfare from above serves a terrorizing end in itself, she explains, since “the lengthy prosecutions hamper protest movements and chill dissent.”

Why My Review?

I need to ask: Why my review? And the truth is I don’t really have a great answer.

There is a rich irony here: My little horror movie review was introduced to prove a conception of antifa that — like many of the monsters we scream at in horror flicks — isn’t quite real.

The title of my essay — which is to say, of the zine seized from the accused’s house in Dallas — is “The Satanic Death-Cult Is Real.” It refers to the fictional demon-worshipping ceremony in the final scene of “Hereditary” as well as, at the same time, to the all-too-real, madness-inducing logic of the private nuclear household.

From my ego’s standpoint, it’s painful to assume that anyone is refusing to read beyond my titles before reacting. (It’s a tragically common occurrence: I’m the author, after all, of books about the communization of care with titles like “Full Surrogacy Now” and “Abolish the Family.”)

It seems, though, that the FBI didn’t read beyond the cover of what it calls my “booklet.” That was the description of my review-in-zine-form when it appeared in an itemized receipt for seized property, alongside cellphones, computers, weapons, and other bits of technology — for the sole reason that it is willing to throw anything, no matter how absurd, at anti-ICE activists to paint them as vile terrorists.

When the Mother Jones reporter messaged, I replied immediately, from my phone, in a state of agitation. It ought to be surprising, I pointed out, that possession of a printout of some film criticism could be brandished as evidence of a treasonous conspiracy against the United States government, yet — in 2026 — it is not.

“Perhaps,” indeed, I wrote, “there is an element of truth in the state’s preposterous linking of the mere implication of having read antifascist culture writing about the private nuclear family in [director] Ari Aster’s oeuvre with the alleged crime of belonging to a cell of an organization — antifa — that, as we all know, doesn’t even exist.”

Related

Wearing All Black at Protests Makes You Guilty of Terrorism, Prosecutors Tell Jury

Thankfully, however, organized antifascism does exist. I proudly accept the notion that any of my writings have helped in any small way to stoke the desire to practice antifascism, courageously and practically, as those blocking and protesting the brutality of American stormtroopers are doing all over the world.

If nothing else, I’m grateful that the FBI seized my book review and that prosecutors hauled it out in this ridiculous trial, because it gave me the opportunity to express my full solidarity with the Prairieland defendants.

The post I Wrote a Movie Review. Cops Took It From a Protester’s Home to Make the Case That He’s a Terrorist. appeared first on The Intercept.

In publicizing the account, however, the university downplayed Columbia’s own role in Aghayeva’s arrest, an echo of several other incidents over the past year where international students were targeted by federal agents.

Columbia, according to an investigation by The Intercept, repeatedly failed to follow its own policies for safeguarding students from President Donald Trump’s deportation machine.

The school has long required that authorities — whether federal or local — present a judicial warrant to gain entry to school grounds. Yet a review of university documents and interviews with affected students show how, in Aghayeva’s and other cases, school staff and officials failed to demand the proper documentation.

Since at least March 5, 2025, when provost Angela Olinto emailed school deans about it, Columbia’s explicit policy has been to bar ICE agents from non-public school property. Yet, in the days following the email, federal immigration agents entered school residential buildings without a warrant at least twice.

“After what happened in Minnesota, we know that ICE is coming to our communities. It’s not surprising that they would be coming after Columbia and students,” Eli Northrup, a New York state assembly candidate whose district would include Columbia, said of ICE. “What is surprising is that every single person working in a Columbia building didn’t have it ingrained that if law enforcement comes, that’s something that needs to be thoroughly vetted.”

Members of the Columbia community, including students who have been detained by ICE, said that despite its clear policies the school has shown that it placed its priorities on matters other than defending people from immigration authorities. They pointed to the involvement of officers from Columbia’s Department of Public Safety in cracking down on campus protests against Israel’s war in Gaza.

Mahmoud Khalil, a Palestinian student and protest leader who was arrested inside a Columbia residential building last March by immigration agents, said, “Columbia invested more in training Public Safety how to brutalize students, how to arrest them, rather than how to protect them.”

In response to questions, Columbia pointed The Intercept to its public statements on Aghayeva’s arrest. The Department of Homeland Security, ICE’s parent agency, did not respond to requests for comment.

Aghayeva’s Arrest

Last week, shortly after ICE agents arrived to arrest Aghayeva, who is Azerbaijani, acting Columbia President Claire Shipman wrote an email to the school community.

“It is important to reiterate that all law enforcement agents must have a judicial warrant or judicial subpoena to access non-public areas of the University,” she said.

Related

Zohran Mamdani Kept Columbia Student in New York — Then Phoned With Trump to Secure Her Release

Later, after the student had been released from custody, Shipman said in a video statement that the five ICE agents did not present “any kind of warrant” and misrepresented their identities to enter the building by saying “they were police searching for a missing child.” The following day, Shipman told a university plenary that ICE was let into the property by a Columbia building attendant. Later, a university security officer arrived and asked for a warrant, Shipman said. The federal agents ignored the request.

Concerned students and faculty members questioned how such a major lapse could take place close to a year after similar lapses resulted in Columbia students being targeted by warrantless federal agents on university property.

“It was clear that this individual didn’t know what he was supposed to do,” said a professor of psychology at Columbia, who asked to remain anonymous for fear of retaliation from the university.

In the aftermath of Aghayeva’s arrest, Columbia announced that it will be conducting webinars for its students, faculty, and staff on “immigration policy and understanding the law.”

Given the lapses that have occurred, however, calls are growing for Columbia to train its own security personnel to do better.

Words Versus Actions

“ICE agents must have a judicial warrant or subpoena to access non-public areas,” said the March 2025 email to school deans from Olinto, the provost.

Just two days after the email was sent, on March 7, building door staff at a Columbia building allowed federal agents without a warrant to enter a university property.

“I called Public Safety the moment ICE was outside my house,” said Ranjani Srinivasan, an Indian Ph.D. student and the target of the raid. “They said that they’ll file a report and told me not to open the door. And that was it.”

The incursion had come amid a battle between the Trump administration and the university over $400 million in federal funding, which the government suspended on the same day as the raid.

It was also on the same day that Khalil wrote to university authorities about the danger of ICE coming to his home. Khalil, who had been a lead negotiator for the campus protest encampments, had attracted the ire of campus pro-Israel activists, whom he said were trying to get him arrested by ICE.

“I haven’t been able to sleep,” Khalil wrote in an email at the time, “fearing that ICE or a dangerous individual might come to my home. I urgently need legal support, and I urge you to intervene and provide the necessary protections to prevent further harm.”

