Two Thirds of People Arrested by ICE in Minnesota Surge Had No Criminal Records, New Data Reveals The majority of immigration arrests made by federal agents during President Donald Trump’s enforcement surge in Minnesota last winter were of people with no criminal background, according to The Intercept’s analysis of newly revealed government data. The data belies a common talking point made by the White House during the massive immigration operation: that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents were arresting thousands of “dangerous criminal illegal aliens.” From December 2025 to mid-March 2026, ICE made 4,030 arrests in the state. Of them, a staggering 2,532 arrests, or 63 percent, were of people with no criminal convictions or pending criminal charges, according to the data, which is being reported for the first time by The Intercept. > ICE’s data contradicts the White House’s claim that all 4,000 people arrested were “dangerous criminal” immigrants. On February 4, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said in a [statement][1], “President Trump’s commonsense immigration enforcement policies are delivering the public safety results the American people demanded, with more than 4,000 dangerous criminal illegal aliens already arrested in Minnesota since Operation Metro began.” ICE’s own data contradicts the White House’s claim that all 4,000 people arrested were “dangerous criminal” undocumented immigrants at a time when about two thirds of them had no records. The findings are based on The Intercept’s analysis of federal government data provided by ICE in response to a Freedom of Information Act request by the Deportation Data Project. The new tranche of data, published on Monday, includes information on all ICE arrests made nationwide till March 10. **** ## Skyrocketing Arrests The proportion of ICE arrests in Minnesota of immigrants without a criminal record increased sharply during the winter operation, dubbed “Metro Surge” by the Trump administration. Between Trump’s inauguration in January 2025 and the end of November 2025, 44 percent of all ICE arrests in the state were of people without criminal records. From December until February 12, the date that border czar Tom Homan said the operation was coming to an end, 64 percent of all ICE arrests in the state were of people without criminal records. [ [MCALLEN, TX - JUNE 23: A Guatemalan father and his daughter arrives with dozens of other women, men and their children at a bus station following release from Customs and Border Protection on June 23, 2018 in McAllen, Texas. Once families and individuals are released and given a court hearing date they are brought to the Catholic Charities Humanitarian Respite Center to rest, clean up, enjoy a meal and to get guidance to their next destination. Before President Donald Trump signed an executive order Wednesday that halts the practice of separating families who are seeking asylum, over 2,300 immigrant children had been separated from their parents in the zero-tolerance policy for border crossers (Photo by Spencer Platt/Getty Images)] Read Our Complete Coverage ## The War on Immigrants ][2] The period of the surge also represented a giant jump in the number of arrests themselves. Nearly 4,000 of the 5,998 ICE arrests in Minnesota since Trump took office occurred between December and February 12. In January alone, there were 2,530 ICE arrests recorded in Minnesota, underscoring the impact of the operation. In comparison, there were 177 ICE arrests in the state in November, the last month before the surge began. A vast majority — 97 percent — of ICE arrests in Minnesota between December 2025 and February 12 were “street arrests”; all of those were listed in the data as non-custodial arrests referring to detentions where the person is not taken from another agency’s custody. In contrast, only 52 percent of all ICE arrests elsewhere in the country in the same period were non-custodial arrests. ## **After Renee Good Killing** The enforcement surge in Minnesota began in early December, then ramped up in January following the killing of Renee Nicole Good by ICE agent [Jonathan Ross][3]. The Trump administration responded to the killing by doubling down and sending hundreds more federal agents to the state to intensify the immigration enforcement crackdown. Now, The Intercept’s analysis of ICE arrests data shows that after Good was killed, the rate of ICE arrests in Minnesota more than doubled. [ ## Related ### The Woman Alex Pretti Was Killed Trying to Defend Is an EMT. Federal Agents Stopped Her From Giving First Aid. ][4] There were 1,225 ICE arrests, or around 32 arrests per day, recorded in Minnesota from December 2025 until January 7, 2026, the day Good was killed. Since then up until February 12, when Homan said the operation in the state was coming to an end, the rate of ICE arrests shot up to 74 arrests per day, with a total of 2.672 arrests being recorded. The rate of ICE arrests stayed high despite the [killing of Alex Pretti][5] by federal immigration agents in Minneapolis on January 24. ## **Few Somalis Arrested** Around the time that the surge was announced, Trump administration officials repeatedly spoke of targeting Somalis in the Twin Cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul. The metropolitan area boasts the largest Somali community in the country and most of its members are U.S. citizens or permanent residents. The ramped up enforcement in the state dovetailed with a campaign by far-right figures with ties to [anti-Muslim][6] and [anti-immigrant views][7] against Somalis in the state. The YouTube videos made by a far-right influencer were [reportedly responsible ][8]for the White House’s focus on the Twin Cities. The videos alleged widespread fraud by the Somali community, but many of the claims have since been debunked or shown to have been blown out of proportion. According to The Intercept’s analysis of ICE data, however, only 112 ICE arrests recorded in Minnesota from December until mid-March were of people listed as having Somali citizenship. The post [Two Thirds of People Arrested by ICE in Minnesota Surge Had No Criminal Records, New Data Reveals][9] appeared first on [The Intercept][10]. [1]: https://www.whitehouse.gov/releases/2026/02/new-milestone-in-operation-metro-surge-4000-criminal-illegals-removed-from-minnesota-streets/ [2]: /collections/the-war-on-immigrants/ [3]: https://theintercept.com/2026/01/08/ice-agent-identified-shooting-minneapolis-jonathan-ross/ [4]: https://theintercept.com/2026/02/13/alex-pretti-first-aid-emt-federal-agents/ [5]: https://theintercept.com/2026/01/24/minneapolis-killing-border-patrol-ice-alex-pretti/ [6]: https://theintercept.com/2026/01/03/minnesota-fraud-video-somalis-nick-shirley-source/ [7]: https://theintercept.com/2025/12/31/nick-shirley-videos-minnesota-somali-day-cares-fraud-claims/ [8]: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/12/31/business/media/trump-conservatives-videos-viral-loop.html [9]: https://theintercept.com/2026/03/30/ice-minnesota-criminal-records-data-arrests/ [10]: https://theintercept.com https://theintercept.com/2026/03/30/ice-minnesota-criminal-records-data-arrests/

