Tuesday, July 28, 2026

Attacks on Mamdani Prove Israel’s Supporters Can’t Even Tolerate Criticism of Netanyahu

It should go without saying, yet must apparently be said again, that Benjamin Netanyahu is not the Jewish community.



New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani delivers an address on July 21, 2026.

(Photo by NYC Mayor’s Office/YouTube Screengrab)

Edward Ahmed Mitchell
Jul 28, 2026
COMMON  DREAMS

The United States should not roll out the red carpet for a foreign leader who has systematically starved and slaughtered thousands of people, including children.

This simple principle is what led New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani to declare that Benjamin Netanyahu is not welcome in the Big Apple and call on the federal government to honor the International Criminal Court’s arrest warrant for the Israeli prime minister.

By publishing this speech, which is now the most popular video he has ever posted on social media, Mayor Mamdani did what no mayor before him dared: speak the truth about American complicity in the Israeli government’s human rights abuses.

For decades, New York City’s leaders have gone out of their way to embrace all things Israel. From Eric Adams to Rudy Giuliani and beyond, past mayors have praised Israeli leaders, traveled to Israel, encouraged the purchase of Israeli bonds, and supported policies designed to suppress criticism of the Israeli government, including unconstitutional anti-boycott orders.

Mayor Mamdani has made clear that he will not stay silent when a mass murderer of children plans to visit New York City. Most New Yorkers agree with him.

Rather than engage honestly with the substance of Mayor Mamdani’s change in course, most Israel advocacy organizations responded to his speech by effectively claiming that criticism of Benjamin Netanyahu is somehow equivalent to criticism of Jewish people. The Anti-Defamation League and other prominent pro-Israel groups even tried to blame the mayor, without any evidence whatsoever, for an attack on an Asian man and Jewish man that occurred in the days after the speech.

The argument that criticizing Israel is inherently antisemitic—which has been used to silence college students, elected officials, and other critics of the Gaza genocide—is both dishonest and dangerous.

It should go without saying, yet must apparently be said again, that Benjamin Netanyahu is not the Jewish community.

Conflating Netanyahu with Jews around the world undermines the fight against real antisemitism. It also insults the many Jewish Americans who have vocally criticized Netanyahu’s war crimes in Gaza and called for an end to US support for those crimes.

What the Israeli government’s worst enablers have revealed through their hysterical response to Mayor Mamdani’s speech is that they simply cannot tolerate any criticism whatsoever of the Israeli government, even criticism focused exclusively on Benjamin Netanyahu, and that they are willing to conflate the entire Jewish community with Netanyahu in a bid to protect Israel from legitimate criticism.

As for those who try to justify the antisemitism smear by claiming that Mayor Mamdani gives an inordinate amount of attention to Israel, this claim ignores three important points.

For one thing, Israel is actively committing its crimes with billions in American taxpayer dollars and weapons, which is why it warrants so much attention from the American people.

Second, the Israeli government’s supporters are the ones who insisted that mayors of New York City embrace Israel’s policies, defend Israel from criticism, and make Israel their first foreign visit. Mamdani has given Israel far less attention than Eric Adams, Michael Bloomberg, and Rudy Giuliani.

Third, national and local reporters keep asking Mamdani about Israel, sometimes the exact same questions about whether Israel has a right to exist. Don’t blame Mamdani for answering the questions

Mayor Mamdani has made clear that he will not stay silent when a mass murderer of children plans to visit New York City. Most New Yorkers agree with him. So do many Americans; a recent poll showed 46% of Americans believe Netanyahu should be arrested if he comes to the United States. Another poll showed that Mamdani has a higher favorability rating among Jewish Americans than Netanyahu.

The claim that criticizing Israel’s human rights abuses is antisemitic no longer works on the American public, and it is long past time for Israel’s supporters to stop telling it.

Edward Ahmed Mitchell
Edward Ahmed Mitchell is a civil rights attorney who serves as the national deputy executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the largest Muslim civil rights and advocacy organization in the United States.
Full Bio >

Source: Jacobin

In a video released earlier this week, New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani sits behind his desk and looks directly at the camera. He starts with a stark declaration: “Benjamin Netanyahu is a war criminal, the architect of a horrific genocide against the Palestinian people.”