The university was not forthcoming with any help. The following night, Khalil was arrested by federal immigration agents from inside his university residential building. No warrant had been provided — and no beefed-up security was present.

The day after Khalil was arrested, Columbia published a brief statement that said, “There have been reports of ICE around campus. Columbia has and will continue to follow the law.”

The statement cited the university policy requiring agents to have a judicial warrant to enter non-public areas but gave no indication that authorities in the previous days twice earlier entered buildings without the warrants.

Double Standards

The university’s response to Aghayeva’s arrest stood in stark contrast to how it reacted to the detention and targeting of other Columbia students: Khalil, fellow Palestinian student protester Mohsen Mahdawi, and Yunseo Chung, a U.S. permanent resident who the Trump administration targeted after her arrest at a protest. The Trump administration pursued the three students for their pro-Palestine advocacy, according to court documents.

Following Aghayeva’s arrest, Columbia promptly notified the community and announced that additional Public Safety patrols were being deployed to its residential buildings. Shipman quickly released a statement that said, “We started work immediately to gain her release. We are so grateful for the help and support we got from the mayor and the governor.”

“[I was] happy that such help is being extended to a community member as it should have been extended to me and to others,” said Khalil. “Yet, I couldn’t ignore the discrepancy in that response and how all of these were denied to me. Until this time, Columbia hasn’t reached out to me personally to offer any kind of support.”

Related

ICE Duped a Federal Judge Into Allowing Raid on Columbia Student Dorms

Mahdawi’s arrest came after the school criticized a pro-Palestine event he had been involved in. The school initially said the demonstration included “threatening rhetoric and intimidation.” Eventually, the administration said the characterization was misleading, but no clarification was issued. When the authorities came after Mahdawi, they cited the language as grounds for his arrest.

“When speech concerns Palestine, protections suddenly weaken, enforcement intensifies, and silence from leadership grows louder,” Mahdawi told The Intercept.

While the failure to stop federal agents with judicial warrants was a shortcoming of public safety, school security officials have not shied away from robust crackdowns on pro-Palestine protests.

“I believe that all of the securitization of campus exists to police the students,” said Srinivasan, the Ph.D. student targeted by ICE. “It does not actually exist to protect the students from ICE.”

On Friday, Columbia announced enhanced security measures including additional personnel around residence buildings, expanded video intercom systems, and distribution of “know your rights” printouts. The university also said that its personnel at housing buildings had received additional trainings over the past week.

It took a year, repeated security failures, and the arrest of a student unrelated to the pro-Palestine protests in any way for the measures to be announced.

People advocating for students, however, noted that Columbia already barred warrantless entry into university buildings.

“It has to be more than a policy,” said Northrup, the state assembly candidate. “It has to be executed.”

The post Columbia Flouted Its Own Policies and Let ICE Into University Buildings appeared first on The Intercept.

The $2 million in donations aren’t the only eyebrow-raising political donations Israni has been involved in.

Public filings on her own personal political giving reveal years of support for far-right Republicans. The list of those who have received her cash include MAGA candidates, the Republican head of the evangelical Zionist group Christians United for Israel, anti-abortion candidates, and even far-right pundit Laura Loomer, according to disclosures reviewed by The Intercept.

“Let me be unequivocal: I oppose Trump’s attacks on our democracy, his efforts to overturn the 2020 election, his assault on reproductive freedom, and the division he has fueled in this country,” Israni said in a statement to The Intercept. “I reject MAGA politics.”

Israni, a first-time political candidate with a history of Hindu nationalism advocacy, is challenging a clutch of progressive Democrats: state Sen. Aisha Wahab; progressive Democratic strategist Matt Ortega; BART board president Melissa Hernandez; and immigration attorney Abrar Qadir. Swalwell, who is leaving the seat to run for governor of California, has not yet endorsed a candidate in the primary.

With Israni’s past political donations coming to light, Ortega questioned how she came to donate to far-right figures.

“Why did Rakhi Israni give money to Laura Loomer? Was it that Laura Loomer calls herself a ‘proud Islamophobe’? Or perhaps it was Laura Loomer calling Islam ‘a cancer on humanity’ that won her support?” Ortega said in a statement. “There is no version of this story where Rakhi Israni giving money to Laura Loomer is acceptable. None. It’s disqualifying.”

Wahab, for her part, suggested Israni might be out of step with voters in the deep-blue district.

“Our district wants and deserves a real Democrat — pro-choice, pro-democracy, and firmly against extremism — not someone bankrolling MAGA-extremists and far-right allies, pretending to be something they’re not,” Wahab said in a statement to The Intercept. “People will look closely at who funds a campaign, a candidate’s record, and whether their record matches their rhetoric.”

In her statement, Israni said, “Over the course of my professional career, I have engaged broadly and, at times, supported individuals across the political spectrum. Those contributions were not ideological endorsements of every position a candidate has taken, nor do they reflect support for extreme rhetoric or divisive statements.”

Donating to the Far Right

Israni’s personal political donation history tracks with support for Hindu nationalism and pro-Israel candidates and includes donations to some of the most far-right and MAGA candidates that have run for Congress in recent years.

In 2022, she gave $4,200 to Republican Rich McCormick’s successful campaign for a Georgia House seat, according to Federal Election Commission data. McCormick was also endorsed by the Hindu American PAC, where Israni sits on the board. Last year, she donated $3,500 to a Republican candidate in California’s 13th Congressional District, months before the candidate hosted MAGA figure Matt Gaetz at a “Save California” rally.

Another far-right candidate Israni gave money to was New York Republican Robert Cornicelli, who ran in the 2022 GOP primary for the 2nd Congressional District in Long Island on a platform that included abolishing the Department of Education. Cornicelli is also president of Veterans for America First, also known as Veterans for Trump. He is vocal about what he calls “radical Islam” and last year self-published a book titled “What is White? A Manifesto on How Elites Erased Your Culture and Made You the Enemy.”

Related

India Lobbies to Stifle Criticism, Control Messaging in U.S. Congress Amid Rising Anti-Muslim Violence

Israni contributed $260.73 to Laura Loomer’s 2020 Florida congressional primary run. Loomer is a controversial MAGA loyalist and informal Trump adviser who once celebrated the deaths of thousands of Muslim refugee families. She wrote “now it’s time to round up the Muslims before it’s too late” on X late last week. In 2024, Loomer was widely criticized for bigoted remarks about Kamala Harris’s Indian heritage.

Other personal donations made by Israni to Republicans include $1,500 in 2022 to California Rep. Michelle Steel, who supported overturning Roe v. Wade, and $1,500 in 2024 to a failed campaign by Niraj Antani, an anti-abortion activist and self-proclaimed “pro-Trump conservative warrior.”