What Would We All Say If Iran Razed MIT Because of Military-Related Research? [Iranian Red Crescent emergency workers use a bulldozer to clear rubble from a residential building that was hit in an earlier U.S.-Israeli strike in Tehran, Iran, Monday, March 23, 2026. (AP Photo/Vahid Salemi)] Iranian Red Crescent emergency workers use an excavator to clear rubble from a residential building that was hit in an earlier U.S.–Israeli strike in Tehran, Iran, on March 23, 2026. Photo: Vahid Salemi/AP Over the weekend, the U.S. and Israel [bombarded][1] two universities in Iran, the Isfahan University of Technology and the Iran University of Science and Technology in Tehran. These are not, of course, the first attacks on civilian infrastructure in President Donald Trump and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s illegal war on Iran; [hospitals, desalination facilities, power plants, and an elementary school have all been hit][2]. > Iranian students and educators received no warning. The U.S. and Israel claimed that the attacks on the universities were justified, because they said the schools were connected to Iran’s weapons programs. In response, Iranian authorities [said][3] on Sunday that American university facilities in the region would be considered legitimate targets, should the U.S. not condemn the strikes on Iranian educational institutions. In a statement, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps warned “all employees, professors and students of American universities in the region to stay at least a kilometer away.” Iranian students and educators received no such warning. Iran’s university campuses have been closed since the U.S.–Israeli war began last month; the weekend strikes nonetheless severely damaged buildings and [reportedly][4] wounded at least four staff members. ## Cynical Justification Leaving aside the fact that [nothing][5] in Trump’s war of choice against Iran is justified, the U.S. and Israel’s purported grounds for targeting Iranian universities are hollow and cynical. It is true that both universities had ties to military research. Would American and Israeli leaders consider their own equivalent institutions fair game? Of course not. By stated U.S. and Israeli rationale, however, were Iran able to launch airstrikes on American soil, direct ties to the U.S. and Israeli military-industrial complex would make valid targets of at least the [University of California, Berkeley][6]; the [Massachusetts Institute of Technology][7]; and [Johns Hopkins][8] [University][9], among dozens of other schools. [ [HANDOUT - 03 January 2020, Iraq, Bagdad: The remains of a vehicle hit by missiles outside Baghdad airport. (Best possible image quality) According to its own statements, the USA carried out the missile attack in Iraq in which one of the highest Iranian generals was killed. Photo by: picture-alliance/dpa/AP Images] Read Our Complete Coverage ## Targeting Iran ][10] Numerous [Israeli universities][11], including Technion and Tel Aviv University, have research institutes dedicated to military technologies. And the Hebrew University of Jerusalem has a military base on campus for training intelligence soldiers. Asymmetric warfare offers powerful aggressors the privilege of hypocrisy. It has long been pointed out that Israel’s justifications for mass slaughtering civilians — that Hamas uses civilian infrastructure — would in turn justify strikes on civilian areas in Israel. The Israeli government, after all, has facilities and even military installations within and near major cities and towns, not to mention the integration of the military into vast swaths of civilian Israeli life. This is true almost everywhere that commercial and military technologies become intractably integrated, but that integration is especially robust in Israel. > The idea that any site related to military research is a justified target could be used to attack any technological hub. Indeed, in this grim conjuncture, the idea that any site related to military research and development is a justified target could be used to attack any industrial, educational, and technological hub — which is precisely what the U.S. and Israel are doing in Iran. The U.S. and Israel’s own justifications for the Iranian university strikes de facto legitimize strikes against an MIT or a Technion, but American and Israeli leadership know that Iran and its allies don’t have the firepower to flatten whole campuses. This is not to say that Iran will not retaliate and attempt to extract a cost from its enemies; this has been the pattern since the U.S. and Israel launched their illegal offensive in late February. Universities including New York University, Texas A&M, Carnegie Mellon, Northwestern, and others have lucrative campuses in the Persian Gulf monarchies, primarily in Abu Dhabi and Qatar. These schools have all already moved to online instruction and most international students and faculty have left countries facing retaliatory Iranian strikes. [ ## Related ### “Liberate Their Bodies From Their Souls”: The Lies That Sell the Iran War ][12] These international campuses are not known for housing advanced research labs connected to military and surveillance research, but, as the student-led Gaza solidarity movement made clear, U.S. academia at large is deeply invested in multinational arms manufacturers and U.S. and Israeli military industries. Dozens of American institutions of higher education are deeply involved in the government-funded weapons research that helps make the U.S. military the most potentially destructive force in the world. ## “Systematic” Targeting Let’s not pretend, however, that the ongoing war on Iran follows any sort of valid justificatory reasoning. According to Helyeh Doutaghi, a post-doctoral fellow at the University of Tehran who [spoke][13] to Al-Jazeera, the university bombings reflect a “consistent and clear pattern, and that is the systemic de-industrialization and underdevelopment” of Iran’s capabilities. “The targeting is very systematic,” she said, “and very designed to make Iran incapable of defending its sovereignty by relying on its iedingeounous development and indigenous industries.” Strikes against civilian infrastructure follow the same genocidal logic that saw every university in Gaza [razed][14] to rubble within 100 days of October 7, 2023. In a video shared by members of the Israeli military on social media in 2024, a soldier walked through the rubble of Al-Azhar University. “To those who say, ‘There is no education in Gaza,’” he says, “we bombed them all. Too bad, you’ll not be engineers anymore.” The point, that is, is the devastation of a place and a people, foreclosing their capacity to rebuild. The post [What Would We All Say If Iran Razed MIT Because of Military-Related Research?][15] appeared first on [The Intercept][16]. [1]: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/30/world/middleeast/iran-universities-strikes.html [2]: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/3/30/schools-water-industry-what-civilian-targets-have-us-israel-iran-hit [3]: https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/iran-war-middle-east-news-updates/card/iran-threatens-strikes-on-american-universities-in-mideast-vyiej0vGmGUaYwYxWnyL?gaa_at=eafs&gaa_n=AWEtsqcoUbuU3eFjTGPDP1Glyon_R0gTKMQwU5nwil4ausBDzlIWfWia1848Nm0mNdc%3D&gaa_ts=69ca92e4&gaa_sig=0g5AvLxd9appAs_dLja0v0TWWM8nWVed7i9miA8hTt-aKJwnkMhnWqjIWsLa8RokhwUBDB0jAYmGKgo0PmMOeQ%3D%3D [4]: https://thehill.com/policy/international/5806893-iran-warns-that-us-college-campuses-in-middle-east-could-become-legitimate-targets/ [5]: https://theintercept.com/2026/03/05/iran-war-end-times-christian/ [6]: https://www.osti.gov/opennet/manhattan-project-history/Places/Other/berkeley.html [7]: https://www.ll.mit.edu/r-d/air-missile-and-maritime-defense-technology [8]: https://www.jhuapl.edu/work/impact/air-and-missile-defense [9]: https://kissinger.sais.jhu.edu/programs/nsri/ [10]: /collections/targeting-iran/ [11]: https://www.eccpalestine.org/beyond-dual-use-israeli-universities-role-in-the-military-security-industrial-complex/ [12]: https://theintercept.com/2026/03/20/podcast-war-beirut-lebanon-iran/ [13]: https://www.aljazeera.com/video/newsfeed/2026/3/30/iranian-academic-describes-us-israeli-attacks-on-irans-universities [14]: https://theintercept.com/2024/02/09/deconstructed-gaza-university-education/ [15]: https://theintercept.com/2026/03/30/iran-universities-mit-weapons-israel/ [16]: https://theintercept.com https://theintercept.com/2026/03/30/iran-universities-mit-weapons-israel/

