US Supreme Court Religious Opt-Out Ruling 'Could Wreak Havoc on Public Schools'

The ruling, said Justice Sonia Sotomayor, reflects the right-wing majority's "failure to accept and account for a fundamental truth: LGBTQ people exist."


Supporters of LGBTQ+ rights hold signs as they demonstrate outside the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington, D.C. on April 22, 2025.
(Photo: Oliver Contreras/AFP via Getty Images)

Julia Conley
Jun 27, 2025
COMMON DREAMS

A day after many LGBTQ+ Americans celebrated the 10th anniversary of the landmark U.S. Supreme Court ruling that established marriage equality in the United States, right-wing Justice Samuel Alito suggested in a new decision that public schools should not promote "acceptance of same-sex marriage."

Alito's opinion was handed down in a 6-3 ruling in Mahmoud v. Taylor, in which the high court's right-wing majority held that parents should be permitted to opt their children out of certain lessons in public schools on religious grounds.

The ruling stemmed from a lawsuit filed by parents of several religious backgrounds in Montgomery County, Maryland, who sued the county's school system for not giving parents advance notice and an opportunity to opt out of a curriculum that included storybooks dealing with LGBTQ+ themes.

The books included Pride Puppy, about a dog that gets lost at an LGBTQ+ pride parade; Love, Violet, about a girl who has a same-sex crush; Born Ready, about a transgender boy; and Uncle Bobby's Wedding, about a gay couple getting married.

Alito pointed to the latter book in particular in his opinion.

"It is significant that this book does not simply refer to same-sex marriage as an existing practice," wrote the judge. "Instead, it presents acceptance of same-sex marriage as a perspective that should be celebrated."

Elly Brinkley, staff attorney for U.S. Free Expression Programs at the free speech group PEN America, noted the timing of Alito's comments about marriage equality.

"Just after the 10th anniversary of Obergefell v. Hodges and as we celebrate Pride Month, the Supreme Court has delivered a devastating blow to the dignity of LGBTQ+ people and families," said Brinkley. "This ruling means that parents can opt their children out of any classroom activity that acknowledges same-sex marriages, the right to which this very court held was guaranteed by the Constitution."

The right-wing majority ruled that Montgomery County Public Schools must allow families to opt out of any lessons that parents believe will interfere with their children's religious education, including stories or discussions with LGBTQ+ themes.

"This ruling threatens to give any religious parent veto power over public school curricula. If this dangerous logic is carried forward, it could unravel decades of progress toward inclusive education and equal rights."

Legal scholars said that in addition to stigmatizing the families of an estimated 5 million children in the U.S. who have one or more LGBTQ+ parents, the ruling could pave the way for parents to argue that their children shouldn't be exposed at school to materials involving any number of topics, including evolution, yoga, and mothers who work outside the home—all issues that have been the subject of earlier, unsuccessful lawsuits against schools.

"The decision could have far-reaching consequences for public schools' ability to create an inclusive and welcoming environment that reflects the diversity of their communities, as well schools' ability to implement any secular lesson plan that may trigger religious objections," said the ACLU, which filed an amicus brief in the case arguing that the school district's "policy prohibiting opt-outs from the English Language Arts curriculum is religiously neutral and applicable across the board."

Daniel Mach, director of the ACLU's Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief, said that religious freedom is "fundamentally important" under U.S. law.

But freedom of religion, Mach said, "shouldn't force public schools to exempt students from any secular lessons that don't align with their families' religious views. This decision could wreak havoc on public schools, tying their hands on basic curricular decisions and undermining their ability to prepare students to live in our pluralistic society."

Cecilia Wang, national legal director of the ACLU, added that parents with religious objections will now be "empowered to pick and choose from a secular public school curriculum, interfering with the school district's legitimate educational purposes and its ability to operate schools without disruption—ironically, in a case where the curriculum is designed to foster civility and understanding across differences."

Liberal Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented in the case, with Sotomayor making the unusual move of announcing her dissent from the bench.

Citizens fully experiencing the United States' multicultural society, said Sotomayor, "is critical to our nation's civic vitality. Yet it will become a mere memory if children must be insulated from exposure to ideas and concepts that may conflict with their parents' religious beliefs."

She also accused the majority of making a "myopic attempt to resolve a major constitutional question through close textual analysis of Uncle Bobby's Wedding," which revealed, she said, "its failure to accept and account for a fundamental truth: LGBTQ people exist."

The ruling is the latest victory for right-wing advocates of what they view as religious freedom at the high court; other recent rulings have allowed a web designer to refuse to make a website for same-sex couples and a high school football coach to pray with his team at school games.

Annie Laurie Gaylor, co-president of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, called Friday's ruling a "deeply troubling outcome for public education, equality, and the constitutional principle of the separation between state and church."

"This ruling threatens to give any religious parent veto power over public school curricula. If this dangerous logic is carried forward, it could unravel decades of progress toward inclusive education and equal rights," said Gaylor. "Public schools must be grounded in facts and reality and not subject to religious censors."

By Limiting Nationwide Injunctions, US Supreme Court Declares 'Open Season on All Our Rights'

In a ruling that stems from the president's birthright citizenship order, the "conservative supermajority just took away lower courts' single most powerful tool for reining in the Trump administration's lawless excesses."


Demonstrators hold up signs opposing President Donald Trump and his attack on birthright citizenship outside the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington, D.C., on June 27, 2025.
(Photo: Alex Wroblewski/AFP via Getty Images)


Jessica Corbett
Jun 27, 2025
COMMON DREAMS


The U.S. Supreme Court issued a flurry of decisions Friday morning, including a ruling related to U.S. President Donald Trump's attack on birthright citizenship that led legal experts, elected Democrats, immigrants, and rights advocates to warn—as MoveOn Civic Action spokesperson Britt Jacovich put it—that the justices "just made it easier for Trump to take away your rights."

Three different federal judges had granted nationwide injunctions blocking Trump's effort to end birthright citizenship with an executive order that Cody Wofsy, deputy director of the ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project, described as "blatantly illegal and cruel." Rather than considering the constitutionality of the president's order, the justices examined the relief provided by lower courts.

"The Supreme Court has green-lighted Trump to run roughshod over a critical constitutional right. This is not a slide into authoritarianism—this is a one-way plummet."

In Friday's 6-3 ruling for Trump v. CASA, the right-wing justices held that "universal injunctions likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has given to federal courts," with Justice Amy Coney Barrett, a Trump appointee, delivering the majority opinion.

"The Supreme Court's conservative supermajority just took away lower courts' single most powerful tool for reining in the Trump administration's lawless excesses," wroteSlate's Mark Joseph Stern‬. "I understand there is some debate about the scope of this ruling, but my view remains that the Supreme Court has just effectively abolished universal injunctions, at least as we know them. The question now is really whether lower courts can craft something to replace them that still sweeps widely."