As he goes on, he soberly details the horrors that Prime Minister Netanyahu has inflicted on the civilian population of Gaza since 2023. The more than 73,000 confirmed dead. The tens of thousands of maimed children, their limbs often having to be amputated without anesthesia because of Israel’s systematic destruction of Gaza’s medical infrastructure. The starvation. The killings of journalists and aid workers. The “targeting of neonatal hospitals and maternity care centers,” aimed at “denying newborns even the chance to live.”

Little wonder that the International Criminal Court (ICC) has issued a warrant for the prime minister’s arrest. When Mamdani was running for mayor, he argued that the next time Netanyahu comes to New York, the NYPD should put him in handcuffs. Many argued that this would exceed the authority of New York or any other municipality, especially given that, although a large majority of the countries in the world recognize the authority of the ICC, the United States does not. In the new video, he reluctantly agrees, saying:

My administration has reviewed every avenue available under applicable law to determine whether New York City could execute the International Criminal Court’s arrest warrant if Benjamin Netanyahu came here. It is clear that we do not have the independent legal authority to enforce this warrant. The federal government, however, does — and I call on them to join the ICC and execute this warrant.

And I want to be equally clear: Benjamin Netanyahu is not welcome in New York City.

The video was a political earthquake. It has received tens of millions of views across social media platforms. Israel’s defenders have been predictably furious.

The Strange, Lazy Arguments of Netanyahu’s Defenders

The Simon Wiesenthal Center issued a statement saying that “Mayor Mamdani did not simply express a personal political opinion” but rather “used the authority, symbolism, and credibility of the mayor’s office to issue what amounted to an official public address declaring that the democratically elected leader of the world’s only Jewish state is a ‘war criminal’ who is ‘not welcome in New York City.’” This, they said, was a “profound misuse of the office entrusted to [Mamdani] by all New Yorkers.”

Why Israel being the “only” Jewish state is supposed to be relevant is anyone’s guess. (Were condemnations of South African president P. W. Botha in the 1980s objectionable because South Africa was the only country dominated by the Afrikaner ethnic group?) And the claim that Israeli elections are “democratic” is risible. Since 1967, Israel has not only controlled the West Bank but built many cities full of its own citizens there, and it treats those settlers as “living in Israel” rather than “living abroad” for every legal purpose. But the millions of Palestinian residents there have never been given Israeli citizenship, since doing so would mean there would be “too many” citizens of the wrong ethnicity. That’s simply not a democracy.

More importantly, though, you don’t have to be ideologically opposed to Zionism, or have any particular opinion about the geopolitics of Israel/Palestine, to agree with Zohran’s call for the federal government to join the ICC and enforce the warrant against Netanyahu. You simply have to believe that international law should be applied equally to every nation on the planet.

The widespread claims that Jewish New Yorkers (a great many of whom voted for Mamdani and agreed with every word of the video) are somehow “endangered” by his call to arrest a genocidal leader simply don’t pass the smell test. The problem with Netanyahu isn’t that he’s Jewish, any more than the reason the ICC issued an arrest warrant for Vladimir Putin is that Putin is a member of the Russian Orthodox Church. Rather, the belief of Mayor Mamdani, the ICC, and the multiple United Nations inquiries that have found that Netanyahu committed genocide in Gaza is that laws apply equally to everyone, and that no political office in any state should protect war criminals from being brought to justice.

It’s been nearly three years since the beginning of Netanyahu’s campaign to systematically eliminate any possibility of normal Palestinian life resuming in Gaza. In that time, an estimated 90 percent of the civilian population have been displaced from their homes by the Israeli military. A few months after the operation commenced, South Africa’s legal filing at the ICC included twelve pages of quotes from Israeli officials expressing genocidal intent. On the ground, it has been one of the best-documented genocides in human history. Anyone around the world with access to social media could see a continual stream of photos and video clips of murdered and maimed men, women, children, and babies; of mass destruction rained down on civilian targets; and of war crimes being carried out face-to-face by Israeli soldiers. Some of those soldiers, apparently utterly indifferent to the world’s reaction, filmed themselves posing with the lingerie of Palestinian women who’d been killed or fled for their lives, or playing with the toys of dead or mutilated children. And all this time, as the mayor noted in his address, “we, as Americans,” continued to “pay for the bombs that do the killing.”