Trump’s Secret Wars on the World Keep Expanding President Donald Trump talks endlessly of “peace.” He ran for office promising to keep the United States out of conflicts, [claims][1] to be a “[peacemaker][2],” has campaigned for a Nobel Peace Prize, and founded a so-called [Board of Peace][3]. “Under Trump we will have no more wars,” [he said][4] on the campaign trail in 2024. Yet Trump has immersed the U.S. in constant conflict, outpacing even other [presidential warmongers][5] like [Richard Nixon][6], [George W. Bush][7], and [Barack Obama][8]. The White House and Pentagon won’t tell the American people where the U.S. is at war, and Trump has never gone to Congress for war authorization. But an analysis by The Intercept reveals that Trump has embroiled the U.S. in more than 20 military interventions, armed conflicts, and wars during his five-plus years in the White House. Due to a lack of government transparency, [obscure][9] security cooperation, and carveouts baked into the U.S. Code — like the [127e authority][10] enacted in the wake of the September 11 attacks, and the covert action statute that enables the CIA to conduct secret wars — the actual number could be markedly higher. During his two terms in office, Trump has overseen armed interventions and military operations — including drone strikes, ground raids, proxy wars, 127e programs, and full-scale conflicts — in [Afghanistan][11], [Central African Republic][12], [Cameroon][13], [Ecuador][14], [Egypt][15], [Iran][16], [Iraq][17], [Kenya][18], [Lebanon][19], [Libya][20], [Mali][21], [Niger][22], [Nigeria][23], [North Korea][24], [Pakistan][25], the [Philippines][26], [Somalia][27], [Syria][28], [Tunisia][29], [Venezuela][30], [Yemen][31], and an unspecified country in the [Indo-Pacific region][32], as well as attacks on [civilians in boats][33] in the Caribbean Sea and Pacific Ocean. More than 6,500 U.S. Special Operations forces’ “operators and enablers” are currently deployed in [more than 80 countries][34] around the world. And during its second term, the Trump administration has also [bullied Panama][35] and threatened [Canada][36], [Colombia][37], [Cuba][38], [Greenland][39] (perhaps also [Iceland][40]), and [Mexico][41]. Under the U.S. Constitution, it’s Congress that has the authority to declare war, not the president, pointed out Katherine Yon Ebright, counsel in the Brennan Center’s Liberty and National Security Program. “Congress has not authorized conflicts in this wide array of contexts, and indeed many lawmakers — to say nothing of members of the public — would be surprised to learn that hostilities have taken place in many of these countries,” Ebright said. “Congressional authorization isn’t just a box-checking exercise: It’s a means of ensuring that the solemn decision to go to war is made democratically and accountably, with a clear purpose and goal that the American people can support.” [ ## Related ### Pentagon Reveals Attacks in Latin America Are Just the Beginning ][42] Despite the fact that the U.S. has not declared war since 1941, its military has fought near-constant wars from Korea to [Vietnam][43] from the 1950s through the 1970s to [Afghanistan and Iraq][44] in the 21st century, as the executive branch has come to dominate the government and Congress has abdicated its constitutional duty to declare war. For years, the Pentagon has even attempted to define war out of existence, claiming that it does not treat 127e and similar authorities as authorizations for the use of military force. In practice, however, Special Operations forces have used these authorities to create and control proxy forces and sometimes engage in combat alongside them. Recent presidents have also consistently claimed broad rights to act in self-defense, not only of U.S. forces but also for partner forces. > “Many lawmakers — to say nothing of members of the public — would be surprised that hostilities have taken place in many of these countries.” The Trump administration has even claimed the full-scale conflict in Iran is something other than what it is. Earlier this month, Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Elbridge Colby refused to call it a war. “I think we’re in a military action at this point,” he [told lawmakers][45]. Trump routinely refers to the conflict with Iran as a war, but he has also cast it as an “[excursion][46].” Trump has also erroneously claimed that if he doesn’t call the conflict with Iran a “war,” it circumvents Congress’s constitutional authority. “We have a thing called a war, or as they would rather say, a military operation. It’s for legal reasons,” [he said on Friday][47]. “I don’t need any approvals. As a war you’re supposed to get approval from Congress. Something like that.” EArlier This month, Special Operations Command chief Adm. Frank M. Bradley told the House Armed Services Committee’s Subcommittee on Intelligence and Special Operations that secret-war capabilities were key for the United States. “This environment places a premium on forces capable of operating persistently inside contested spaces, below the threshold of armed conflict,” [he said][48]. “Small footprints are necessary to enable denial strategies, strengthen allied resilience, and contribute to deterrence without triggering escalation, and to counter illicit and malign activity without large-scale military presence.” [ ## Related ### Pentagon Official on Venezuela War: “Following the Old, Failed Scripts” ][49] Bradley [claimed][50] America’s enemies “blur the lines between competition and conflict,” but this is precisely what America has done for decades, including numerous secret wars during both Trump terms. The United States has waged unconstitutional and clandestine conflicts through a variety of mechanisms. The covert action statute, for example, provides the authority for secret, unattributed, and primarily CIA-led operations that can involve the use of force. It has been used during the forever wars, including under Trump, to conduct drone strikes outside areas of active hostilities. It was apparently employed in the first [U.S. strike on Venezuela][51] in late 2025 — a prelude to a war, days later, that led to the [kidnapping][52] of that country’s president, Nicolás Maduro, by U.S. Special Operations forces. The 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force, which was enacted in the wake of the 9/11 attacks and has been stretched by successive administrations to cover a broad assortment of terrorist groups — most of which did not exist on September 11 — has been used to justify counterterrorism operations, including ground combat, airstrikes, and support of partner militaries, in at least 22 countries, according to a 2021 [report][53] by Brown University’s Costs of War Project. Under Trump, even this signature post-9/11 workaround for war has been eschewed for something more clandestine. Top Pentagon leadership wanted to keep so-called “[advise, assist and accompany][54]” or “AAA” missions — which can be indistinguishable from combat — under wraps during Trump’s first term. This led then-Defense Secretary James Mattis to order U.S. operations in Africa to be kept “off the front page,” a former senior U.S. official told [the International Crisis Group][55]. But the bid to keep Trump’s other African wars secret imploded during a May 2017 AAA mission when Navy SEAL Kyle Milliken was killed and two other Americans were wounded in a raid on an al-Shabab camp in Somalia. The Pentagon initially claimed that Somali forces were out ahead of Milliken — U.S. troops are supposed to remain at the last position of cover and concealment where they remain out of sight and protected — but that fiction fell apart, and the truth emerged that he was, in fact, [alongside them][56]. This was followed by an October 2017 debacle in Tongo Tongo, Niger, where ISIS fighters ambushed American troops, killing four U.S. soldiers and wounding two others. The U.S. initially claimed troops were providing “[advice and assistance][57]” to local counterparts. In truth, until bad weather prevented it, the ambushed [team][58] was slated to support another group of [American and Nigerien][59] commandos attempting to kill or capture an ISIS leader as part of [Obsidian Nomad][60] II, another 127e program. Under 127e, U.S. commandoes — including Army Green Berets, Navy SEALs, and Marine Raiders — arm, train, and provide intelligence to foreign forces. Unlike traditional foreign assistance programs, which are primarily intended to build local capacity, 127e partners are then dispatched on U.S.