In 2024, Israni gave $1,000 to Tulsi Gabbard’s leadership PAC, which contributed solely to Republicans that cycle. Today, Gabbard is Trump’s director of national intelligence. Israni also supported the Republican executive director of Christians United for Israel, David Brog, when he ran in Nevada’s 1st Congressional District.

One Texas Republican who received $250 from Israni in 2022, Pat Fallon, had voted to overturn the 2020 presidential election. In total, she gave to over 10 MAGA candidates, more than the Democratic candidates she donated to in recent years, which included Mikie Sherrill for New Jersey governor and several Indian American candidates around the country.

In her statement, Israni said, “I am a Democrat running for Congress in California’s 14th District because I believe in accountability, protecting fundamental rights, defending democracy, and delivering real economic results for the families who make up our district. As the only attorney in this race, I bring the legal experience necessary to hold Donald Trump, the MAGA movement, and any form of extremism accountable.” (Contrary to Israni’s statement, Qadir is also an attorney.)

Israni and Wahab’s Past

Irsani and Wahab, one of her House primary opponents, previously found themselves on the opposite sides of a legislative tussle. In Sacramento, Wahab introduced legislation in 2023 that would make California the first state to add caste-based discrimination to non-discrimination law. Proponents of the bill saw it as a way to address alleged discrimination based on someone’s “caste,” their position in a system of inherited social stratification in South Asian societies and diasporas.

At the time, Israni testified against the bill at statehouse hearings, calling it an “unconstitutional denial of my community’s rights to fairness and equal protection under the law.”

Related

The Network of Hindu Nationalists Behind Modi’s “Diaspora Diplomacy” in the U.S.

The law was also opposed by the Hindu American Foundation, a controversial Indian American diaspora advocacy group whose lobbying is aligned with Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government. Israni served as a board member of the Hindu American PAC, a group that shares leadership with the Foundation.

Wahab — the first Afghan American woman elected to public office in the U.S. — said she received violent threats in response to the proposed legislation, which was reportedly the target of coordinated opposition from major Democratic Indian American donors and Hindu nationalist networks. Democratic California Gov. Gavin Newsom ultimately vetoed the bill.

Israni’s list of campaign donors won’t be publicly filed until mid-April. With ballots mailing out in May, that leaves little time for voters in the district to review her backers. A corporate lawyer who owns a testing preparatory company with her husband, she announced on January 23 that she raised over $1 million in the first 24 hours of her campaign. Less than two weeks later, on February 4, she claimed the total raised was nearing $2 million.

Israni has links to American organizations aligned with the Hindutva movement — a Hindu nationalist political tendency. She appeared at recent events hosted by the Hindu American Foundation and spoke on a panel called “Hinduphobia & Antisemitism: Two Sides of the Same Coin” at the group’s conference last year. She also served as an executive at Sewa International USA, an international Indian charity tied to Hindutva groups. And Israni wrote about hosting Modi at a Silicon Valley reception in 2015.

A deleted X account reviewed on the Internet Archive that is tied to Israni’s email shared frequent content in support of Modi and the Indian government.

Correction: March 5, 2026
Errant references to campaign donations from Hindu American PAC have been removed from this story.

The post Dem Candidate for Rep. Eric Swalwell’s Seat Donated to Far-Right Republicans — Including Laura Loomer appeared first on The Intercept.

Whoops, he did it again.

We need to adjust our language for President Donald Trump’s so-called regime-change efforts. Let’s call them “regime adjustments.”

Trump was fresh off his successful regime-adjustment operation in Venezuela when he decided to double down on his newly interventionist streak. Along with Israel, Trump attacked Iran with one of the largest military operations in at least a decade. The war — and that’s what it is — came only days after a gathering in Washington of Trump’s “Board of Peace,” which includes Israel, marking, ironically, the board’s first war.

Unlike Venezuela, though, this time it’s hard to imagine what success, even by Trump’s loose standards, will actually look like — if there can be any measure of success at all.

In a somewhat rambling video message posted on Truth Social announcing the new Iran war, Trump offered no evidence as to why a preemptive or preventative attack was necessary at this time. Iran, after all, was in the middle of negotiations with the U.S. over its nuclear program, with negotiations set to continue the following week and, according to insiders, making solid progress. Unlike the U.S., Iran had made no moves that could be interpreted as aggressive or preparatory for initiating military action against either Israel or the U.S.

No Reasoning, No Goals

Instead of articulating any reasoning or goals for his strikes, Trump declared a decapitation strategy and exhorted the people of Iran to rise up and “take control” of the government: DIY regime change.

Related

Israel Is Cynically Capitalizing on the Iranian Protests for Its Own Ends

He demanded that the security services and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps “lay down” their arms and join the people — presumably the same people they had been brutally cracking down on only a month ago. There were no instructions on how the people were supposed to “take control” or who might be the leader to guide them. Nor did Trump give instructions to the security forces on how exactly they were supposed to lay down their arms and join the people. Hand over their arms to whom? Or did he have in mind a depot that would be set up somewhere IRGC personnel could drop off their AK-47s and assorted other weaponry?

Reza Pahlavi, the former shah’s son, pretender to the throne, and the most visible and possibly popular among opposition leaders, also exhorted his fellow Iranians to rise up at this opportunity to change the regime — in his own favor, of course.

It has been telling, however, that neither the U.S. nor even Israel — Pahlavi’s most ardent booster — have been promoting him as the replacement for the regime that they’re in the process of decapitating.

There has been no plan, at least none apparent or even hinted at, to have Pahlavi brought to Tehran in the hope that millions will, like Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini’s arrival from Paris in 1979, greet him at the airport and escort him to a palace.

The clearest endorsement Pahlavi has won to lead Iran was a probing interview on “60 Minutes” on the second day of the war — best understood as an expression of Bari Weiss and David Ellison’s hope for an Israeli-backed regime in Iran, not as a vouch of support from the Trump administration.

Assassination Building

In the first moments of the first day of the war, Israel was able to — reportedly with intelligence assistance from the CIA — assassinate Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, his daughter and grandson, and a number of senior military commanders, including the powerful secretary of Iran’s newly established Defense Council, Ali Shamkhani. The top regime figures had gathered to meet in the morning in an aboveground building in the leader’s complex, assuming any threat against them would appear only under the cover of darkness.

Confirmation from the government of the assassination of the head of state — a shocking development in the 47-year history of the Islamic republic — resulted in both nationwide mourning by supporters of the ayatollah and simultaneous celebration by those who held him responsible for the deaths of thousands of citizens in the early January crackdown on massive protests across the country.  