After three years of steadfast American support for the genocide, the reaction of an overwhelming majority of people who left comments on Mamdani’s video seemed to be shocked relief that a prominent elected official was willing to state the case this plainly and forcefully. While the mayor’s critics may sneer that the city’s lawyers wouldn’t sign off on him ordering the NYPD to carry out the arrest themselves (“see, he overpromised!”), the reaction of ordinary people to the revelation that someone who mutilated tens of thousands of children is allowed to strut around New York without fear of arrest is more likely to be shock and disgust.

As Mamdani emphasized, the federal government does have the power to bring Netanyahu to justice if the prime minister sets foot on American soil. Donald Trump, of course, has no interest in exercising that power. But every Democrat who runs for president in 2028 should be asked whether they plan to heed the mayor’s call to enforce international law.

The Bottom Line

Much of the commentary from media talking heads has been about the politics of the video. Will the mayor get points with voters for stating the case so powerfully, or lose points for being unable to order the arrest himself as he’d initially hoped? How will this change city hall’s relationship to the White House? Does the whole thing distract from other aspects of Mamdani’s agenda?

If you care about human rights and international law, though, all of this is distantly secondary. For decades, each new New York City mayor would visit Israel to prove his great love for that country. (As far as I can tell, just about exactly none of the people currently complaining about Mamdani weighing in on Israel/Palestine instead of sticking to local matters ever complained about this practice.) Even the fairly progressive Bill de Blasio made the pilgrimage. Mamdani’s immediate predecessor, Mayor Eric Adams, liked to talk about the “unbreakable bond” between his city and the Middle Eastern ethnostate. Two years ago, the idea of a New York City mayor sitting behind his desk and stating plainly that Israel’s leader is a war criminal who should be behind bars would have been utterly unthinkable.

Clearly, the world has changed. It’s long past time.


This article was originally published by Jacobin; please consider supporting the original publication, and read the original version at the link above.
'Project much?' Mockery as Stephen Miller rants about 'losers and crazies' on Fox News

Robert Davis
July 27, 2026
RAW STORY



White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller delivers remarks, as he and U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth attend a presentation ceremony of the Mexican Border Defense Medal (MBDM) to service members participating in the Trump administration's Operation Ardent Vanguard, at the Pentagon in Washinton, D.C., U.S., July 27, 2026. 
REUTERS/Evelyn Hockstein


One of President Donald Trump's top aides was ridiculed on Monday after he went on Fox News to rant about "losers and crazies" in the Democratic Party.

Stephen Miller, Trump's deputy chief of staff for policy, joined Sean Hannity on his eponymous show on Monday to discuss the upcoming midterm elections. During the interview, Miller took a swipe at some of the most popular Democrats in the party, one that didn't land well with some people in the audience.

"The names you mentioned — AOC, Bernie, [Ilhan] Omar—these are people who, even 10 or 15 years ago, would have been relegated to the outermost fringes. They are now the heart and soul of the party," Miller said. "The Democrats have become the party of freaks, weirdos, losers, and crazies," Miller said. "But you can't laugh it off because it's deadly serious."

Miller's comments were swiftly mocked online.

"Project much? Ten years ago, Miller was a fringe staff member for a fringe senator. Now he’s in the White House," Ray Locker, a journalist and author, posted on X.

"10 or 15 years ago we would have rightly condemned Stephen Miller's policy of turning away persecuted Christians who were brown while welcoming only white South African refugees as a Nazi idea," Jaid Jilani, author of "The American Saga" on Substack, posted on X.

"The king of the 'freaks, weirdos, losers, and crazies' party wants to call out some of the most popular politicians in the country," Hemant Mehta, a "Jeopardy!" champion, posted on X.























\\







Trump's 'white-supremacist wonderland' about to face 'humiliating implosion': analyst

Kathleen Culliton
July 26, 2026 
RAW STORY


White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller looks on as he stands behind reporters during a press conference with U.S. President Donald Trump, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Director Kash Patel, U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi, and U.S. Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche in the Oval Office at the White House in Washington, D.C. on Oct. 15, 2025. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst

The Trump's administration's efforts to turn the world into a "a white-supremacist wonderland" will suffer a "humiliating implosion" for one darkly funny reason, a Salon columnist argued Sunday.