-directed missions, targeting U.S. enemies to achieve U.S. aims. During Trump’s first term, U.S. Special Operations forces conducted at least 23 separate 127e programs across the world. [Previous reporting][61] by [The Intercept][62] has documented many 127e efforts in [Africa][63] and the [Middle East][64], including a partnership with a [notoriously abusive unit][65] of the Cameroonian military, also during Trump’s first term, that continued long after its members were connected to mass atrocities. In addition to Cameroon, Niger, and Somalia, the U.S. has conducted 127e programs in Afghanistan, Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon, Mali, Syria, Tunisia, Yemen, and an undisclosed country in the Indo-Pacific region. “During the global war on terror, the Department of Defense built out its capacity, and secured legal authorities, to operate ‘by, with, and through’ foreign militaries and paramilitaries,” Ebright said. “These smaller-scale, unauthorized hostilities through or alongside foreign partners may seem quaint compared to the Iran War and other recent public and persistent hostilities, but for years they deepened the perception that the president may use force whenever and wherever he pleases, even without specific congressional authorization.” For almost one year, the White House has failed to respond to repeated requests from The Intercept for information about past and current 127e programs. “While Trump claims to be the president of peace, he is actually the conflict-in-chief, waging many pointless and deadly wars, ensuring generational animosity towards a rogue U.S.,” said Sarah Harrison, an associate general counsel at the Pentagon’s Office of General Counsel, International Affairs during Trump’s first term. “His actions are not just unconstitutional and in violation of international law, they make Americans less safe and their wallets less full.” During his second term, Trump has made overt war across the African continent, conducting airstrikes from [Nigeria][66] to [Somalia][67]. In the Middle East, Trump has left a trail of civilians dead, from a [migrant detention facility in Yemen][68] to an [elementary school in Iran][69]. [ ## Related ### Trump’s War on Iran Could Cost Trillions ][70] America’s [punishing war on Iran][71] has ground on for over a month without a clear definition of victory, a plan for the aftermath, or coherent strategy behind bellicose rhetoric and shifting claims, most recently that the U.S. is fighting a regime change war and will possibly seize Iran’s oil. “We’ve had regime change if you look already because the one regime was decimated, destroyed, they’re all dead,” Trump said on Sunday, referring to top ranking officials killed in the war including the late Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. “The next regime is mostly dead.” > “We’ve had regime change if you look already because the one regime was decimated, destroyed, they’re all dead.” Additional U.S. forces are now being sped to the Middle East to augment more than 40,000 troops already stationed in the region. This included dozens of fighter jets, bombers, and other aircraft, as well as two carrier strike groups. (The USS Gerald R. Ford had to since abandon the fight and travel to port, following a fire on the ship.) More than 2,000 additional Marines arrived in the region over the weekend, and 2,000 more are on their way by ship. A similar number of [paratroopers from the 82nd Airborne Division][72] are expected to arrive soon. The influx of troops comes as Trump has threatened to seize Iran’s oilfields. “To be honest with you, my favorite thing is to take the oil in Iran but some stupid people back in the U.S. say: ‘why are you doing that?’ But they’re stupid people,” he told the Financial Times on Sunday. In a Monday Truth Social post, Trump threatened to commit war crimes by “blowing up and completely obliterating all of [Iran’s] Electric Generating Plants, Oil Wells and Kharg Island (and possibly all desalinization plants!)” [ ## Related ### The Regime Survives, Trump Has to Deal, and Iranians Are the Biggest Losers ][73] The Pentagon has already [requested $200 billion][74] in supplemental funds to pay for the Iran war, and the ultimate cost is expected to run into the [trillions of dollars][75]. The U.S. is also ramping up conflicts in the Western hemisphere. Since [attacking Venezuela][76] and [abducting][77] its president in January, the U.S. has reportedly undertaken a regime-change operation in Cuba, attempting to [push out][78] President Miguel Díaz-Canel. Trump has also repeatedly [spoken][79] of “[taking][80]” Cuba. He has also threatened to [annex Greenland][81] (and possibly [Iceland][82]), turn [Canada][83] into a U.S. state, and carry out military strikes in [Mexico][84]. The chief of U.S. Special Operations Command recently referenced the “perceived increase of U.S. support to counter-cartel operations in Mexico” and said his elite troops “remain postured to provide… support to Mexican military and security forces to dismantle narco-terrorist organizations.” The U.S. claims to be currently at war with at least [24 cartels and criminal gangs][85] it [will not name][86]. Under [Operation Southern Spear][87], the U.S. has conducted an illegal campaign of strikes on boats in the Caribbean Sea and Eastern Pacific Ocean, [destroying 49 vessels][88] and [killing more than 160 civilians][89]. The latest strike, on March 25 in the Caribbean, killed four people. “Trump wants to call DoD’s summary executions on the high seas a war because he thinks that will allow him to kill civilians. And he wants to call the war in Iran a military operation so he doesn’t have to go to Congress for approval,” explained Harrison, who also previously served in the White House Office of Legislative Affairs. “It doesn’t matter what imaginary legal constructs Trump comes up with, it won’t protect him or his officials from accountability for these undeniably illegal uses of force.” [ Read Our Complete Coverage ## License to Kill ][90] The boat strikes recently moved to land as so-called “bilateral kinetic actions against cartel targets along the Colombia-Ecuador border” on unnamed “[designated terrorist organizations][91].” “The joint effort, named ‘Operation Total Extermination,’ is the start of a military offensive by Ecuador against transnational criminal organizations with the support of the U.S.,” [Joseph Humire][92], the acting assistant secretary of war for homeland defense and Americas security affairs, announced earlier this month. That U.S.–Ecuadorian campaign has already [strayed into Colombia][93] after a farm was bombed or hit by “[ricochet effect][94]” on March 3, leaving an unexploded [500-pound bomb][95] lying in Colombia’s border region. > “It doesn’t matter what imaginary legal constructs Trump comes up with, it won’t protect him or his officials from accountability.” Harrison drew attention to the human costs of the raft of conflicts being waged by the Trump administration, remarking on “all the people who are needlessly dying because of one man’s ego and how it makes the U.S. much less safe.” Successive White Houses and the Pentagon have also kept secret the full list of groups with which the U.S. is in conflict. In 2015, The Intercept asked the Pentagon for “a complete and exhaustive list of the groups and individuals, including affiliates and/or associated forces, against which the U.S. military is authorized to take direct action” — a Pentagon euphemism for attacks. Eleven years later, we’re still waiting for an answer. Asked more recently for a simple count — just the number — of wars, conflicts, interventions, and kinetic operations, the Office of the Secretary of Defense offered no answers. “Your queries have been received and sent to the appropriate department,” a spokesperson told The Intercept weeks ago before ghosting this reporter. “The proliferation of unauthorized, presidentially