What came next, though, was not the people “taking control” of the government. Instead, there was a rather ordinary constitutional move: A council of three was formed the next day that took over the duties of the supreme leader until a new one could be elected by the Assembly of Experts, the body that oversees succession.

Related

Fool Me Twice: The Case for War With Iran Is Even Thinner Than It Was for Iraq

Then on the second day of the war, with bombs falling on Tehran, Trump announced that “they” — presumably the council — “want to talk, and I have agreed to talk, so I will be talking to them.”

Hoping for an Iranian Delcy Rodríguez? Our “Whoops, he did it again” moment.

So, it wasn’t regime change the U.S. was after, as Trump claimed when launching his war, but regime adjustment. Perhaps the deaths of three U.S. service members in Iraq — by any measure, their blood on the hands of the person who ordered a war of choice — gave him pause and inspiration to find an alternative to continuing the violence.

Willy-Nilly War

What is increasingly apparent is that a war was launched, almost willy-nilly, with no actual, achievable objective. Trump, whose cellphone number it seems most journalists in Washington have, admitted to Jonathan Karl of ABC News in a phone call on Sunday that he didn’t know what came next for Iran.

“The attack was so successful it knocked out most of the candidates,” Trump reportedly told Karl. “It’s not going to be anybody that we were thinking of because they are all dead. Second or third place is dead.”

In other words, Trump doesn’t even have a Delcy Rodríguez in waiting.

Related

Trump’s Iran Attack Was Illegal, Former U.S. Military Officials Allege

The war with revolving goals entered a third and more violent day for the very Iranian people who were supposed to take over from the regime and become friends with Israel and the United States. Bombing in Tehran took on an indiscriminate flavor, with buildings, a hospital, and other infrastructure unrelated to the military being struck, according to videos and witnesses, including my own cousin who managed to leave me a voice message on WhatsApp despite the internet cuts.

With the death of at least three U.S. service members, hundreds of Iranian schoolgirls, and dozens of other innocent Iranians; with destruction across the Persian Gulf countries; with the loss of so far three U.S. fighter jets costing Americans anywhere between $250 and 300 million; and with the billions of dollars being otherwise spent on the war, the “Keystone Cops” flavor the war has taken on would be funny if it weren’t so tragic.

We can’t predict how the war will end. It is certain, however, to end with unnecessary death and destruction, and misery and trauma for survivors.

The only other certainty it seems, is that no matter the war’s result nor how incompetently it is carried out, the man who started it will declare that he has brought about peace with a glorious victory.

The post The Regime Change President Who Won’t (or Can’t) Actually Change Any Regimes appeared first on The Intercept.

“These people are crazy! I’m telling ya — they’re crazy,” President Donald Trump exclaimed, pointing to Democratic members of Congress near the start of his lengthy and lie-drenched State of the Union speech.

At that particular moment, the Democrats in question were doing the right thing: refusing to stand and applaud when Trump called for a nationwide ban on the ability for trans kids to exist in public.

“We must ban it, and we must ban it immediately,” the president said.

The “it” here did not refer only to gender-affirming health care for trans youth, which is already banned or restricted in at least 27 states. Trump appeared to be going even further: The thing he wants banned would be the ability for trans kids to socially transition safely in school.

“Surely we can all agree no state can be allowed to rip children from their parents’ arms and transition them to a new gender against the parents’ will,” said Trump, whose administration has a standing policy of ripping children from their parents’ arms.

In response, Republican members of Congress — supporters of industrial-scale family separations — rose in a standing ovation.

Democrats sat still in their benches.

Line of Attack

With midterm elections approaching, Trump will inevitably escalate these attacks on trans kids.

Democrats should refuse to take the bait. They should stay, at least metaphorically, seated. They don’t need to prove to some imagined anti-trans majority that they are not “crazy” for refusing to support persecution of a vulnerable minority.

On Tuesday, the president’s vehicle for attacking trans kids was the story of Virginia teen Sage Blair, a student at Liberty University, whose mother Michele is suing the Appomattox County School Board.

Related

Rambling Man: Trump’s State of the Union 

According to reports, Michele is accusing members of the school district of failing to disclose to the family that Sage was identifying as male; she claims this contributed to the teen running away and subsequently facing sexual abuse. Both Sage and Michele attended the State of the Union as Trump’s special guests.

Sage’s tragic story is now being used as the basis for Virginia legislation aimed at forcing schools to notify parents should a student identify with a gender other than their sex as assigned at birth and requiring parental consent to allow a student to use a new name or pronoun in school.

Such a law — essentially mandating forced outing — would put thousands of trans kids at risk. Republican claims to parental rights in such cases are, of course, a laughable fig leaf when the same anti-trans politicians are pushing for laws to prosecute parents as child abusers if they support their children transitioning.

How Democrats Are Failing

Health care bans, school sports bans, bathroom bans, bans on obtaining the correct identification, and bans on socially transitioning at school – these astroturfed anti-trans policies all come together to make it impossible to safely live as a trans kid and flourish into a trans adult.

Democratic leaders to date have failed to robustly oppose these eliminationist efforts, again and again ceding dangerous rhetorical ground to the anti-trans right.

A false dichotomy has emerged in which supporting trans people is deemed at odds with a focus on key economic, so-called kitchen-table issues.

Just last week, Democratic California Gov. Gavin Newsom, who has a grim record of entertaining anti-trans positions, told CNN that he wants his party to be “less prone to spending disproportionate amounts of time on pronouns, identity politics. More focused on tabletop issues, things that really matter — the stacking of stress in terms of the electricity bills and childcare costs and health care and obviously housing costs.”

Newsom wants, he said, Democrats to be more “culturally normal.”

The idea that establishment Democrats have failed to support policies for the working class because they have been too focused on supporting trans people and minorities is laughable. In response to such a claim, a diligent journalist should surely ask, “When?”

Related

Jon Chait Thinks Kamala Harris Went Too Far Left. He’s Just Falling for Trump’s Demagoguery.

Aside from a few shallow and embarrassing performances, when have Democratic leaders given significant time to advocating for oppressed minorities, in particular trans people? They haven’t — with a few pitiful, symbolic exceptions, such as when they knelt in Kente cloth in 2020 during the George Floyd uprisings.

What we have seen, though, is Democrats like Newsom dedicating airtime to urging other Democrats to throw trans people under the bus. It is a perverse performance of his own criticism — spending disproportionate amounts of time talking about trans people for all the wrong reasons.

None of this, of course, is to say that Democrats have not failed the working class. Of course they have! But it’s not because of trans kids: It is fealty to wealthy donors, Wall Street, and industry lobbies.