"Trump's Justice Department is about to file a motion in every lower court where it faces a universal injunction citing this case and arguing that the injunction must be narrowed," the journalist explained. "This will have huge downstream consequences for a ton of other extraordinarily important and controversial cases."

Justice Sonia Sotomayor penned a dissent, joined by the other two liberals, and Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson also wrote her own. Many other critics of the high court's majority decision echoed their warnings about the expected consequences of the ruling.

"The Supreme Court has green-lighted Trump to run roughshod over a critical constitutional right. This is not a slide into authoritarianism—this is a one-way plummet," said Analilia Mejia and DaMareo Cooper, co-executive directors of the grassroots coalition Popular Democracy, in a Friday statement.

"This ruling takes away the power of lower courts to block unconstitutional moves from the government on a federal level— allowing the government to act with impunity and apply law inconsistently across the country," they stressed. "As Justice Sotomayor wrote, 'No right is safe in the new legal regime this court creates.'"



Congresswoman Delia Ramirez (D-Ill.), the daughter of Guatemalan immigrants and a citizen by birthright, said Friday that "I agree, Judge Sotomayor, no right is safe under the new regime, not even the ones clearly guaranteed under our Constitution."

"For more than 100 years, the 14th Amendment has reaffirmed that all people born in the U.S. are U.S. citizens, with equal rights under the law. It has been and is the law of the land, consistently upheld by courts and scholars across the political spectrum," she noted. "But in limiting nationwide injunctions, Trump's loyalists have decided to—once again—put him above the rule of law, our Constitution, and the principles of our nation."

Caroline Ciccone, president of the watchdog Accountable.US, highlighted that same line from Sotomayor and also explained that "results like this are the result of a yearslong takeover by Trump and special interest allies to capture the courts and install conservative majorities that help him advance an extreme ideological agenda."

"Let's be clear: The Trump administration appealed this case to undermine the power of federal judges, rather than address his blatantly unconstitutional executive order seeking to end birthright citizenship," Ciccone said.

Brett Edkins, managing director of policy and political affairs at the progressive advocacy group Stand Up America, said that "as Justice Jackson notes, 'The court's decision to permit the executive to violate the Constitution with respect to anyone who has not yet sued is an existential threat to the rule of law.'"

"Today, six justices on the Supreme Court eliminated one of the most effective checks on Donald Trump, clearing a path for him to impose his extreme, anti-democratic agenda on any American who can't afford a lawyer or doesn't join the game of litigation Whac-A-Mole now required to protect their basic rights," he added. "This ruling should send a chill down every American's spine."

Congressional Progressive Caucus Chair Greg Casar (D-Texas) also described the decision as chilling and argued on social media that "the Supreme Court is declaring open season on all our rights."



U.S. Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Immigration Subcommittee, called out the high court for failing "every American," and said that "we must heed Justice Jackson's warning," citing that same line from her dissent.

Maggie Jo Buchanan, interim executive director of the group Demand Justice, pointed to another line, agreeing that "as Justice Jackson wrote in her dissent, the court has created an 'existential threat' to the rule of law and the system of checks and balances upon which our nation was founded."

"The same six justices who gave Trump king-like immunity for criminal acts have now limited the ability of the judicial branch to protect everyday Americans from unconstitutional or illegal executive overreach," she said, referring to a decision issued a year ago. "Just as Republican leaders in Congress duck their heads and carry out Trump's bidding, the Republican appointees on the court do so as well."

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) also took aim at both his GOP colleagues and the justices, saying that "the Supreme Court's decision to limit courts of their long-held authority to block illegal executive actions is an unprecedented and terrifying step toward authoritarianism, a grave danger to our democracy, and a predictable move from this extremist MAGA court."

"Congressional Republicans have to choose between being bystanders or co-conspirators," Schumer added, urging them to challenge Trump. "Congress must check this unimpeded power, but for that to happen, Republican members must stand up for core American democratic values and not for unchecked presidential power of the kind that our Founders most deeply feared."

In addition to sounding the alarm about what the high court's decision means for all future legal battles, critics noted that although the justices didn't weigh in on Trump's birthright citizenship order, it could soon start to impact families nationwide.

"The administration's attempt to deny citizenship to many children born in the United States is unquestionably unconstitutional, and nothing in today's Supreme Court opinion suggests otherwise. Yet, the court has nonetheless created a real risk that the administration's unconstitutional order will go into effect in many parts of the country in 30 days," said Sam Spital, associate director-counsel at the Legal Defense Fund (LDF), vowing to continue the fight against the order.



FWD.us president Todd Schulte pointed out that with its new ruling, "the Supreme Court has opened the door to a fractured system in which a child born in one state is recognized as a citizen, but a child born in another is not."

"If the president's order is allowed to go into effect by the lower courts, there will be immediate chaos for parents, hospitals, and local officials, and long-term harm for families and communities across the country," he warned.

Juana, a pregnant mother, CASA member, and named plaintiff in a lawsuit over the order, said Friday that "I'm heartbroken that the Supreme Court chose to limit protections instead of standing firmly for all families like mine."

"Every child born here deserves the same rights, no matter who their parents are," Juana declared. "I joined this lawsuit not just for my baby, but for every child who deserves to be recognized as fully American from their first breath. We won't stop fighting until that promise is real for everyone."

Shortly after the ruling, organizations including the ACLU, Democracy Defenders Fund, and LDF filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of a proposed class of babies subject to Trump's executive order and their parents.

"The Constitution guarantees birthright citizenship, and no procedural ruling will stop us from fighting to uphold that promise," said Tianna Mays, legal director for Democracy Defenders Fund. "Our plaintiffs, and millions of families across this country, deserve clarity, stability, and justice. We look forward to making our case in court again."

The Republican Nursing Home Apocalypse


If the Big Ugly Bill becomes law, over half of nursing homes say they will have to reduce staff, and a quarter say they will close.



Sr. Jeanne Arsenault returns to her room after breakfast at St. Chretienne Retirement Residence, a home for Catholic nuns in Marlborough, Massachusetts on August 26, 2020.
(Photo: Craig F. Walker/The Boston Globe via Getty Images)

Alex Lawson
Jun 30, 2025

Common Dreams

Imagine learning that your grandmother’s nursing home is closing. The nearest one with room for her is a three-hour drive away. It doesn’t accept Medicaid, so if your grandmother is among the two-thirds of nursing home patients who are covered by Medicaid, she’s out of luck.

Your grandfather still lives at home. But the hospital near his house is closing, too. If he has a medical emergency, he’ll have to go to an overburdened hospital that’s 40 minutes away.