initiated conflicts raises profound challenges for our rule of law, democracy, and accountability around matters of war and peace,” said Ebright. “This is true, too, of secret wars that government officials may refer to as ‘light-footprint warfare’ or ‘low-intensity conflict,’ not the least because we’ve repeatedly seen intermittent strikes or raids give way to protracted military engagements and larger-scale operations.” Bradley — perhaps best known for [ordering the double-tap strike][96] that [killed two shipwrecked men][97] last fall — recently offered a murky catalogue of “state adversaries, terrorists, and transnational criminal networks” aligned against the United States, including China, Russia, “Iran, its proxy forces, and terrorist organizations,” and other unnamed “state adversaries”; transnational criminal organizations that “continue to attempt to exploit the southern approaches to the United States”; ISIS and Al Qaeda affiliates; as well as “terrorists” and “extremist groups” in Africa. The State Department currently counts [94 foreign terrorist organizations][98] around the world, including 13 that were designated back in 1997. Thirty-seven groups, about 40 percent of the list, were added under Trump — 27 during his second term. The most recent addition, the Sudanese Muslim Brotherhood, was designated earlier this month. The administration also maintains a [secret list][99] of domestic terrorist organizations which it will not disclose. For weeks, The Intercept has asked if the White House even knows how many wars, conflicts, kinetic operations, and military interventions the U.S. is currently involved in. We have never received a response. The post [Trump’s Secret Wars on the World Keep Expanding][100] appeared first on [The Intercept][101]. [1]: https://theintercept.com/2025/10/11/qatar-trump-gaza-ceasefire/ [2]: https://responsiblestatecraft.org/trump-inauguration-speech-war/ [3]: https://theintercept.com/2026/03/02/trump-board-peace-human-right-abuses/ [4]: https://x.com/OfTheBraveUSA/status/2030820379241959577 [5]: https://theintercept.com/2021/11/21/america-militarism-foreign-policy-bush-obama-trump-biden/ [6]: https://theintercept.com/2023/05/23/henry-kissinger-cambodia-bombing-survivors/ [7]: https://theintercept.com/2023/03/15/iraq-war-where-are-they-now/ [8]: https://theintercept.com/drone-papers/the-assassination-complex/ [9]: https://theintercept.com/2016/07/13/training/ [10]: https://theintercept.com/2022/07/01/pentagon-127e-proxy-wars/ [11]: https://theintercept.com/2022/11/03/us-military-secret-wars/ [12]: https://edition.cnn.com/2017/05/02/politics/us-military-quits-hunt-joseph-kony [13]: https://theintercept.com/2022/03/09/cameroon-military-abuses-bir-127e/ [14]: https://theintercept.com/2026/03/04/us-military-ecuador-trump/ [15]: https://theintercept.com/2022/07/01/pentagon-127e-proxy-wars/ [16]: https://theintercept.com/2025/06/23/trump-iran-nuclear-strikes/ [17]: https://www.centcom.mil/MEDIA/PRESS-RELEASES/Press-Release-View/Article/4121311/centcom-forces-kill-isis-chief-of-global-operations-who-also-served-as-isis-2/ [18]: https://theintercept.com/2018/07/26/us-special-operations-africa-green-berets-navy-seals/ [19]: https://theintercept.com/2023/10/24/israel-lebanon-us-military-hezbollah/ [20]: https://theintercept.com/2022/07/01/pentagon-127e-proxy-wars/ [21]: https://theintercept.com/2021/03/20/joe-biden-special-operations-forces/ [22]: https://theintercept.com/2018/07/26/us-special-operations-africa-green-berets-navy-seals/ [23]: https://theintercept.com/2025/12/25/trump-nigeria-isis-attacks-airstrikes/ [24]: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/05/us/navy-seal-north-korea-trump-2019.html [25]: https://www.newamerica.org/insights/americas-counterterrorism-wars/the-drone-war-in-pakistan/ [26]: https://www.military.com/daily-news/2017/06/10/us-special-forces-assist-in-ending-siege-in-philippines.html [27]: https://theintercept.com/2025/02/04/trump-airstrike-somalia/ [28]: https://www.centcom.mil/MEDIA/PRESS-RELEASES/Press-Release-View/Article/4074572/centcom-forces-kill-an-al-qaeda-affiliate-hurras-al-din-leader-in-northwest-syr/ [29]: https://theintercept.com/2022/07/01/pentagon-127e-proxy-wars/ [30]: https://theintercept.com/2026/01/03/venzuela-war-nicolas-maduro-airstrikes-caracas-trump/ [31]: https://theintercept.com/2025/03/26/signal-chat-yemen-strike/ [32]: https://theintercept.com/2022/07/01/pentagon-127e-proxy-wars/ [33]: https://theintercept.com/collections/license-to-kill/ [34]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7N1rh7YwMQU [35]: https://theintercept.com/2026/03/23/trump-operation-total-extermination-ecuador-colombia-cuba/ [36]: https://www.npr.org/2025/01/26/nx-s1-5275375/trump-greenland-canada-israel-gaza [37]: https://theintercept.com/2026/03/23/trump-operation-total-extermination-ecuador-colombia-cuba/ [38]: https://theintercept.com/2026/03/23/trump-operation-total-extermination-ecuador-colombia-cuba/ [39]: https://theintercept.com/2026/01/14/trump-greenland-denmark-nato/ [40]: https://theintercept.com/2026/01/21/trump-davos-iceland-greenland/ [41]: https://theintercept.com/2025/10/02/trump-mexico-drug-war-cartels-bullets/ [42]: https://theintercept.com/2026/03/23/trump-operation-total-extermination-ecuador-colombia-cuba/ [43]: https://theintercept.com/2025/04/30/vietnam-war-anniversary-landmines-bombs/ [44]: https://theintercept.com/collections/the-911-wars/ [45]: https://www.instagram.com/reels/DVhSpljDnlI/ [46]: https://x.com/StateDept/status/2034666026483277961 [47]: https://x.com/atrupar/status/2037663087575089152 [48]: https://armedservices.house.gov/uploadedfiles/solic_and_ussocom_joint_posture_statement_to_hasc-iso_18_march_2026.pdf [49]: https://theintercept.com/2026/01/05/trump-venezuela-war/ [50]: https://armedservices.house.gov/uploadedfiles/solic_and_ussocom_joint_posture_statement_to_hasc-iso_18_march_2026.pdf [51]: https://theintercept.com/2025/12/30/cia-venezuela-drone-strike-dock-tren-de-aragua/ [52]: https://theintercept.com/2026/01/03/venzuela-war-nicolas-maduro-airstrikes-caracas-trump/ [53]: https://costsofwar.watson.brown.edu/sites/default/files/papers/Costs-of-War_2001-AUMF.pdf [54]: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-115shrg39567/html/CHRG-115shrg39567.htm [55]: https://www.crisisgroup.org/rpt/united-states/united-states/005-overkill-reforming-legal-basis-us-war-terror [56]: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/09/world/africa/somalia-navy-seal-kyle-milliken.html [57]: [58]: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/19/world/africa/niger-ambush-defense-department-report.html [59]: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/02/17/world/africa/niger-ambush-american-soldiers.html [60]: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/26/world/africa/niger-soldiers-killed-ambush.html [61]: https://theintercept.com/2022/07/01/pentagon-127e-proxy-wars/ [62]: https://theintercept.com/2021/03/20/joe-biden-special-operations-forces/ [63]: https://www.yahoo.com/now/revealed-the-us-militarys-36-codenamed-operations-in-africa-090000841.html [64]: https://theintercept.com/2023/10/24/israel-lebanon-us-military-hezbollah/ [65]: https://theintercept.com/2022/03/09/cameroon-military-abuses-bir-127e/ [66]: https://theintercept.com/2025/12/25/trump-nigeria-isis-attacks-airstrikes/ [67]: https://theintercept.com/2025/02/04/trump-airstrike-somalia/ [68]: https://theintercept.com/2025/10/28/trump-yemen-strike-civilian-deaths-rough-rider/ [69]: https://theintercept.com/2026/03/11/iran-school-missile-investigation/ [70]: https://theintercept.com/2026/03/17/trump-iran-war-cost/ [71]: https://theintercept.com/collections/targeting-iran/ [72]: https://theintercept.com/2026/03/24/82nd-airborne-leadership-ordered-to-middle-east-as-trump-iran-war/ [73]: https://theintercept.com/2026/03/27/iran-regime-survives-trump-talks/ [74]: https://theintercept.com/2026/03/19/pentagon-budget-iran-war-hegseth/ [75]: https://theintercept.com/2026/03/17/trump-iran-war-cost/ [76]: https://theintercept.com/2026/01/03/venzuela-war-nicolas-maduro-airstrikes-caracas-trump/ [77]: https://theintercept.com/2026/01/04/trump-maduro-venezuela-war-media/ [78]: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/16/world/americas/trump-cuba-president-diaz-canel.html?unlocked_article_code=1.TlA.Ygf9.a5SMOwYKG0cM [79]: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/feb/27/trump-cuba-regime-change [80]: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/hiIsQAI-Lgg?source_ve_path=MjM4NTE&embeds_referring_euri=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2F [81]: https://theintercept.com/2026/01/14/trump-greenland-denmark-nato/ [82]: https://theintercept.com/2026/01/21/trump-davos-iceland-greenland/ [83]: https://www.npr.org/2025/01/26/nx-s1-5275375/trump-greenland-canada-israel-gaza [84]: https://theintercept.com/2025/10/02/trump-mexico-drug-war-cartels-bullets/ [85]: https://theintercept.com/2025/11/07/trump-dto-list-venezuela-boat-strikes/ [86]: https://theintercept.com/2025/11/07/trump-dto-list-venezuela-boat-strikes/ [87]: https://theintercept.com/2025/11/25/trump-caribbean-venezuela-military-troops/ [88]: https://armedservices.house.gov/uploadedfiles/ptdo_asw_hdasa_writen_posture_statement.pdf [89]: https://theintercept.com/2025/11/17/trump-boat-strikes-death-toll-caribbean-pacific/ [90]: https://theintercept.com/series/license-to-kill/ [91]: https://theintercept.com/2026/03/04/us-military-ecuador-trump/ [92]: https://theintercept.com/2026/03/23/trump-operation-total-extermination-ecuador-colombia-cuba/ [93]: https://x.com/petrogustavo/status/2034111241409445916 [94]: https://x.com/EcEnDirecto/status/2034348345678848278 [95]: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/17/world/americas/colombia-ecuador-bomb-petro-noboa.html [96]: https://theintercept.com/2025/12/23/boat-strikes-venezuela-hegseth-bradley-legal/ [97]: https://theintercept.com/2025/12/05/boat-strike-survivors-double-tap/ [98]: https://www.state.gov/foreign-terrorist-organizations [99]: https://theintercept.com/2026/02/12/pam-bondi-domestic-terror-list-nspm-7/ [100]: https://theintercept.com/2026/03/30/trump-secret-wars/ [101]: https://theintercept.com https://theintercept.com/2026/03/30/trump-secret-wars/

ICE at Airports Trains Us to Accept Being Terrorized in Our Daily Lives [NEW YORK, UNITED STATES - MARCH 23: Federal agents are seen at the JFK airport as ICE agents have begun deploying at some U.S. airports amid the partial government shutdown in New York City, United States, on Monday, March 23, 2026. (Photo by Mostafa Bassim/Anadolu via Getty Images)] With Donald Trump deploying federal agents to TSA checkpoints, an ICE agent is seen at the John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York City on March 23, 2026. Photo: Mostafa Bassim/Anadolu via Getty Images The night before we were set to fly out of John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York City, I approached my partner with a confession: For the first time that I can remember, I was afraid of flying with a Latino last name. It was a new sort of affront I had to steel myself against. Air travel is filled with moments — buying basic economy tickets, being herded through winding security lines like cattle, squishing your limbs into a compact seat — that smoosh you until you feel subhuman, usually along class lines. In the days leading up to our flight to Las Vegas, however, I saw the indignities of the airport mount as President Donald Trump [deployed U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents][1] into America’s terminals, turning an already-debasing necessity into something more chilling. > If one thing has been consistent in ICE’s ever expanding mission, it’s that the agency is being used by the administration to instill fear. Certainly, that’s how I felt after my experience. At JFK, an ICE agent was taking the customary Transportation Security Administration role of checking IDs at security. Everything, though, seemed to be running as normal. When I handed over my passport, however, he asked me a question I hadn’t heard him ask anyone else in front of me — most of whom presented as white: “Do you have a second form of photo ID?” I can’t be sure what motivated the agent to ask me, and apparently no one else near me, this question, but his request of me was difficult to separate from ICE’s role not only as brutal enforcers of Trump’s deportation regime, but also its use as [his personal police force][2]. If one thing has been consistent in ICE’s ever-expanding mission, it’s that the agency is being used by the administration to [instill fear][3]. [ ## Related ### Federal Agents Are Intimidating Legal Observers at Their Homes: “They Know Where You Live” ][4] Later, it was impossible not to think about what my brief, eventually harmless encounter with the agent might portend. Shortly after Trump deployed ICE agents to airports, his former chief strategist Steve Bannon may have tipped the administration’s hand. Bannon speculated on his “War Room”podcast that the immigration force’s presence at TSA security checkpoints was a “[test run][5]” ahead [of the November midterms][6]. Maybe, Bannon seemed to suggest, it was a rehearsal, meant to test how far the administration can stretch our tolerance for agents as part of the landscape of our daily lives without pushback. If ICE’s invasion of American cities as part of Trump’s broad-based crackdown on immigration and dissent alike was a sledgehammer, what I experienced was more akin to a scalpel. It represents an agency that is understanding the criticisms against its methods and looking for new, more sophisticated ways to terrorize people. If we can accept the reality that Trump’s personal army is requiring more documentation from us just to board an Airbus, how long until we are forced to tolerate them in our voting booths and beyond? ## **Training Us to Terror** It was hard not to feel that surgical instillation of terror during my airport visit. The heightened scrutiny of airport security already makes me feel like a criminal, one who doesn’t even know he committed a crime. In the days leading up to my flight, I prepared for that same kind of interaction, amplified by the presence of someone with a gun and [near-unlimited state power][7]. I knew I’d have to get much closer to an ICE agent than I ever had before. [ ## Related ### How to Keep ICE Agents Out of Your Phone at the Airport ][8] Instagram videos of JFK suggested lines might be long, but when we arrived on Thursday morning, the terminal was mostly empty and the estimated wait time in my reserve line was only about 15 minutes. It ended up taking twice as long. As we got closer to the security checkpoint, I realized what the holdup was: A TSA agent was standing behind two ICE agents, training them on how to do her job. As she stood there — [working without getting paid][9], unlike the heavily armed agent sitting in front of her — she walked them through the steps. I got a closer look at one of the ICE agents. He was white and bald, wearing military fatigues and a [tactical vest][10] that announced his employment with ICE. People in front of me walked through without incident, performing the usual routine: passport, boarding pass, then on to remove their belts and unsheathe their laptops. When I stepped up to the podium, I wondered if I was about to interact with someone who would be suspicious of me merely for my name and skin color. I let out an involuntary smile — perhaps as a subconscious signal that I am friendly and low-risk. The ICE agent asked for my passport, which I handed over, as usual, and waited while a machine took my picture. I anticipated moving on quickly. That’s when he asked me for another form of ID. At that moment, I started to feel my face turn hot, as if I were being accused of something. A U.S. passport is considered one of the [most powerful forms of identification][11] in the world. Why did he need a second document? Though I had already started to grab the wallet in my coat pocket, he followed up with, “You know, like a driver’s license?” I handed over the plastic driver’s license — not a REAL ID, which is why I brought my passport — and waited for his verdict. He looked back and forth between my documents and the monitor and then OKed me to walk forward. My partner, who is white, walked through behind me without incident. > People with weapons will now ask more of me just to do the same thing I had done a few weeks before. Later, as I was sitting in my seat toward the plane’s rear, I began to gain a greater perspective on what I had just undergone. That interaction — the kind that I had worried about for a few hours before waking up and schlepping to the airport — was designed to happen to people like me. It represented a moment of friction, designed to jolt me at first, but then get me used to the fact that people with weapons will now ask more of me just to do the same thing I had done a few weeks before, when I flew to Puerto Rico without any ICE agents at the TSA checkpoint. Free passage would be harder, the stakes of any interaction would be higher. The fear that I was feeling in that moment had been designed, as if in a lab, to train me to accept a violent overreach that would’ve seemed absurd mere weeks ago. It’s easy to see how this creep might affect people — Latinos and other immigrants who have citizenship — at their polling places. It will bring a little terror. And then instill a little normalcy. The post [ICE at Airports Trains Us to Accept Being Terrorized in Our Daily Lives][12] appeared first on [The Intercept][13]. [1]: https://www.npr.org/2026/03/26/nx-s1-5759159/trump-ice-airports-tsa [2]: https://theintercept.com/2026/01/16/trump-abolish-ice-renee-good-jonathan-ross/ [3]: https://theintercept.com/2026/03/05/ice-cbp-minnesota-surveillance-intimidation-observers/ [4]: https://theintercept.com/2026/03/05/ice-cbp-minnesota-surveillance-intimidation-observers/ [5]: https://thehill.com/policy/transportation/5797390-bannon-ice-airports-2026-elections/?tbref=hp [6]: https://theintercept.com/2026/03/06/democrats-dhs-ice-reform-midterm-election-integrity/ [7]: https://abc7chicago.com/post/ice-news-new-memo-gives-agents-broad-authority-arrest-believe-are-undocumented-warrant/18530727/ [8]: https://theintercept.com/2026/03/25/ice-airports-phone-security-privacy-safety/ [9]: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/why-do-ice-agents-get-paid-during-the-partial-government-shutdown-but-not-tsa [10]: https://theintercept.com/2026/01/28/ice-cbp-patches-guide-to-identifying-immigration-agents/ [11]: https://www.henleyglobal.com/passport-index/ranking [12]: https://theintercept.com/2026/03/28/ice-airports-tsa-fear/ [13]: https://theintercept.com https://theintercept.com/2026/03/28/ice-airports-tsa-fear/

The Regime Survives, Trump Has to Deal, and Iranians Are the Biggest Losers [TEHRAN, IRAN - MARCH 27: A man sweeps up debris near a residential building that was hit in an airstrike in the early hours of March 27, 2026 in Tehran, Iran. The Israeli military said that it had carried out strikes on targets across Tehran and other Iranian cities overnight. The United States and Israel have continued their joint attack on Iran that began on February 28. Iran retaliated by firing waves of missiles and drones at Israel and U.S. allies in the region, while also effectively blockading the Strait of Hormuz, a critical shipping route. (Photo by Majid Saeedi/Getty Images)] A man sweeps up debris near a residential building that was hit in an airstrike in the early hours of March 27, 2026, in Tehran, Iran. Photo: Majid Saeedi/Getty Images The U.S.–Israel war on Iran was supposed to end quickly in either an “unconditional surrender” or regime change. Weeks into the conflict, none of it has happened. There appears to be little cause for celebration in Washington, notwithstanding Secretary of War Pete Hegseth’s daily jingoistic proclamations. There is, of course, even less cause for celebration among the population living under nightly aerial assault in Iran. Pro-war Iranians in the diaspora, too, seem to have tamped down their initial exhilaration over the death of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. It appears that neither the U.S. nor Israel [had any plan][1] if the Iranian *nezam*, or regime, decided to punch back after being subjected to a massive surprise attack on February 28. Those counterpunches have led to the deaths of U.S. service members, Israeli civilians, and [migrant workers][2] living in the Arab monarchies of the Persian Gulf. > It appears that neither the U.S. nor Israel had any plan if the Iranian regime decided to punch back. Then there is the economic cost. Oil and gas production and transit are frozen in the Gulf, thanks to Iran’s missile strikes that hit [regional energy infrastructure][3] and its closure of the Strait of Hormuz. The markets, accordingly, are in disarray. “Everyone,” Mike Tyson once said, “has a plan until they get punched in the mouth.” Iran’s leaders seem to think they have the upper hand right now — they have rejected a ceasefire offer from the U.S. outright — but Donald Trump might have more tricks up his sleeve. The U.S. is [moving troops into the Persian Gulf][4], potentially with a limited ground invasion looming. Trump, reports suggest, is most likely to [go after a small island][5] where Iran keeps an oil terminal for its tankers, or one of the islands closer to the actual Strait, which he would like to see open to all sea traffic. For now, talks might not be in the offing, despite Trump’s proclamations — most recently that, despite the “fake news,” talks are ongoing and going well. Even by seizing Kharg Island or any other Iranian territory, however, Trump will not make the Iranians buckle. Short of a full-fledged regime change invasion, taking an Iranian outpost in the Persian Gulf may shift the balance of power, but not topple the government. Talks will still be necessary to end the war. So, the assumption at this point is that the regime will survive — and the ones who really pay for that will be the Iranian people. ## **Who to Talk To** There is a generous view about Trump’s intentions: that there actually was a realistic plan, one that wasn’t about forcing capitulation or actual regime change. Though some Iranians, especially the former crown prince Reza Pahlavi and his supporters, had certainly hoped for a war of regime change, it’s plausible that Trump was merely seeking [a regime adjustment][6], as he secured in Venezuela. Even that plan, though, has fallen apart more than once. As Trump himself has said, when Khamenei and his family were targeted for assassination by Israel in the opening salvo of the war, some of the people that the U.S. had identified as potential Delcy Rodríguez types were also killed. [ ## Related ### “Liberate Their Bodies From Their Souls”: The Lies That Sell the Iran War ][7] It all makes one wonder whether the [close coordination between Israel and the U.S.][8] didn’t extend to letting the Israelis know that Trump would be satisfied with a Venezuela outcome. Or, if the Israelis did know, then whether they intentionally undermined those plans. If that’s what happened, it would also explain the later Israeli assassination of Ali Larijani, secretary of the Supreme National Security Council, who appeared to be Iran’s top official in the physical absence of the new supreme leader, Mojtaba Khamenei. Killing Larijani would have helped to forestall any deal that Trump might make with the regime. Larijani, a conservative but known as a pragmatist who, as parliament speaker, had supported the 2015 nuclear deal between Iran and the U.S., could be someone that Trump may have been able to leverage as a partner in a peace deal. Like the other potential interlocutors Trump had in mind, however, he ended up very dead. > Ultra-hardliners in Iran are ascendant — no thanks to Israeli assassinations of anyone who might be likely to deal. Now the person being openly talked about in Washington as someone to talk to is perhaps the last pragmatic conservative in the top leadership, Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Qalibaf, a former