Executive editor Andrew O’Hehir skewered the fragile egos of many a MAGA minion in his lengthy editorial on President Donald Trump's failed foreign policy which he asserted was doomed by a fatal flaw.

"We should be grateful for the epic and reckless corruption of this administration," wrote O'Herir. "Ambitious schemes to reshape America and the world as a white-supremacist wonderland are consistently undercut by the enormous levels of graft."

Yes, graft.

O'Herir's argument for this claim centers on Trump's White House Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy Stephen Miller, a man he compares to one of Adolf Hitler's most devoted followers among the Nazis.

"As I see him," he wrote, "Miller is a true believer whose corruption is moral rather than financial, one of many traits he appears to share with Joseph Goebbels."

This moral corruption stands in stark contrast to the rest of the Trump administration whose financial corruption he argues have effectively undermined Miller's goals.

Why? O'Herir predicts Trump's grafts have delivered a fatal blow to his popularity, and the MAGA movement is headed for a nasty midterm surprise.

"As the Trump administration veers unsteadily into its lame-duck phase and a likely midterm wipeout, its quest for a legacy achievement becomes increasingly pathetic," he wrote.

"Meanwhile, the search for something that can be pitched to last-ditch MAGA loyalists as a victory, no matter how petty and insignificant, continues."

Despite O'Herir's assertion that the humor of the situation is marred by the horrific consequences — "this might be amusing if real human lives weren’t at stake, and if billions in taxpayer dollars appropriated by Congress for aid to impoverished countries like Mali weren’t being diverted to right-wing nationalists, white supremacists and anti-LGBTQ groups" — O'Herir concludes with one last dark silver lining

Wrote O'Herir: "Trump’s return to power has, at the very least, finally confounded all the doofuses who ever took anything he said at face value."






RED BAITING
Internet firestorm erupts as Wall Street Journal editorial targets 'radical' group

Robert Davis
July 26, 2026 
RAW STORY


U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani hold up hands as they attend the Get Out the Vote rally in Brooklyn, New York, U.S., June 18, 2026. REUTERS/Eduardo Munoz

The Wall Street Journal's conservative editorial board issued a scathing editorial on Sunday targeting what they called a "radical" left-wing group.

"The Democratic Socialists of America are gaining strength in the Democratic Party, so it behooves voters to know what they’d do with political power," the editorial reads in part.

And one position that the editors singled out is the party's calls to "abolish the Senate" to create a government "with an executive and judiciary chosen by and subordinate to Congress.

"The left loathes the Senate because it is also a restraint on temporary majorities," the editors added. "The Senate’s design, with two Members from each state, gives an equal voice to small and large states. This prevents dominance by California, New York, and Texas. And it buttresses the federalist principles at the core of the Constitution’s design, which preserves certain powers to the states as a check on Washington, D.C.’s commandments."

"The common denominator in all of these DSA proposals is eliminating barriers to rapid, radical change," they added. "The socialists want a single-branch legislature that can sweep into power in a single election, dominate the President, and neuter the judiciary as a check on that power. With those checks gone, they can impose their agenda that will be nearly impossible to undo."

The editorial was published on the same day that DSA Chair Megan Romer told Fox News's Shannon Bream on "Fox News Sunday" that the party's plan to abolish the Senate was "true," which set off an internet firestorm.

MAGA fans had a field day with Romer's comments.

"This is the new Democrat Party; their agenda is incompatible with Western civilization," Benny Johnson, a popular MAGA influencer, posted on X.

"The Democratic Socialists of America co-chair just confirmed they are full-blown communists," Jonathan Choe, senior journalism fellow at the Discovery Institute, posted on X. "If you need any more proof, listen to what she had to say about their plans for this country."

The comments also sparked sharp pushback from some Democrats as well.

"This isn’t a big tent—it’s anarchy," Sen. John Fetterman (D-PA) posted on X in response to a clip of Romer's interview.

"This is the kind of crazy, stupid, just plain wrong s--- that Republicans will tag the whole Democratic party with and cause independents & moderates to not vote Democrat," Joe Walsh, a former Republican lawmaker who switched party allegiances, posted on X. "So please, Democrats…condemn this s---."