That’s what will happen if President Donald Trump’s so-called “One Big Beautiful Bill” becomes law. There’s nothing beautiful about this hideous betrayal of the American people. Unless you’re a billionaire who can hop in a helicopter to see your private doctor, it will make your health care worse. All to give that same billionaire a giant tax cut.

Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) says Americans who are concerned about Medicaid should “get over it.” Sorry, Mitch. We refuse to “get over it,” and we’re not dying quietly.

The Big Ugly Bill cuts a trillion dollars from Medicaid. Even if you’re not on Medicaid, this will hurt you and your family. That’s because hospitals and nursing homes around the country rely on Medicaid for much of their funding.

If this bill becomes law, over half of nursing homes say they will have to reduce staff, and a quarter say they will close. At the nursing homes that remain open, seniors and people with disabilities will wait in agony for someone to take them to the bathroom or give them their pain medication.

Those whose nursing homes close will struggle to find another one with room for them, especially if they rely on Medicaid. If they manage to find one, it will likely be hours away from their loved ones.

This bill is a disaster for people who rely on Medicaid to pay for nursing homes and other long-term care. But it’s also a disaster even for those who don’t directly rely on Medicaid, because it will devastate the entire healthcare system. Rural areas will be hit hardest, but nowhere and no one (except for billionaires) is safe.

Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) told Iowans concerned about the bill’s Medicaid cuts that “we all are going to die.” Many of us will die faster, including the hundreds of Iowans who will lose their nursing home beds.

In Iowa alone the impact is massive across the entire state and in each vulnerable Republican House District.

In Iowa’s 1st District, represented by Republican Mariannette Miller-Meeks, four nursing homes with a collective 280 beds will close: Aspire of Muscatine (46), Mississippi Valley Healthcare & Rehabilitation Center—Keokuk (83), Iowa City Rehab and Health Care Center—Iowa City (89), and Azria Health Prairie Ridge—Mediapolis (62).

In Iowa’s 2nd District, represented by Republican Ashley Hinson, two nursing homes with a collective 271 beds will close: Heritage Specialty Care—Cedar Rapids (201) and Cedar Falls Healthcare Center (70).

In Iowa’s 3rd District, represented by Republican Zach Nunn, two nursing homes with a collective 113 beds will close: Aspire of Perry (46) and Granger Nursing and Rehabilitation Center—Granger (67).

And this story repeats across the entire country. There is no place to hide from the tsunami being unleashed against nursing homes. Anyone who has dealt with the current system knows how bad it is now. It is about to be a whole lot worse. Nursing homes that don’t close outright will become death traps as the demand far outstrips the supply.

All of this needless death and chaos, just so some billionaires can get trillions in tax handouts that they don’t even need.

Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) says Americans who are concerned about Medicaid should “get over it.” Sorry, Mitch. We refuse to “get over it,” and we’re not dying quietly.

Polling shows that Americans hate the Big Ugly Bill—if they know about what’s in it. The problem is that most of them don’t. Nearly half of Americans are completely unaware of the bill, and only 8% of them know it cuts Medicaid.

Talk to your friends and family members. Tell them that Republicans are about to cause a nursing home and hospital apocalypse—but it isn’t too late to stop it. The Senate is voting on the Big Ugly Bill very soon. Then, it goes back to the House of Representatives, where Republicans will try to rush the bill through before the public can learn about it.

Call your representative and both senators now at 202-224-3121. The key swing votes in the Senate include Susan Collins of Maine (the oldest, and most rural, state in the country) and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska. If you know anyone in those states, urge them to call today and tell their senators to stop the nursing home apocalypse!

UN Expert Calls for 'Defossilization' of World Economy, Criminal Penalties for Big Oil Climate Disinformation

Fossil fuel companies have for decades "instilled doubt about the need to act on, and the viability of, renewables," said U.N. climate expert Elisa Morgera.

Rescuers help evacuate residents from a flooded street in Rongjiang, in China's southwest Guizhou province, on June 24, 2025.
(Photo: AFP via Getty Images)

Julia Conley
Jun 30, 2025
COMMON DREAMS


As health officials across Europe issued warnings Monday about extreme heat that could stretch into the middle of the week in several countries—the kind of dangerous conditions that meteorologists have consistently said are likely to grow more frequent due to human-caused climate change—a top United Nations climate expert told the international body in Geneva that the "defossilization" of all the world's economies is needed.

Elisa Morgera, the U.N. special rapporteur on climate change, presented her recent report on "the imperative of defossilizing our economies," with a focus on the wealthy countries that are projected to increase their extraction and use of fossil fuels despite the fact that "there is no scientific doubt that fossil fuels... are the main cause of climate change."

"Despite overwhelming evidence of the interlinked, intergenerational, severe, and widespread human rights impacts of the fossil fuel life cycle," said Morgera, "these countries have and are still accruing enormous profits from fossil fuels, and are still not taking decisive action."

World leaders must recognize the phase-out of fossil fuels "as the single most impactful health contribution" they could make, she argued.




Morgera named the U.S., U.K., Australia, and Canada as wealthy nations where governments are still handing out billions of dollars in subsidies to fossil fuel companies each year—direct payments, tax breaks, and other financial support whose elimination could reduce worldwide fossil fuel emissions by 10% by 2030, according to the report.

"These countries are responsible for not having prevented the widespread human rights harm arising from climate change and other planetary crises we are facing—biodiversity loss, plastic pollution, and economic inequalities—caused by fossil fuels extraction, use, and waste," said Morgera.

She also pointed to the need to "defossilize knowledge" by holding accountable the companies that have spent decades denying their own scientists' knowledge that continuing to extract oil, coal, and gas would heat the planet and cause catastrophic sea-level rise, hurricanes, flooding, and dangerous extreme heat, among other weather disasters.

Defossilizing information systems, said Morgera, would mean protecting "human rights in the formation of public opinion and democratic debate from undue commercial influence" and correcting decades of "information distortions" that have arisen from the public's ongoing exposure to climate disinformation at the hands of fossil fuel giants, the corporate media, and climate-denying politicians.

Morgera said states should prohibit all fossil fuel industry lobbying, which companies like ExxonMobil and Chevron spent more than $153 million last year in the U.S. alone—with spending increasing each year since 2020, according to OpenSecrets.

"More recent research has documented climate obstruction—intentional delaying efforts, including through media ownership and influence, waged against efforts for effective climate action aligned with the current scientific consensus," wrote Morgera. "Fossil fuel companies' lobbyists have increased their influence in public policy spaces internationally... and at the national level, to limit regulations and enforcement. They have instilled doubt about the need to act on, and the viability of, renewables, and have promoted speculative or ineffective solutions that present additional lock-in risks and higher costs."