In addition to this vile scapegoating of their own shortcomings, Newsom raises another offensive proposition: What constitutes “culturally normal” for his ilk? The ability to remove whole groups of people from access to necessary health care and public life?

Democrats should absolutely run on campaigns that center wages, working conditions, housing, and health care — and they should insist on these being essential issues for all people, including trans people.

Good Politics

Not only is including trans rights in your platform a morally sound position, it can also be good electoral politics: Numerous 2025 election victories — from New York to Pennsylvania to Virginia — saw wins for Democrats who refused to throw people under the bus.

In the months ahead, we can expect more of the same from Trump and his party. They are going to attack trans people, particular trans kids, as a means of cynical fearmongering.

Trump’s anti-trans onslaught is a transparent effort to rally support around a conjured scapegoat as his approval ratings continue to tank. Yet the elimination of trans people, the removal of health care provisions, and attacks on people’s bodily autonomy are not incidental to the Republican project — they are central to it.

Trans people’s survival is not just a distraction and shouldn’t be treated that way. Instead, Democrats need to reject far-right frameworks of “crazy” and “normal” from the jump. They do not need to abandon trans rights to defeat Republicans. And if they pretend otherwise — endangering a vulnerable population in a naked and ill-thought attempt to save their own political hides — they’re not worthy of winning our votes in the first place.

The post Democrats Should Never Again Rise to Trump’s Anti-Trans Bait appeared first on The Intercept.

In the final moments before he was shot and killed by federal authorities in Minneapolis, Pretti attempted to intervene in a confrontation where several­ federal agents were shoving two women. In videos from the scene, Pretti crosses the street and places himself between the officers and the women before being pepper-sprayed, separated from the group, beaten, and shot multiple times.

One of the women involved in the confrontation, who was the closest civilian to Pretti when he was killed, said that in the immediate aftermath of the shooting she identified herself as an emergency medical technician and moved to perform CPR. Federal agents restrained her, said the woman, who requested anonymity for fear of retribution by the government.

The woman, a registered EMT whose credentials were confirmed by The Intercept, said in an exclusive interview that it was apparent Pretti had suffered serious injuries and needed medical help.

“I could tell the second that I laid eyes on him that he was horrifically injured,” the EMT recalled. “I immediately said, ‘I’m an EMT! He has a brain injury! He has a serious brain injury! I need to help him right now.’”

In videos of the shooting, the EMT repeatedly exclaims that Pretti is “decorticate posturing” — a medical term for the curling and movements of the limbs after suffering severe brain trauma. Then, Pretti’s body went completely limp. Videos show the EMT frantically pleading with one of the officers as other agents begin to surround Pretti’s body.

“I was literally begging the agent who was holding me back to let me do CPR,” she recalled. “Because I knew that if he wasn’t pulseless at that point already, he was going to become pulseless very, very soon.”

Immediately following the shooting, the EMT, who was carrying trauma supplies at the scene, attempted to reach Pretti before being intercepted and held back by a masked officer. The medic’s identity and place at the scene were corroborated by an attorney with the Minnesota branch of the National Lawyers Guild. The EMT’s account of events is supported by publicly available video evidence and court documents.

Government agencies have an obligation to give basic health care to people that they have arrested or detained, according to to Xavier de Janon, the director of mass defense at the National Lawyers Guild.

“The responsibility of the government is to make sure that the person in their custody is cared for and alive,” de Janon said. “If government agencies fail to keep someone alive and there is proof that it’s their fault, they could be liable for their actions.”

Neither the Border Patrol nor its parent agency, Customs and Border Protection, the two agencies reportedly responsible for killing Pretti, responded to requests for comment.

The EMT said that while Pretti’s injuries were so severe it was unlikely he could be saved, critical minutes passed between the shooting and the time when another bystander first rendered aid — a period when the EMT was trying to get access to Pretti.

“They were hellbent on not allowing anybody to help him until he was dead,” she said. “I was right there, and they — all of them — made the decision to deny me access to give him the best possible chance of survival.”

Before the Shooting

For more than two months, the Twin Cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul have been besieged by agents from CBP and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The agents arrived as part of a sweeping nationwide assault on liberal cities carried out in the form of a massive immigration crackdown.

In Minneapolis, federal authorities have shot at least three people and injured scores more as their operations unfolded. Weeks earlier, federal agents shot and killed Renee Good, a 37-year-old artist, while she was unarmed and inside of her vehicle.

It was against this backdrop of state violence that the EMT went in her capacity as a medic to the intersection of 26th Street and Nicollet Avenue in Minneapolis, where Pretti would later be killed. She was responding to a call for help sent out over one of the many rapid response channels that Minneapolis residents use to track and warn residents about federal immigration agents.

Related

“Uptick in Abductions”: ICE Ramps Up Targeting of Minneapolis Legal Observers

“There’s medics dispersed in pretty much all of the rapid response networks,” she said. “People try to be available to dispatch across the city because the rate of them harming people — it’s just so high at this point.”

On the day of Pretti’s death, immigration agents were gathered outside of a donut shop in the Whittier neighborhood of South Minneapolis. Border Patrol Commander Greg Bovino claimed in a statement that officers arrived on the scene in pursuit of a “violent criminal illegal alien.” A subsequent review by Minnesota officials found that the man border patrol agents claimed to be pursuing had no violent criminal convictions on record in the state.

Observer footage filmed on the day of the shooting captured the EMT and another woman standing in the street before an agent approaches them and begins shoving them across the road.  

“He was really kind of sending me flying backwards,” the EMT recalled. “I was having to kind of run and stumble backwards to not fall.”

As the women are pushed to the other side of the roadway, Pretti can be seen farther down the street, attempting to wave a car through the scene. Suddenly, he appears to notice the agents closing in on the civilians and changes course to intercept the officers.

In a statement following the shooting, DHS officials claimed that Pretti “wanted to do maximum damage and massacre law enforcement.” The EMT said that was not true.

“He very clearly came over to assist me and the other woman as we were being hurt,” she recalled. “My first recognition that he was present was feeling his arm around my waist and me looking at him and feeling very grateful that he prevented me from falling onto the sidewalk.”

Video footage captured by another bystander shows that just as Pretti managed to stabilize the EMT, agents shoved the other woman to the ground. As Pretti and the EMT attempt to help her stand up, multiple agents surround the group and begin to spray them with cans of chemical irritant. Some of the agents continue pursuing the women, while others separate Pretti from the group and begin beating him.

“I was saying to the agents, “We’re leaving! We’re leaving. We’re leaving!’ — just trying desperately to like get them to stop,” the EMT said.

She realized later, watching the video, that the same agent who grabbed her was one of the officers who shot Pretti.