FETTERMAN IS A REPUBLICAN IN DINO COSTUME












Source: FAIR
By “Black and Latino leaders,” the New York Times (7/19/26) appears to mean a particular subset of such leaders who have dominated the Democratic Party for decades.

Democratic Socialists of America candidates won several Democratic primaries for Congress and the state legislature in New York. Seven months into his term, New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s favorability has increased to 58% of New Yorkers, with only 26% disapproving—which, as the Guardian (7/12/26) pointed out, is “better than the Democratic Party as a whole.”

For establishment Democrats—and the corporate centrist press who love them—this is a crisis moment.

The New York Times (e.g., 6/16/25) has been vocal about its desire to keep DSA-backed candidates out of office, especially Mamdani. The recent momentum for DSA inspired the paper to publish a news story (7/19/26) that painted DSA’s pro-tenant, pro-worker, tax-the-rich platform not as a threat to the monied class, but as the project of white gentrifiers suppressing Black and Latino electoral power.

The article stated that, “after the wins by democratic socialists in gentrifying neighborhoods across the city,” there was worry that “work to empower Black and Latino voters to pick who represents them was being erased.”

One-third white-collar

This seems entirely laughable at the first read. In New York City, most of DSA’s congressional nominees and backed candidates are people of color; of the nine DSA state lawmakers currently serving in New York, eight of them are either Black, Latino or Asian. The co-chair of New York City DSA, Gustavo Gordillo, is Peruvian American, and Susan Kang, who often comments from the DSA perspective on Spectrum News NY1, is Korean American.

Oh, but the Times has a theory: 

The tension is not centered on the ethnicity or race of the candidates supported by the DSA—many are Black and Latino. It is more about the group itself: A 2021 national survey of DSA members found that the group was 85 percent white, a decrease from 2013 when 96 percent of members were white. About a third of the group identified as teachers, academics, white-collar workers or tech workers.

The average voter doesn’t step into a primary wondering about the demographic background of the foot soldiers of a candidate’s affiliated political machine, but whether the candidate is going to serve the interests of the voter and their city/state/nation. This kind of statistic might say something about the DSA’s trouble recruiting a diverse pool of dues-paying members who remain active outside of local elections, an issue worthy of discussion. That doesn’t negate the fact that DSA-backed candidates can win in diverse districts with pro-tenant and pro-worker platforms. 

“It’s racist to say a Black leader like myself is secretly operating on the whims of white people,” state Sen. Jabari Brisport of DSA told FAIR. “It implies Black socialist politicians don’t have agency.” 

‘High-water mark’

Mamdani won the primary “without the support of a majority of Black voters, once thought to be a requisite in New York,” the Times noted, as evidence that Black voters’ “bread-and-butter issues may get overlooked.” Yet far more Black voters than white or Latino voters went into the primary undecided, and in the general election, Mamdani resoundingly defeated Cuomo in majority-Black precincts (New York Times, 11/4/25).

By the Times’ own reporting, Mamdani—the city’s first Muslim and South Asian mayor—won resoundingly citywide, notably losing ground to disgraced former Gov. Andrew Cuomo in the suburban outskirts and the ultra-rich Upper East Side. Mamdani beat Cuomo—and Republican Curtis Sliwa—with Black, Latino and Asian voters. Cuomo crushed it with the white vote, however. 

A March poll found that Mamdani’s net approval rating, which is +10 points among white New Yorkers, is +23 among Latino voters and +42  among Black voters. Compare that to former Mayor Eric Adams, whose 2021 nomination “seemed to signal a high-water mark for Black political power” in New York City, according to the Times piece: In his last year in office, his net approval rating among Black voters was -36 (Quinnipiac, 3/5/25).

What the Times wants readers to believe is that insurgent DSA challengers are ousting incumbents who represent the poor and the marginalized, while DSA wins votes among gentrifiers. Take this nugget here: 

In Upper Manhattan and the Bronx, Representative Adriano Espaillat, a five-term incumbent who became the first formerly undocumented person elected to Congress and then the chair of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, lost to Darializa Avila Chevalier, a democratic socialist almost 40 years his junior.

Exit polls show that while Espaillat led with the district’s Latino voters, Avila Chevalier won among Black voters, meaning the candidates split the POC voting base.