While a transition to a renewable energy-based economy has been portrayed by the fossil fuel industry and its supporters in government as "radical," such a transition "is now cheaper and safer for our economics and a healthier option for our societies," Morgera toldThe Guardian on Monday.

"The transition can also lead to significant savings of taxpayer money that is currently going into responding to climate change impacts, saving health costs, and also recouping lost tax revenue from fossil fuel companies," she said. "This could be the single most impactful health contribution we could ever make. The transition seems radical and unrealistic because fossil fuel companies have been so good at making it seem so."

In addition to lobbying bans, said Morgera, governments around the world must ban fossil fuel advertising and criminalize "misinformation and misrepresentation (greenwashing) by the fossil fuel industry" as well as media and advertising firms that have amplified the industry's disinformation and misinformation.

Several countries have taken steps toward meeting Morgera's far-reaching demands, with The Hague in the Netherlands introducing a municipal ordinance in 2023 banning fossil fuel ads, the Australian Green Party backing such a ban, and Western Australia implementing one.

The fossil fuel industry's "playbook of climate obstruction"—from lobbying at national policymaking summits like the annual U.N. Climate Change Conference to downplaying human rights impacts like destructive storms and emphasizing the role of fossil fuels in "economic growth"—has "undermined the protection of all human rights that are negatively impacted by climate change for over six decades," said Morgera.

Morgera pointed to three ways in which states' obligations under international humanitarian laws underpin the need for a fossil fuel phaseout by 2030:The survival of states that contributed minimally to climate change is impaired by loss of territory to sea-level rise and/or protracted unsafe climatic conditions;
People are substantially deprived of their means of subsistence because of the severe deterioration of entire ecosystems due to climate change due to flooding, drought, and extreme heat; and
The cultural survival of the populations of small island developing states, Indigenous peoples, people of African descent, peasants and small-scale fishers is impaired by loss of territories, protracted unsafe climatic conditions and/or severe ecosystem degradation.

Morgera's report was presented as more than a third of Tuvaluans applied for a visa to move to Australia under a new climate deal between the two countries, as the Pacific island is one of the most vulnerable places on Earth to rising sea levels and severe storms.Morgera said that fossil fuel industry's impact on the human rights of people across the Global South—who have contributed little to the worsening of the climate emergency—"compels urgent defossilization of our whole economies, as part of a just, effective, and transformative transition." 

Senate Dems Demand Explanation After Big Oil Lobbied for 'Giveaways at the Expense of American Families'

The fossil fuel industry spent big to push through a $1 billion provision in the GOP budget bill, which the senators said would allow some oil companies to "pay no federal income taxes whatsoever."



U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) at a forum in the Dirksen Senate Office Building on May 14, 2025.
(Photo: Jemal Countess/Getty Images for Student Borrower Protection Center)

Stephen Prager
Jun 27, 2025
COMMON DREAMS

Four Democratic U.S. senators are demanding an explanation from Big Oil after a $1.1 billion tax loophole was added to the Senate version of the GOP's budget reconciliation megabill.

Letters sent Thursday by Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), and Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) called out the CEOs of two oil giants, ConocoPhillips and Ovintiv, which they say "lobbied furiously" for the handout.

The companies, the senators said, "[stand] to benefit tremendously from this provision and ha[ve] spent big to support it—while preserving the many government subsidies for the oil and gas industry already in the tax code."

They asked for the companies to disclose how much they have spent lobbying Republicans for the tax break and how much of a windfall they expect in return.

The provision in question, approved by the Senate Finance Committee last week, would shield many large oil companies from the Inflation Reduction Act's corporate alternative minimum tax, or CAMT. Introduced in 2022, the CAMT requires that companies making more than $1 billion pay 15% of the profits they report to shareholders.

"The rationale for CAMT was simple," the senators said. "For far too long, massive corporations had taken advantage of loopholes in the tax code to avoid paying their fair share, sometimes paying zero federal taxes despite earning billions in profits."

The GOP bill modifies how oil companies are required to report earnings, allowing them to exempt "intangible drilling and development costs," which in turn allows more companies to fall below the $1 billion earnings threshold.

The senators highlighted a 2023 earnings call by Marathon Oil, recently acquired by ConocoPhillips, in which executives said the CAMT was the only income tax they were required to pay.

"If enacted," the senators said, "this provision would reduce or even eliminate tax liabilities for oil and gas companies under CAMT, allowing some to pay no federal income taxes whatsoever."

The letter highlighted lobbying filings by ConocoPhillips and Ovintiv in which they "explicitly prioritize" securing this handout.

Referenced throughout is the aggressive effort to court Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.), who wrote the loophole into the Senate bill. According to OpenSecrets, Lankford received more than $546,000 in campaign contributions from the oil and gas industry—his top source of industry donations—between 2019 and 2024.

The senators described the industry's lobbying as "especially insulting" because "Senate Republicans are trying to pay for this handout with cuts to other programs that would end up raising energy prices for everyday Americans."

The GOP bill would eliminate tax breaks for clean energy that incentivize consumers to purchase electric vehicles and make their homes more energy-efficient, including the home energy-efficiency and residential clean energy credits.

Citing data from Rewiring America, the senators estimated that ditching the two credits would cost the average household up to $2,200 per year in savings on utility bills.

The Center for American Progress projects that eliminating electric vehicle credits would increase demand for gasoline, raising prices by 27 to 35 cents per gallon by 2035. Americans will pay the oil and gas industry "an additional $339 billion for gasoline and $75 billion for electricity by 2035," the May report says.

"Congress should not raise energy prices for working families to deliver handouts to Big Oil," the senators said.

CARNEY CHICKENS OUT

Caving to Trump, Canada Drops Tax on US Tech Firms

One journalist accused Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney of chickening out.

Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney (left) and U.S. President Donald Trump depart following a group photo in front of the Canadian Rockies at the Kananaskis Country Golf Course during the G7 Leaders' Summit on June 16, 2025 in Kananaskis, Alberta.
(Photo: Suzanne Plunkett-Pool/Getty Images)

Eloise Goldsmith
Jun 30, 2025
COMMON DREAMS

Acquiescing to pressure from the Trump administration, the Canadian government announced on Sunday that the country will rescind the digital services tax, a levy that would have seen large American tech firms pay billions of dollars to Canada over the next few years.

The Sunday announcement from the Canadian government cited "anticipation of a mutually beneficial comprehensive trade arrangement" as the reason for the rescission.

"Today's announcement will support a resumption of negotiations toward the July 21, 2025, timeline set out at this month's G7 Leaders' Summit in Kananaskis," said Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney in the statement.

The digital services tax impacts companies that make over $20 million in revenue from Canadian users and customers through digital services like online advertising and shopping. Companies like Uber and Google would have paid a 3% levy on the money they made from Canadian sources, according to CBC News.