Bull From Bovino

In a press conference on the day of the shooting, Greg Bovino claimed that the agents had fired “defensive shots” after “fearing for their lives.”

Videos taken on the scene, however, show that, in the moments just prior to the shooting, the agent who fired the first shot at Pretti was preoccupied with attempting to pepper spray the other woman nearby. He only turns and fires multiple shots into Pretti’s body after another agent exclaimed that the slain nurse had a gun.  

In the wake of the killing, President Donald Trump’s border czar Tom Homan claimed that Customs and Border Protection officers had attempted to render aid immediately. That did not jibe with the account of a pediatrician who witnessed the killing from a nearby apartment complex and arrived on the scene minutes later. An affidavit from the pediatrician filed in federal court closely matches the EMT’s account.

The doctor claimed that, when she arrived, agents initially prevented her from treating Pretti, had not administered CPR, and were not sure whether he had a pulse. She testified that the agents standing around Pretti’s body “appeared to be counting his bullet wounds,” rather than administering lifesaving care. After some time, the physician was allowed to approach Pretti.

It is unclear why agents neglected to perform CPR on Pretti following the shooting. Immediately commencing CPR on cardiac arrest is standard medical practice, and neglecting or delaying the process can significantly increase a patient’s chance of death. The EMT only wishes, she said, that she could have attempted to treat Pretti.

“The trauma of that is significant,” she said. “He didn’t get the final act of kindness of someone trying to render him aid.”

Pretti was pronounced dead at a nearby hospital shortly after being transported there. Following the shooting, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem characterized him as a “domestic terrorist.”

The EMT, however, thinks Pretti’s actions that day may have prevented other civilians from being attacked by federal agents in the same manner.

“I think he easily could have saved me and the other woman’s life,” she said. “All he did was try and help two people who were being hurt by ICE agents.”

The post The Woman Alex Pretti Was Killed Trying to Defend Is an EMT. Federal Agents Stopped Her From Giving First Aid. appeared first on The Intercept.

Benjamin North, who maintained his innocence during the lawsuit, went on to become an attorney who took public stances against what he characterized as the excesses of Title IX, the law prohibiting sex discrimination in federally funded education.

Less than eight years after his case was closed following an agreement with the university, North has quietly become the new assistant general counsel of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, according to a screenshot of the agency’s employee directory and an agency employee who requested anonymity to avoid retaliation.

North now reports directly to Acting General Counsel Catherine Eschbach, according to the employee.

“The general counsel’s office is an incredibly important part of the EEOC,” said Jenny Yang, a partner at the law firm Outten & Golden and a former EEOC chair. The general counsel holds the power to decide which employers to sue and over which issues, and oversees litigation brought in the agency’s 15 regional offices, and assistant general counsels help coordinate litigation “for the entire agency,” Yang said. They often review cases and their evidence to evaluate the merits and help determine whether the agency should invest its limited resources into pursuing a suit, she said.

“You need people in that office who understand that their job is to uphold the law and to apply the law faithfully,” she said. (Neither North nor the EEOC responded to requests for comment.)

North’s role could have even more heft than usual, the EEOC employee said, given how many attorneys have left the agency and the office of the general counsel under the second Trump administration. The office is typically filled with “experienced litigators,” the employee said, noting that North was still a college student 10 years ago and now has been hired into “a very senior position” in which he will “have a huge impact on the cases that the EEOC chooses to bring.”

College Allegation Case

North sued Catholic University after he was accused of rape by a fellow student, investigated, and suspended for two years. In his legal complaint, he claimed he and his accuser met at a party, then in an upstairs bathroom “engaged in consensual sex.” According to the judge’s ruling in the case, North sought to refute the accuser’s allegation that she had taken three shots of vodka and became distraught. The university found that she had been incapable of giving consent due to intoxication and suspended North.

North alleged in his suit that the university had violated its own policies as well as Title IX, which prohibits gender discrimination at federally funded institutions. The Title IX claim rested on North’s allegation that the university had been biased against him and gave his accuser “preferential treatment,” thereby “discriminating against [him] based on his gender.” He sought $1 million in damages as well as injunctive relief.

In 2019, the case was closed when North and his legal team stipulated to dismissal, indicating an agreement between the plaintiff and defense, usually a settlement. (Catholic University declined to comment.)

North also dealt with Title IX claims as an attorney after completing law school. Before taking his role in the government, North most recently worked at Binnall Law Group. The firm published an article on its website in 2018 saying that universities use Title IX to “abuse the Constitutional rights of students accused of sexual misconduct.”

At Binnall, North served as a Title IX adviser who helped students in such proceedings. (Binnall did not respond to a request for comment.)

North wrote an op-ed for The Federalist in 2021 about Title IX arguing that a Biden administration nominee had “led the charge against students’ civil rights and due process” and that men’s rights are often violated in university proceedings after they’re accused of sexual assault.

Now, North could help guide litigation at the EEOC.

“Given that we are the agency tasked with enforcing protections against sexual violence in the workplace, it sends a concerning signal to have hired somebody with his background,” the EEOC employee said.

That signal will be sent both internally to staff, the employee said, about what the agency wants to focus on and to workers who have experienced sexual harassment or assault at work about whether the agency will take their claims seriously.

Reshaping the EEOC

North is not the first EEOC hire who has raised eyebrows during the second Trump administration. Last April, EEOC Chair Andrea Lucas appointed Shannon Royce, a longtime Christian conservative activist, as her chief of staff. Royce had been serving as president of the Christian Employers Alliance, which sued the EEOC in 2021 over its defense of the rights of trans people at work. Her group also sued the EEOC over its inclusion of abortion care in the protections offered by the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act.

On January 12, the Christian Employers Alliance announced that it had notched an agreement with the EEOC in which the agency agreed not to enforce abortion and gender identity requirements against its members while the EEOC “considers revising its policies.”

Lucas also hired Connor Clegg, a former Fox News producer, in the agency’s communications department. In 2018, Clegg was impeached as student body president at Texas State University over uncovered social media posts in which he mocked Asian tourists with hashtags that included “#pearlharborwasbad” and “#kimjongil.” He was later found not guilty by the Student Government Supreme Court.

More recently, Clegg posted a long rant to social media about an interaction with a traffic enforcement officer who “barely spoke a lick of English” and reposted a tweet from late Turning Point USA co-founder Charlie Kirk that said, “There is an undeniable War on White People in The West.”

North’s hire comes after Lucas has asserted new priorities at the agency.

Related

How Trump Twisted DEI to Only Benefit White Christians

In a post to X in December, she directly solicited complaints from white men who allege they’ve been discriminated at work based on their race or sex. She has also instructed agency officials to focus on cases that line up with her own personal priorities, which include “defending the biological and binary reality of sex and related rights,” “rooting out unlawful DEI-motivated race and sex discrimination,” and “religious bias and harassment, including antisemitism.”