The Times also forgot to tell readers that it was Avila Chevalier, not Espaillat, who had to fend off racist character attacks. A “former senior adviser for Rep. Adriano Espaillat…made racist comments about his primary challenger Darializa Avila Chevalier in Spanish-language media,” City & State (6/22/26) reported, and “cast suspicions on Avila Chevalier’s Dominican identity.”

‘Targeting communities’

When Black DSA congressmember Jamaal Bowman was ousted by a white primary challenger loaded with AIPAC money, the New York Times‘ (6/25/24) takeaways warned only of “racial, class and generational splits”—not “political erasure” for Black constituents.

But perhaps the most telling passage came at the end: 

L. Joy Williams, the head of the New York State NAACP, said the signaling of DSA’s ambition was unmistakable. “The undercurrent is that they’re targeting communities that have historically and primarily been Black and Latino,” she said.

It’s logical that DSA would be “targeting” Black and Latino communities because they’re more likely than white voters to vote for a socialist candidate (Cato, 7/2/26). The Times piece failed to mention the long history of Black leaders and communities in socialist movements over the past century, including A. Philip Randolph, Martin Luther King, Jr., and the Black Panthers.

But DSA’s Brisport also noted that Williams’ read on the situation wasn’t accurate, telling FAIR:

We’ve run candidates in white Bay Ridge and white Park Slope, we ran a candidate way out in eastern Queens; none of these are traditionally Black or brown seats, but people ignore those to build a narrative.

Brisport contrasted Williams’ comments to the fact that a Black DSA congressmember, Jamaal Bowman, was ousted in a primary by a white challenger with the help of $14.5 million in Israel lobby funding in 2024 (FAIR.org, 6/28/24). “They took out a Black principal and replaced him with a white guy who was loyal to Israel,” Brisport said. “These so-called Black leaders had nothing to say.” 

In addition, Williams’ comment ignores the fact that DSA’s first major congressional victory was the election of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a Puerto Rican woman who defeated a powerful and long-serving white incumbent (Time, 6/26/18). But the Times never offers this correction in its reporting.

Worse, passages like this normalize the idea that establishment incumbents are entitled to keep their positions, especially if they represent districts with Black and Latino politicians. The Times’ inclusion of this sentiment, punctuating the piece, insinuates that Black and Latino activists entering primaries, canvassing voters, promoting an affordability platform and turning out supporters in low-turnout elections is some kind of dirty trick. In other words, the Times is afraid of too much democracy. 

It’s interesting to note that while the right-wing Wall Street Journal editorial board (6/21/26) is also horrified at DSA’s electoral rise, it is more clear-headed about why the group is surging than this swipe at the group in the Times’ news section. “These races—and others across the country—reflect the potent organizing of the DSA and the leftwing march of young progressive voters,” it said. “The DSA agenda is gaining among Democrats,” the paper acknowledged.


This article was originally published by FAIR; please consider supporting the original publication, and read the original version at the link above.



FIFA boss summoned to testify about Trump ties in aftermath of World Cup

Travis Gettys
July 27, 2026 
RAW STORY


U.S. President Donald Trump looks at the golden glove trophy next to FIFA president Gianni Infantino after Chelsea won against Paris St Germain in the FIFA Club World Cup final, at the MetLife Stadium in East Rutherford, New Jersey, U.S., July 13, 2025. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque/Pool

The top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee has formally asked FIFA president Gianni Infantino to appear before the committee, escalating scrutiny of FIFA's relationship with President Donald Trump in the aftermath of this summer's men's World Cup.

In a letter sent Sunday night, Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD) asked FIFA to turn over records of anything of value given to Trump, his administration, or the Trump Organization, along with visitor logs from FIFA's Miami and New York offices and preserved communications — including messages sent on platforms like Signal, Telegram and WhatsApp — between FIFA staff and anyone connected to the Trump administration or transition, reported The Athletic.

FIFA created a new "Peace Prize" awarded to the president, took office space in Trump Tower and relocated the World Cup draw from Las Vegas to the Kennedy Center in Washington after Trump allies took over the venue.

Scrutiny intensified during the tournament when Trump personally called Infantino to request a review of U.S. player Folarin Balogun's suspension, which FIFA then reversed — a decision the organization maintains was made independently.