The reversal comes after U.S. President Donald Trump on Friday blasted the digital services tax, calling it a "direct and blatant attack on our country" on Truth Social.

Trump said he was suspending trade talks between the two countries because of the tax. "Based on this egregious Tax, we are hereby terminating ALL discussions on Trade with Canada, effective immediately. We will let Canada know the Tariff that they will be paying to do business with the United States of America within the next seven day period," Trump wrote. The United States is Canada's largest trading partner.

Payments from tech firms subject to the digital services tax were due starting on Monday, though the tax has been in effect since last year.

"The June 30, 2025 collection will be halted," and Canada's Minister of Finance "will soon bring forward legislation to rescind the Digital Services Tax Act," according to the Sunday statement.

"If Mark Carney folds in response to this pressure from Trump on the digital services tax, he proves he can be pushed around," said Canadian journalist Paris Marx on Bluesky, speaking prior to the announcement of the rescission. "The tax must be enforced," he added.

"Carney chickens out too," wrote the author Doug Henwood on Twitter on Monday.

In an opinion piece originally published in Canadian Dimension before the announcement on Sunday, Jared Walker, executive director of the progressive advocacy group Canadians for Tax Fairness, wrote that all the money generated for the tax could mean "more federal money for housing, transit, and healthcare transfers—all from some of the largest and most under-taxed companies in the world."

Walker also wrote that the digital service tax could serve as a counterweight to the so-called "revenge tax" provision in Trump's sprawling domestic tax and spending bill.

Section 899, called "Enforcement of Remedies Against Unfair Foreign Taxes," would "increase withholding taxes for non-resident individuals and companies from countries that the U.S. believes have imposed discriminatory or unfair taxes," according to CBC. The digital services tax is one of the taxes the Trump administration believes is discriminatory.

"If 'elbows up' is going to be more than just a slogan, Canada can't cave to pressure when Donald Trump throws his weight around," wrote Walker, invoking the Canadian rallying cry in the face of American antagonism when it comes to trade.

"But this slogan also means the Carney government has to make sure it is working on behalf of everyday Canadians—not just the ultra-rich and big corporations that are only 'Canadian' when it's convenient," Walker wrote.

Canadian Prime Minister Carney says trade talks with US resume after Canada rescinded tech tax

Copyright Sean Kilpatrick/AP

By Euronews with AP

Published on 30/06/2025 -

Canada and Mexico face separate tariffs of as much as 25% that Trump put into place under the auspices of stopping fentanyl smuggling.

Trade talks between the US and Canada resumed after Ottawa rescinded its plan to tax US technology firms, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney said on Sunday 

The news follows an announcement by US President Donald Trump on Friday, where he said he was suspending trade talks with his country’s northern neighbour over its plan to continue with its tax on technology firms. 

Trump described this tax as a “direct and blatant attack on our country” which was set to go into effect on Monday. 

Both the American and Canadian leaders reportedly spoke on the phone on Sunday, and Carney’s office said they agreed to resume negotiations. The Canadian government said “in anticipation” of a trade deal “Canada would rescind” the deal. 

“Today’s announcement will support a resumption of negotiations toward the July 21, 2025, timeline set out at this month’s G7 Leaders’ Summit in Kananaskis,” Carney said in a statement.  

Trump recently travelled to Canada for a G7 summit in Alberta, where Carney said both countries had set a 30-day-deadline for trade talks. 

Canada’s Digital Services Tax was due to his companies like Amazon, Google and Meta with a 3% levy on revenue from Canadian users. It would have applied retroactively, leaving US companies with a $2 billion (€1,71 billion) US bill due at the end of the month. 

Trump’s announcement on Friday was the latest in the trade war he’s launched since taking office for a second term in January. Progress with Canada has been a roller coaster, with Trump repeatedly suggesting it should be absorbed as a US state. 

Canada cancels tax on US tech firms in hopes of Trump trade deal


Canada on Sunday announced that it cancelled a tax targeting US tech companies such as Amazon, ahead of resuming trade negotiations with the US. Talks between the countries stalled after Canada introduced the Digital Services Tax in response to steep tariffs set to be imposed by the US.


Issued on: 30/06/2025 - 
By: FRANCE 24

Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney and US President Donald Trump at a G7 summit in Canada in June 2025. © Brendan Smialowski, AFP

Canada will rescind taxes impacting US tech firms that had prompted President Donald Trump to retaliate by calling off trade talks, Ottawa said Sunday, adding that negotiations with Washington would resume.

The digital services tax, enacted last year, would have seen US service providers such as Alphabet and Amazon on the hook for a multi-billion-dollar payment in Canada by Monday, analysts have said.

Washington has previously requested dispute settlement talks over the tax -- but on Friday Trump, who has weaponized US financial power in the form of tariffs, said he was ending trade talks with Ottawa in retaliation for the levy.

He also warned that Canada would learn its new tariff rate within the week.

But on Sunday, Ottawa binned the tax, which had been forecast to bring in Can$5.9 billion (US$4.2 billion) over five years.

Finance Minister Francois-Philippe Champagne "announced today that Canada would rescind the Digital Services Tax (DST) in anticipation of a mutually beneficial comprehensive trade arrangement with the United States," a government statement said.

It added that Trump and Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney "have agreed that parties will resume negotiations with a view towards agreeing on a deal by July 21, 2025."

There was no immediate comment from the White House or Trump.

US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent told CNBC on Friday that Washington had hoped Carney's government would halt the tax "as a sign of goodwill."

Canada has been spared some of the sweeping duties Trump has imposed on other countries, but it faces a separate tariff regime.

Since returning to the White House in January, Trump has also imposed steep levies on imports of steel, aluminum and autos.

Canada is the largest supplier of foreign steel and aluminum to the United States.

Last week, Carney said Ottawa will adjust its 25 percent counter tariffs on US steel and aluminum -- in response to a doubling of US levies on the metals to 50 percent -- if a bilateral trade deal was not reached in 30 days.

"We will continue to conduct these complex negotiations in the best interest of Canadians," Carney said Friday.

He had previously said a good outcome in the talks would be to "stabilize the trading relationship with the United States" and "ready access to US markets for Canadian companies" while "not having our hands tied in terms of our dealings with the rest of the world."

Carney and Trump met on the sidelines of the Group of Seven summit in Canada earlier this month. Leaders at the summit pushed Trump to back away from his punishing trade war.

Dozens of countries face a July 9 deadline for steeper US duties to kick in -- rising from a current 10 percent.

It remains to be seen if they will successfully reach agreements before the deadline.

Bessent has said Washington could wrap up its agenda for trade deals by September, indicating more agreements could be concluded, although talks were likely to extend past July.