Meanwhile, under her leadership, the general counsel’s office dropped the litigation it had already brought on behalf of transgender workers and in a disparate impact racial discrimination case.

The post EEOC Quietly Hired Lawyer Who Crusaded for Cases of Discrimination Against Men — Including His Own appeared first on The Intercept.

The news, though, was not good: Wael had passed away. Maher Tarabishi was in disbelief, breaking down on the phone, according to an account of the call from his daughter-in-law Shahd Arnaout.

“He wouldn’t die without me,” Tarabishi wailed. “There is no way he died without waiting for me.”

Destroyed, Tarabishi had one hope. His attorney, Ali Elhorr, had already been advocating for his release to take care of Wael, but shifted his efforts to securing a release for Wael’s funeral, which was initially scheduled for Wednesday before being moved to Thursday.

At first, ICE officials seemed like they might give in: preliminary discussion included conditions for a temporary release, including scheduling and moving Tarabishi to a detention center that was closer to the funeral home.

“Initial steps in the process had already begun when I received a call from the ICE officer with whom I had been in contact,” Elhorr said in a release. “The officer informed me that his director stepped in and told him that Maher would not be allowed to attend Wael’s burial. This was the final decision.

A ICE spokesperson told The Intercept, “ICE has NOT received a formal request from anyone to attend funeral services.”

According to an automated transcript of a voicemail and screenshots of text messages from ICE officials obtained by The Intercept, detention center officials were working with Elhorr to see about arrangements for Tarabishi to attend the funeral.

In the January 26 voicemail transcript, a man who identifies himself as a supervisor at the ICE detention center tells Elhorr, “Give me a call when you get a chance l’d like to discuss the funeral and accommodations and then we can make that happen.”

In the text messages, Elhorr tells an ICE official, “The funeral plans are set for Wednesday. What documentation do you need to process the request?”

The IE official responds, “Management is working on it right now.”

“I’ve actually taken detainees to in person viewings or funerals but management stays away from those now,” the ICE official adds. “I try to convince them of in person but I think it will be a virtual thing.”

Primary Caretaker

At the time Tarabishi was arrested by ICE, he had been the primary caregiver for Wael. As he was taken, Tarabishi’s first thought was, “Who will take care of my son?” according to Arnaout’s recollection of conversations with her father-in-law.

Wael was born in Arlington, Texas, in 1995, a year after his family immigrated to the U.S. from Jordan. When the boy was 4, he had been diagnosed with Pompe disease, a rare metabolic disease that causes rapid muscular deterioration, according to his family. At the time, the doctor told the family that he might not live past 5, Arnaout said.

“Maher kept him alive,” Araout said. “Wael could not eat or drink by himself. He could not use his arms or legs. So Maher was all of that for him, his lungs, his legs, his arms, everything.”

Tarabishi, meanwhile, had applied for asylum after coming from Jordan, but he was denied. Nonetheless, he went to his regular ICE check-ins once a year for more than a decade and a half. When reports of people being arrested at these check-ins became widespread last year, his family was concerned. Tarabishi, however, was not.

“He had too much faith in the system,” Arnaout said. “He didn’t have any criminal record. He thought they put an appointment for him because they saw he is doing everything right to stay in the country, following all the rules. He never missed a single appointment.”

She said the officers at the local ICE office knew about Wael’s condition and would frequently ask Tarabishi about his son.

On January 23, the day Wael died, Elhorr had filed a motion to reopen Tarabishi’s case with the Board of Immigration Appeals. Elhorr had discovered that the purported attorney who filed Tarabishi’s original asylum application “was fraudulently practicing law without a license,” the family said in a press release.

In an earlier statement, ICE had said that Maher belonged to the “Palestine Liberation Organization” and was a “criminal alien.” While the United States has designated the PLO as a terrorist organization in the past, it is not in the country’s designated list of terrorist organizations currently. Nonetheless, the family denied that Tarabishi had any affiliation with the group.

“He has done no criminal activity,” Arnaout said. “He is an electronic engineer who loves fixing people’s laptops. He is a simple man.”

Deteriorating Conditions

In the months since Tarabishi’s arrest in October, Wael’s condition quickly deteriorated.

He was admitted to a hospital for pneumonia and sepsis in November. Connected to catheters and tubes all over his body, Wael put out a video from the hospital bed.

“The last month has been hell for me,” he says in the video. “My father was my hero, my safe place. He did everything for me 24 hours a day. And ICE took him.”

Wael ended the video with a plea: “Please release him, I am not asking for much, please release him.”

In December, Wael had to be hospitalized for a second time. Eight days before his demise, Wael went in for a surgery.

“Don’t worry, I will be back for my father,” Wael had told his family, according to Arnaout.

Wael did not wake up for the next eight days and on the night of January 22, his condition worsened drastically. The next morning, the family signed a “do not resuscitate” letter for him. Wael passed away the next day at the Methodist Mansfield Medical Center.

Tarabishi got to speak to Wael a few times from detention. The son, according to Arnaout, made light of his medical woes.

“Don’t worry,” Wael told his father, Arnaout recalled. “I am not going die until I see you. I am not going anywhere, not until I see you.”

Update: January 29, 2026
This story has been updated to include details received after publication about requests from Elhorr, the attorney, to allow Tarabishi to attend his son’s funeral.

The post ICE Arrested Father Who Cared for His Ill Son — Then Denied His Request to Attend Son’s Funeral appeared first on The Intercept.

There is a possible future in which the events that unfolded in Minnesota on January 23, 2026, are forgotten. The fact of the largest general strike in the state in nearly a century may be only remembered, if at all, as a big day of protests and walkouts, and no more than that.

In that future, the possibility of mass, coordinated, and powerful action is wiped from the public imaginary — because, within 24 hours, federal agents had killed another civilian in cold blood.

Related

Man Feds Killed in Minneapolis Was an Observer, Eyewitnesses Say

Donald Trump’s paramilitary forces shot and killed 37-year-old nurse Alex Jeffrey Pretti in Minneapolis on Saturday morning. Like in the killing of Renee Good, video footage taken by witnesses appears to show a brutal, close-range killing. Eyewitnesses told The Intercept that Pretti was on the scene acting as a civilian observer. Videos show a group of more than four masked agents wrestle him to the ground and beat him, before one shoots him multiple times.

The shooting — the third in Minneapolis by federal immigration agents since Trump’s deportation machine descended on Minnesota with extreme brutality in December — is an unbearable follow-up to the most extraordinary day of mass resistance to Trumpian fascism to date.