Raskin's letter also questions the Justice Department's decision to drop long-running corruption cases tied to international soccer, suggesting the timing raises questions about whether FIFA's outreach to Trump influenced the outcome.

Additionally, the letter revives concerns about FIFA's World Cup ticketing practices, which are already under investigation by attorneys general in several states over pricing that reportedly reached tens of thousands of dollars for finals tickets — far above the tournament's original promised cap.

A White House spokesperson dismissed the inquiry, defending the administration's role in the World Cup as a major success for the country.

Because Democrats remain in the House minority, Raskin cannot compel Infantino's testimony. But the letter signals the kind of oversight FIFA could face if Democrats retake the chamber in November, when Raskin could gain subpoena power as committee chairman.

The pressure adds to mounting criticism of Infantino abroad, with dozens of European lawmakers and soccer bodies — including UEFA and Norway's football federation — raising concerns about FIFA's political neutrality following the Balogun controversy and the Trump Peace Prize.
Top DHS Statistics Official Resigns, Citing ‘War on Immigrants’ and Trump’s ‘Brazen Corruption’

“Since Trump took office last year, his office has been repeatedly blocked from sharing previously public data,” said one expert of Marc Rosenblum.



Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents walk a detainee out of the Ventura County Government Center in Ventura, California, on July 27, 2026.

(Photo by Blake Fagan/AFP via Getty Images)

Julia Conley
Jul 28, 2026
COMMON DREAMS


A top immigration policy expert accused a right-wing online news source of spreading an “outrageous lie” on Monday about the US Department of Homeland Security’s top statistician, who resigned over the weekend and cited President Donald Trump’s “war on immigrants” as a major reason for his departure.

America First Post wrote in a post on social media that Marc Rosenblum, who until recently was the executive director of the DHS Office of Homeland Security Statistics (OHSS), “easily could’ve been underreporting deportations or illegal populations, ruining data.”

Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, senior fellow at the American Immigration Council, countered that Rosenblum sought under both the first Trump administration and the Biden administration to publish “the most transparent data on immigration enforcement ever; monthly information on [US Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Customs and Border Protection] arrests and removals, stuff that had NEVER been published before.”

Such data has not been published since the first days of Trump’s second term in the White House, said Reichlin-Melnick, as the president has ramped up deportation operations and federal agents have violently carried out his anti-immigration agenda—arresting more than 10,000 people in a recent five-day span and killing at least 11 people during enforcement operations.

In a post on LinkedIn, Rosenblum wrote that over 10 years, the team he managed at OHSS grew from 11 people to 45 people under the Biden administration.

“We matured official data processing to update monthly,” wrote Rosenblum. “We launched new lines of daily and weekly internal reports. We massively expanded our analytic capacity.”

“My OHSS co-workers are outstanding career federal civil servants. They are smart, mission-focused experts who produce high-quality results in a challenging and often hostile work environment,” he continued. “But it will come as no surprise that I’m thrilled to end my relationship with the current administration. Between the war on immigrants, the war on feds, and the war on facts (not to mention the crazy war in Iran and the brazen corruption), I just need a change.”

Daniel Delgado, a former DHS deputy assistant secretary for immigration policy, said the department was “far better off for the work that Marc accomplished, no matter how hard the current incompetent leadership try to hide it.”

David Bier, director of immigration studies at the libertarian Cato Institute—which has found that the majority of immigration arrests made last year were of people who had no criminal convictions—told NOTUS last November that under the Trump administration, DHS was providing “no accountability, no way to assess, no public understanding about what’s really going on that is not curated by a press release from the agency.”

Reichlin-Melnick has also frequently spoken out about the lack of data being publicly released by DHS to back up its claims about immigration arrests.




While DHS has repeatedly claimed in public statements that its agents are getting “the worst of the worst off our streets,” the agency’s own “Worst of the Worst” database released late last year showed less than 10,000 people who had been arrested—a tiny fraction of the 220,000 people who had been detained by federal agents up to that point.

“Marc Rosenblum was one of the most dedicated civil servants I’ve ever met, a man who spent his career working to get DHS to share more data,” said Reichlin-Melnick. “Since Trump took office last year, his office has been repeatedly blocked from sharing previously public data.”