(FRANCE 24 with AFP)

Palestinian American Student Who Refused to Stand for Pledge of Allegiance Sues School for Violating Her Rights


Danielle Khalaf was "simply exercising her constitutional right not to partake in the Pledge of Allegiance as a sign of protest" against Israel's U.S.-backed war on Gaza, said one of her attorneys.

JEHOVA WITNESSES ALSO REFUSE TO STAND FOR PRAYERS OR PLEDGE

Fourteen-year-old Danielle Khalaf speaks to reporters on February 27, 2025.
(Photo: WXYZ)


Jake Johnson
Jun 27, 2025
COMMON DREAMS

The father of a 14-year-old Michigan student filed a lawsuit in federal court this week against the Plymouth-Canton Community Schools District and one of its teachers for allegedly violating the First Amendment rights of his daughter, who quietly refused to stand for and recite the Pledge of Allegiance in class earlier this year.

Danielle Khalaf, a U.S. citizen of Palestinian descent, opted on three separate occasions in January to remain seated and silent as her classmates recited the Pledge of Allegiance, saying she was protesting the Israeli government's U.S.-backed assault on Gaza.

The lawsuit, backed by the ACLU of Michigan and the Arab American Civil Rights League, alleges that when Khalaf approached her teacher after class to explain why she was not standing and reciting the pledge, the teacher responded, "Since you live in this country and enjoy its freedom, if you don't like it, you should go back to your country."

Khalaf told reporters earlier this year that she "ran out of the room crying," and the lawsuit states that she "suffered extensive emotional and social injuries" stemming from the teacher's conduct. The third time Khalaf declined to stand for and recite the pledge, the teacher "admonished" her in front of the class and told her "she was being disrespectful and that she should be ashamed of herself," according to the complaint.

Nabih Ayad, an attorney for the Arab American Civil Rights League, said in a statement that "it is disturbing that a teacher who is trusted to teach our children would succumb to such insensitivities to one of her students knowing that the student is of Arab Palestinian descent, and knowing of the many deaths overseas in Gaza of family members of Palestinians living in metro Detroit, that she would add insult to injury and call the student out for simply exercising her constitutional right not to partake in the Pledge of Allegiance as a sign of protest."

"That teacher most definitely should have known it is every student's right in this country to not stand for the Pledge of Allegiance regardless of your personal views," said Ayad.

The Kids Are Alright and They’re Taking Over



Mamdani’s win comes as youth voter registration is climbing across the board. And it’s not because anyone suddenly handed us hope; it’s because we’ve been forced to create it for ourselves.


Supporters of New York State Assemblymember Zorhran Mamdani (D-36) attend his first rally at a nightclub on May 4, 2025 in the Williamsburg neighborhood in the borough of Brooklyn in New York City as he campaigns to become the next mayor of New York City.
(Photo: Andrew Lichtenstein/Corbis via Getty Images)



Soleil-Chandni Mousseau
Jun 28, 2025

Common Dreams


As someone who’ll soon join those ranks of “first-time voters,” witnessing 33‑year‑old Democrat Socialist Zohran Mamdani defeat a seasoned political heavyweight like Andrew Cuomo feels revolutionary. Watching what’s happening right now—watching young people turn their disillusionment into infrastructure, their rage into organizing—makes it clear: The next generation is coming in hot.

The numbers say it all. According to the Financial Times, 52% of voters under 45 backed Mamdani. Cuomo only got 18%. A remarkable age gap, it’s a generation breaking up the political status quo. And what’s even more staggering? So many of Mamdani’s voters were casting a ballot for the very first time.

We’ve been told for years that young people don’t vote. That we’re apathetic, distracted, too caught up in our phones to care about policy. But this election shattered that myth. The campaigns were built on grassroots energy. To mobilize voters, especially newbies, Mamdani’s team organized over 46,000 volunteers and knocked on more than 1 million doors. And, the people showed up like their lives depended on it—because in so many ways, they do. Youth voter registration is climbing across the board. And it’s not because anyone suddenly handed us hope; it’s because we’ve been forced to create it for ourselves.

So to my fellow future voters, my peers who are just now stepping into the political arena: This is our moment!

Our generation was raised on crisis. Climate collapse. School shootings. Incredibly normalized economic anxiety. We don’t remember a world before mass surveillance,before “once-in-a-century” storms became routine. So, we’re pushing for better with everything we’ve got.

Mamdani’s campaign won because it was real. He spoke in a language of inclusion that we understand. His unapologetic support of human rights and liberation for all, including the Palestinians, resonated with us. His promises—affordable housing, public transit, community-owned groceries—speak directly to the world we’re inheriting. The one we’re expected to fix.

All of this is happening against the backdrop of Donald Trump’s presidency, which continues to cast a long, toxic shadow. But even his chaos doesn’t scare us as much as apathy does. Because what scares me, more than another four years of extremism, is the possibility that people will sit this one out. That they’ll believe the lie that nothing ever changes. That the game is rigged. But Mamdani’s win proves otherwise. When we organize, we win. When we show up, we matter. And we are showing up as strategists and leaders.

So to my fellow future voters, my peers who are just now stepping into the political arena: This is our moment! We are deliberate. We are strategic. You don’t have to be a politician to change the game. You just have to show up, again and again, until they can’t ignore you anymore.

Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.

Soleil-Chandni Mousseau is an undergraduate student at Wesleyan University. She has also been an intern scholar at the Oakland Institute since 2020.
Full Bio > 

Muslim Lawmakers Decry 'Vile' Bipartisan Islamophobic Attacks on Zohran Mamdani

The lawmakers asserted that "smears from our colleagues on both sides of the aisle" cannot be allowed to continue.

Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) holds a microphone and speaks while Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) looks out at the crowd gathered for an April 30, 2024 Passover Seder at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C. hosted by Jewish organizations advocating a cease-fire in Gaza and Palestinian liberation.
(Photo: Allison Bailey/Middle East Images/AFP via Getty Images)

Brett Wilkins
Jun 29, 2025
COMMON DREAMS



All four Muslim members of the U.S. House of Representatives on Friday condemned their colleagues' Islamophobic attacks on Democratic New York City mayoral nominee Zohran Mamdani, which have come not only from Republicans but also from at least two congressional Democrats representing the candidate's home state.

"The vile, anti-Muslim, and racist smears from our colleagues on both sides of the aisle attacking Zohran Mamdani cannot be met with silence," Reps. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.), Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), André Carson (D-Ind.), and Lateefah Simon (D-Calif.) said in a joint statement.

"At a time of increased violence against elected officials, we cannot allow the attacks on Zohran Mamdani to continue."

Mamdani—a democratic socialist who would be the first Muslim mayor of the nation's largest city if he wins November's general election—has come under fire by Republicans including Rep. Andy Ogles of Tennessee, who on Thursday formally appealed to U.S. Attorney Pam Bondi to initiate proceedings to denaturalize and deport "little Muhammad."