It is also a searing reminder as to why Friday’s mass strike in Minneapolis must not be swept from our minds. Rather, it must be treated as a powerful new phase of resistance against Trump’s regime — a task that can only be achieved by building on and repeating it.

On Friday, tens of thousands of Minnesotans braved extreme cold to march en masse and shuttered a reported 700-plus businesses in a daylong general strike with the support of all major unions. They protested, transported, fed, and watched over each other, an outgrowth of weeks, months, and years of community care and abolitionist resistance. Their collective actions mark a breakthrough in the fight against the American authoritarianism of our time.

It is only a future with mass social strikes, or general strikes, involving large-scale disruption on the immediate horizon that has the chance of stopping Trump’s forces. 

On January 23, the Twin Cities offered a small glimpse of the sorts of work stoppages, blockades, and shutdowns that aggregated practices of collective resistance make possible.

The task ahead of us, in the face of the government’s unending violence and cruelty, is to take up, share, and spread the practices modeled by networks in Minnesota.

Saturday’s slaughter does not disprove the power of Friday’s strike; no one was under the impression that tides had somehow turned in a day. The point is that, thanks to Minnesota’s resistance, we can see how to go on.

People in the Streets

On Friday afternoon, when people filled the downtown Minneapolis streets, it was the coldest day of the year so far: a reported minus 20 degrees, with a wind chill reaching minus 35.

“I’m seeing icicles form on people’s eyelashes out here, on mustaches, on eyebrows, from just the condensation from their own breath freezing against their own face,” a video journalist reported from the ground. 

Related

Trump’s War on America

The day began early with dozens of protesters barricading the road outside the Whipple Detention Center, the home base of Trump’s deportation machine in Minneapolis, for over two hours.

Later that morning, over 1,000 people, including religious leaders in prayer, formed a picket outside the Minneapolis–Saint Paul International Airport. Since December, over 2,000 people in Minnesota have been taken by federal immigration authorities; many have been deported through the airport. Around 100 people were arrested at the airport protest.

Meanwhile, businesses refused to open their doors in numbers not seen in decades.

No, the government was not brought to its knees under the economic weight of a one-day strike called on short notice. Friday, however, was a crucial step, to be built upon and built upon, creating the specific sort of political strike that takes aim at the very nature of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement operations in our cities and towns.

It is precisely this combined model of strike, targeted blockade, and mass demonstration, all undergirded by networks of mutual aid, that we need to repeat and expand. 

“Hope Is a Discipline”

Community defense against ICE did not, of course, begin with Minneapolis — although the city has been the site of Trump’s most lawless and thoroughgoing fascist, nakedly racist operation to date. Residents in Los Angeles, New York, Chicago, and beyond have blockaded ICE facilities, hid their immigrant neighbors, filled immigration courts, filed lawsuits, and confronted federal agents in the street. And these acts of resistance were not only learned to fight Trump’s regime. They have been rehearsed many times over, in centuries of struggle. 

There are times in a broad and disarticulated political movement, however, when things come together. Momentum builds. And there are events that shift the ground, after which it makes sense to speak of a before and an after.

The day following the strike brought more horror where there had been an opening for hope. Hope, though, is not what is really needed now — not hope as a sentiment, at least. We prove our orientation toward a better world, whether we feel hope or not — and I do not — by continuing to act against this murderous state force, and for each other. This is what the abolitionist organizer Mariame Kaba meant in calling hope a “discipline.”  

Related

Three Cheers for Hilton Hotel Workers Who Banned ICE — Until Their Corporate Bosses Stomped Them Out

After January 23 in Minneapolis and St. Paul, we have grounds to talk and organize seriously around general strikes in other cities, states, even nationally — general strikes with the specific aim of making our cities and towns as difficult as possible for ICE and other federal forces to move through. Not by dint of social media calls, or columns like this, but by going on in the way of Minnesotans.

Minnesota organizers did not conjure the state’s largest day of labor action in nearly a century by simply announcing “general strike” online. Labor unions, religious and community institutions, and front-line activists were all key; so, too, was the fury of everyday people, in a city where community support is normalized, and militant anti-racist protest boasts a proud history.

Minneapolis’s extraordinary rapid-response networks, activated to keep watch on ICE and provide transport and care for immigrants, developed swiftly. Minneapolis-based organizers Jonathan Stegall and Anne Kosseff-Jones, however, have said, “Many of these systems sprung to life along the paths laid down by the 2020 uprising after the police-perpetrated killing of George Floyd.”

As Sarah Jaffe noted in the New Republic, “The Twin Cities have had plenty of opportunities to build up these networks of resistance, networks that have only grown larger in the wake of Good’s killing.”

This constellation of factors meant in a matter of days, a strike action could be called involving hundreds of thousands of workers across sectors. This can and must be repeated elsewhere. This is not the first time Minneapolis has led the way. And it is for this reason, too, that Minneapolis will not be defeated by the deadly escalations of federal agents the following day.

21st-Century General Strike

General strikes in 2026 will not look the same as they did in the early 20th century. In an age of technocapital and decimated labor power, conditions look different. Even with a slowly rebuilding labor movement, effectively marshaling collective refusal is extraordinarily hard.

It remains the case, however, as Kieran Knutson, president of the Communications Workers of America Local 7250 in Minneapolis, told Democracy Now!, that “nothing runs without the working class in this country.”

A general strike against Trump’s authoritarianism requires a specific navigation of territory and time — addressing the ways ICE moves rapidly through our cities and neighborhoods — and how to fight against it. That means combining neighborhood patrols with confrontational shutdowns, and creating barriers for federal agents wherever they try to go — including the damn bathroom. 

Of Friday’s strike Knutson said that “after weeks of living under the heavy weight of this racist campaign of terror by ICE agents… today we are going to show our power.” This is part of the point, too: Showing power. We do not, after all, have the power to topple the regime in a day. But we cannot wait until the midterm elections, as if we could ever rely on Democratic leadership to rein in violent border rule. Trump’s agents made that all too clear on Saturday morning.

Not every day can take the form of a general strike, but that is our horizon.

“The general strike is the name for when the riot, the strike, and the commune all happen at once,” late theorist Joshua Clover said in a 2024 interview. Community care, militant disruption, working class refusal. “That’s what the general strike really is. And that’s the day, the week, or the year where there will be a role for everyone.” There is a role for everyone, because that time must be now.

Within minutes of Saturday morning’s shooting, rapid response network messages went out. Whistles started blaring. In response, hundreds of Minneapolis residents had filled the streets again.

The post We Can Fight This: Minnesota’s General Strike Shows How appeared first on The Intercept.