Earlier this week, Rep. Nancy Mace (R-S.C.) posted a photo of Mamdani wearing a traditional tunic with the caption, "After 9/11 we said, 'Never Forget.' I think sadly we have forgotten."

As of Friday afternoon, no Democratic member of Congress from New York had explicitly condemned their GOP colleagues' Islamophobic remarks. To the contrary, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) falsely claimed Thursday that Mamdani had made references to "global jihad" and spuriously asserted that "globalize the intifada"—a call for Palestinian liberation and battling injustice—is a call to "kill all the Jews."

Freshman Rep. Lauren Gillen (D-N.Y.) also falsely accused Mamdani of "a deeply disturbing pattern of unacceptable antisemitic comments."

The four Muslim lawmakers said in their statement that "these hateful, Islamophobic, and racist tropes have become so entrenched and normalized in our politics."

"We know these attacks all too well," they added.

Omar and Tlaib have been on the receiving end of Islamophobic attacks by House colleagues and outside death threats for years, stemming in part from Omar's status as refugee and Tlaib's as the only Palestinian American in Congress.

Like Mamdani, both lawmakers have also been targeted from both sides of the aisle for their support for Palestinian liberation, as well as their opposition to Israel's invasion, occupation, colonization and apartheid in Palestine, and the assault and siege of Gaza that are the subject of an ongoing International Court of Justice genocide case.

Advocacy groups have reported a sharp increase in anti-Muslim and anti-Palestinian hate incidents since the October 7, 2023 Hamas-led assault on Israel, a climate reminiscent of the pervasive Islamophobia following the September 11, 2001 attacks. There has also been a surge in antisemitism as Israeli forces obliterate Gaza, although critics have decried the widespread conflation of opposition to Zionism with hatred of Jewish people by groups including the Anti-Defamation League.

"At a time of increased violence against elected officials, we cannot allow the attacks on Zohran Mamdani to continue," the four lawmakers stressed. "They directly contribute to the ongoing dehumanization and violence against Muslim Americans. We unequivocally reject the normalization of anti-Muslim hate and fearmongering and call on elected leaders across our country to speak out."

Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) also issued a statement Friday condemning the "outpouring of disgraceful, dangerous, racist ideology from sitting members of Congress and [Trump] administration officials following Zohran Mamdani's win in the New York mayoral primary."

Jayapal continued:
The constant displays of Islamophobia are an affront to the millions of Muslim Americans and Muslims around the world. One of the most jarring called for the denaturalization and deportation of Mr. Mamdani, an American citizen who just won a massive Democratic primary with more votes than that member, Mr. Ogles, could ever hope to win. This is an insult to voters in New York City who take democracy seriously.

Denaturalization of U.S. citizens is part of the Trump playbook to attack all legal immigration. It is completely outrageous and flies in the face of the laws of this country.

"The hateful language directed at Mr. Mamdani will get someone killed, and we all should be outraged," Jayapal added. "It must end. Every person who cares about democracy, freedom of religion, and the right for all Americans to be treated equally should speak out immediately against these insane and dangerous attacks."

Zohran Mamdani is running to be New York mayor. How his Muslim faith stirred the race.

NEW YORK (RNS) — Mamdani's focus on kitchen table issues has drawn interest across the Muslim spectrum, but his progressive positions on Gaza may alienate voters from other religious communities.

New York Mayor candidate state Assemblyman Zohran Mamdani speaks during the New York City Mayoral Candidates Forum at the National Action Network National Convention, Thursday, April 3, 2025, in New York. (AP Photo/Richard Drew)
Fiona André and Richa Karmarkar
June 21, 2025

NEW YORK (RNS) — On June 5, at the historic Cathedral of St. John the Divine, New York’s mayoral candidates were invited by an interfaith panel of religious leaders to discuss their visions for the city and its religious communities.

Only four candidates of the June 24 Democratic Primary had responded to the invitation — Jim Walden, Michael Blake, Scott Stringer and Zohran Kwame Mamdani, a 33-year-old state legislator and Muslim Indian immigrant whose core campaign issue was making New York a more affordable place to live. (Jim Walden is running as an independent.)

Asked about his plans to tackle religious divisions in the city, Mamdani discussed his own experience facing Islamophobia after 9/11. “It’s a fear that I remember all too well as a young Muslim man growing up in New York City. My aunt, who was a doctor and who wears a hijab, felt like she could not exist in public life anymore,” he said.

Mamdani, who would be New York’s first Muslim mayor, concluded by citing a verse from the New Testament. “We know that there is no room for this, and yet, too often, all we offer are our version of thoughts and prayers. It is time to actually act upon these beliefs, because we know from James 2:14 that ‘faith without works is dead.’”

RELATED: NY mayoral candidates address sanctuary, Trump and religious hatred at interfaith forum

While discreet about his Shia Muslim identity, Mandani has also appealed to New York’s religious communities by opening up about his faith, appearing in churches, synagogues, temples and mosques. It has earned the Democratic Socialist endorsements and sent a charge into the most religiously diverse city in the world.

Ad released by the Cuomo campaign. Courtesy image

But his identity has exacerbated the response to his pro-Palestinian stances that come with his Democratic Socialist Party’s platform. In a city riven by discord over Israel’s military campaign in Gaza following the Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas attacks, he has had to answer questions both about his support for Israel’s right to exist and accusations of antisemitism.

Mamdani has been unapologetic about his Muslim identity since he first ran to become a New York State Assembly member for Queens’ 36th district. Now in his third term, Mamdani has established strong ties with his district’s Muslim community, which spans Astoria and Long Island City.

The son of famed Indian-American filmmaker Mira Nair, Mamdani was born in Uganda and started school in South Africa before moving to the United States at 7 and becoming a U.S. citizen in 2018. His father, Mahmood Mamdani, is an Indian-Ugandan colonial studies professor at Columbia University.

A Shia Muslim, Mamdani follows the Twelver branch’s teachings, one of Shia Islam’s largest movements, whose adherents believe in the spiritual leadership of 12 prominent imams and await the return of Imam al-Mahdi. But Mamdani has appeared at Jummah prayer, Muslims’ congregational Friday prayers, at mosques of every stripe across the five boroughs.

Even non-Muslim candidates have reason to reach out to New York’s Muslim community, which has shown growing political power in recent City Council and State Assembly elections. But the community clearly sees Mamdani as one of their own.

His campaign platform, which includes strong support for rent control, has put him at the top of the polls citywide and naturally endears him to working-class Muslims. “He’s a candidate who is not only Muslim, but we also saw that he is centering everyday issues that everyday New Yorkers experience, like the increased cost of living,” said Mohamed Gula, a national organizing director at Emgage Action, which works to mobilize Muslim voters and has endorsed Mamdani’s campaign.

Combined with his outspokenness on the war in Gaza, Mamdani’s focus on kitchen table issues has drawn interest across the Muslim spectrum, Gula said. “In the immigrant Muslim community, you’ll find that foreign policy is very important as a driving factor for their vote. You can say the Black Muslim community will find that a lot of the domestic issues, like affordability of rent, affordability of food, a good quality of life, are a deciding factor for their vote,” he said.

But Waleed Shaheed, a senior Democratic strategist, said his campaign appeals to more than one immigrant community. “This has definitely not been a campaign about his Muslim identity at all,” said Shaheed, who points out that “issues of cost of living, affordability, rent, and public transportation” appeal to wide swaths of the city.

In campaign videos, he has addressed voters in Urdu, spoken by many South Asian Muslims, and in Spanish. The social media-savvy candidate also used his platform to raise awareness of issues faced by Muslim business owners.

In a January clip, the candidate denounced the long process to obtain permits for street vendors and its consequences on the price of Halal food truck plates. “New York is suffering from a crisis and it’s called Halalflation,” says the candidate in the video, standing across from a Halal food truck. “If I was the mayor, I’d be working with City Council from day one to make Halal eight bucks again.”

Gula said the challenge for Mamdani’s campaign is translating his popularity with Muslims into votes. Some 400,000 New York Muslims are registered to vote, but according to the Council on American-Islamic Relations, only 12% of Muslim voters showed up to the polls in the 2021 mayoral election.

“It’s really just a game of turnout at this point. … Because every conversation we’re having with Muslim voters, there hasn’t been a time where someone has said no,” said Gula.

Then there is the highly mobilized opposition. Shaheed said that Mamdani’s denunciation of the Israeli military campaign on Gaza has galvanized anti-war voters “who care about having our values at home align with our values abroad.” But, Mamdani’s repeated calls for a ceasefire in Gaza have irked some, and his reading of the conflict also put him under acute scrutiny.

He has refused to condemn such post-Oct. 7 slogans as “Globalize the Intifada” and “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free,” two chants that are denounced by many as calls for Israel’s destruction.

FILE – New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo prepares to board a helicopter after announcing his resignation Aug. 10, 2021, in New York. (AP Photo/Seth Wenig)

In a podcast interview for the non-MAGA Republican outlet The Bulwark, Mamdani stressed that while the phrase was interpreted differently by many, he saw it as “a desperate desire for equality and equal rights in standing up for Palestinian human rights.”

Representative Dan Goldman, a Jewish Democrat from New York, responded sharply in a statement: “If Mr. Mamdani is unwilling to heed the request of major Jewish organizations to condemn this unquestionably antisemitic phrase, then he is unfit to lead a city with 1.3 million Jews.”

At a June 4 televised debate, Mamdani was asked whether he would travel to Israel if elected mayor, a pilgrimage often made to appeal to New York’s Jewish voters. Mamdani argued that one “need not travel to Israel to stand up for Jewish New Yorkers, and that is what I will be doing as the mayor.”

The campaign of former New York Governor Andrew Cuomo denounced the comments as antisemitic. While some polls show Mamdani in first place ahead of Cuomo, a Marist poll released Wednesday (June 18) showed 38% of voters plan to rank Cuomo first in the ranked choice primary, followed by 27% for Mamdani.

Going further, one pro-Cuomo flyer depicted Mamdani with a darker and longer beard next to a message saying he rejected Israel and Jewish rights. Mamdani denounced the image as “blatant Islamophobia,” adding it to a list of other incidents that it claims attacked his religious background. (The Cuomo campaign said the flyer hadn’t been approved for distribution.)


NYC mayorial candidate Zohran Kwame Mamdani is alleging opponent Andrew Cuomo and his campaign used photoshop to alter Mamdani’s facial hair in an ad — a show of “blatant Islamophobia,” according to Mamdani’s campaign page on Facebook. (Photo via Mamdani’s Facebook)

“I think there is definitely a double standard when it comes to that. Our institutions, our political culture, don’t treat Islamophobia the same way it might treat other forms of bigotry,” said Shaheed.

On Thursday, the New York Police Department’s hate crime unit opened an investigation into bomb threats on the candidate’s car.

Some progressive Jewish groups have come out for Mamdani. Sophie Ellman-Golan, director of strategic communications at Jews for Racial & Economic Justice, said she has “never felt as hopeful about an election as she does this one.” Her organization has endorsed both Mamdani and Brad Lander, New York’s comptroller, who have also cross-endorsed each other.

“We need someone who has a bold vision, who genuinely believes in the public good, and will fiercely implement the tools of government to actually improve people’s lives,” said Ellman-Golan, adding that isolating faith-based wedge issues “obscures the fact” that Jewish New Yorkers have the same priorities as any other city residents.

“Jewish New Yorkers are also struggling to afford to stay here,” she said. “Jewish New Yorkers also take public transit. Jewish New Yorkers are also trying to figure out how to find childcare, and are also worried about increased crackdown from the federal government. Just like all other New Yorkers, Jews have an important role to play in this election.”

Bishop Matthew F. Heyd, right at pulpit, leads an interfaith forum with New York City mayoral candidates Scott Stringer, from left, Michael Blake, Jim Walden and Zohran Mamdani, Thursday, June 5, 2025, at St. John the Divine Cathedral in Manhattan. (RNS photo/Fiona André)

Meanwhile, Hindus, another faith group that is increasingly politically organized in New York, have shown up in support of Cuomo, sometimes solely based on the fact that he is not Mamdani. “Mamdani is actually a radical Islamist,” said Dinesh Mojumder, a Bangladeshi real estate businessman and founder of the Times Square Durga Puja. “That’s the main point. If they come, then this city will be under Sharia law, term by term.”

The American Hindu Coalition’s New York chapter has planned a canvassing event on June 22 at the Hindu Temple Society of North America, where Cuomo is set to make an appearance.

According to Mojumder and others in the Coalition, Mamdani has not helped his cause with Hindus by referring to Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, in an interview, as a “war criminal” and saying he’d bar the prime minister from hosting a rally in Madison Square Garden. Modi has long been excoriated by Muslims for his actions as governor of the Western Indian state of Gurjarat in 2004, when riots fomented by religious extremists killed scores of Muslims.

It’s Mamdani’s inability to recognize that there are two sides to every conflict, said Pankaj Mehta, the founder of Interfaith Human Rights Coalition, that has garnered the opposition of Hindus and Jews to his campaign.

“If the leaders don’t hold a certain standard of civility, how can we expect around the world that people who’ve been educated, indoctrinated, with hate to understand,” he said. “As an interfaith group, we want to see a candidate come and say that they are for all faiths, not selectively.”