commander in the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps like Larijani. Trump has hinted this is who he is speaking to but hasn’t name-checked him, for fear, he said, that Qalibaf too would end up somehow targeted by the Israelis. (This perplexing mouse-and-cat game recalls Bill Clinton’s quip after a meeting with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in 1996: “Who’s the fucking superpower here?”) It’s unclear at this stage if Qalibaf has the mandate to negotiate a deal with Trump — or whether the Iranian leadership even wants a deal yet. Instead, the Iranians may prefer to continue bleeding the enemy — and the world economy — while creating chaos in the region, all to establish a deterrence against future attacks. That possibility is only made more likely because ultra-hardliners in Iran are ascendant — no thanks to Israeli assassinations of anyone who might be likely to deal or want a deal. Larijani, after all, was replaced as Iran’s top security official not by a fellow pragmatist, but by an arch-conservative hardliner and former Revolutionary Guard commander Mohammad Bagher Zolghadr. And the former head of the IRGC, Mohammad Pakpour, who was killed in the strike on Khamenei’s compound on February 28, has been replaced Ahmad Vahidi, arguably more hardline as compared to his two immediate (and assassinated) predecessors. [ [HANDOUT - 03 January 2020, Iraq, Bagdad: The remains of a vehicle hit by missiles outside Baghdad airport. (Best possible image quality) According to its own statements, the USA carried out the missile attack in Iraq in which one of the highest Iranian generals was killed. Photo by: picture-alliance/dpa/AP Images] Read Our Complete Coverage ## Targeting Iran ][9] ## **Bad to Worse for Iranians** With reformers, moderates, and proponents of engagement with the West sidelined and irrelevant to decision-making, it seems pretty obvious that whatever plan B the Trump administration is cooking up, the options range from bad to worse, both for America and the Iranian people. Iran’s leadership believes it’s in the driver’s seat at this stage in the war. Its most powerful tool has been economic: the effective closure of the Strait of Hormuz, which is [driving Trump and others in the administration mad][10]. Hegseth said the Strait would be open if Iran hadn’t closed it, and Secretary of State and national security adviser Marco Rubio said the Strait will be open if Iran opens it. Indeed. Short of complete regime change, however, opening the Strait by force will be an extremely difficult challenge. [ ## Related ### Pentagon Claims It Needs Additional $200 Billion to Pay for War on Iran ][11] Trump’s bad-to-worse choices are to make a deal that will be viewed by many as a loss for American credibility and a win for Iran — or to double down with a ground invasion that not only will result in American casualties, but also might fail to even secure leverage to open the Strait. [An Iraq-style invasion][12] with tens of thousands of [troops][13] and a prolonged war might result in the U.S. being able to impose a supplicant leader, but it is hard to imagine that Trump would make the decision to make such a move. As for the Iranian people, the Islamic Republic will [be more repressive than even before][14] and will mercilessly put down any revolt by its citizens. Iranians will suffer first in the aftermath of a war that has killed innocent civilians and destroyed infrastructure and cultural heritage sites. Then they will have to live under a system that will be suspicious of any dissenter or opposition activist [as an agent of Israel][15] or the CIA. > Iran’s Islamic system post-war will be more radical and more militarized. Iran’s Islamic system post-war will be more radical and more militarized in a less centralized form; Khamenei’s death will become a cold comfort to Iranians inside and outside the country. Trump’s own misunderstanding of Iran, Iranians, and especially the leadership in Iran has brought him to this bad-to-worse choice. If he chooses his least bad option, however, the elephant in the room will be Netanyahu. What he will decide to do if a ceasefire and a deal leaves the Iranian regime in place able to project power? Israel’s attempts to block an early end to the war and its continued campaign to destroy as much Iranian civilian infrastructure as possible has shown that Netanyahu [cares as little for the Iranian people][16] as Trump and his supporters do, including Iranians who celebrate the war as bombs fall on their compatriots. Maybe Trump will decide to go completely rogue and continue his war of total destruction, irrespective of what the end game is. That, sadly, would be yet another way the Iranian people will be paying the bill. The post [The Regime Survives, Trump Has to Deal, and Iranians Are the Biggest Losers][17] appeared first on [The Intercept][18]. [1]: https://theintercept.com/2026/03/05/trump-iran-war-plan-cia/ [2]: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/10/world/middleeast/iran-war-migrant-deaths.html [3]: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-03-25/here-s-a-list-of-gulf-energy-infrastructure-damaged-in-iran-war [4]: https://theintercept.com/2026/03/24/82nd-airborne-leadership-ordered-to-middle-east-as-trump-iran-war/ [5]: https://www.ft.com/content/187deed0-f1c0-4eb0-a017-ac59dc30750a?syn-25a6b1a6=1 [6]: https://theintercept.com/2026/03/02/trump-regime-change-iran-venezuela/ [7]: https://theintercept.com/2026/03/20/podcast-war-beirut-lebanon-iran/ [8]: https://theintercept.com/2026/03/03/rubio-trump-iran-israel-war/ [9]: /collections/targeting-iran/ [10]: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/26/world/middleeast/trump-iran-naval-commander.html [11]: https://theintercept.com/2026/03/19/pentagon-budget-iran-war-hegseth/ [12]: https://theintercept.com/2026/02/28/us-attack-iran-iraq-war/ [13]: https://theintercept.com/2026/03/20/joe-kent-iran-military-conscientious-objectors/ [14]: https://theintercept.com/2022/10/28/iran-protests-phone-surveillance/ [15]: https://theintercept.com/2026/01/05/iran-protests-israel-netanyahu/ [16]: https://theintercept.com/2026/03/20/podcast-war-beirut-lebanon-iran/ [17]: https://theintercept.com/2026/03/27/iran-regime-survives-trump-talks/ [18]: https://theintercept.com https://theintercept.com/2026/03/27/iran-regime-survives-trump-talks/

DNC Resolution to Reject AIPAC Funding Puts Democratic Leaders in the Hot Seat A Democratic National Committee member is proposing a symbolic resolution for consideration at a DNC meeting next month to reject the American Israel Public Affairs Committee’s massive spending on Congressional races. The measure, sponsored by a young DNC member from Florida, could put party leaders on the spot about the pro-Israel lobbying group’s outsized role in Democratic primaries. A [lobbying behemoth][1] that for decades [courted][2] lawmakers on both sides of the aisle, AIPAC has become an increasingly [toxic brand in the Democratic Party][3]. In recent years, Israeli leaders and their backers in Washington have become more closely aligned with Republican politicians. At the same time, however, AIPAC’s super PAC has focused tens of millions in spending on Democratic primary races. > “This could be one step toward bringing those voters back into the party.” Allison Minnerly, the committee member sponsoring the resolution, said it is time for the party to formally distance itself from the group. “At a time when Democratic voters might really not have felt represented or seen when it came to Gaza or seeing their party support Palestinian rights or stand against military conflict, this could be one step toward bringing those voters back into the party,” she said. Neither AIPAC nor the DNC immediately responded to requests for comment. Minnerly’s resolution follows on the heels of another measure she sponsored last August calling for an arms embargo on Israel. That resolution was defeated, but not before it sparked a [high-profile debate][4] on the party’s relationship with Israel[.][5] Democrats have soured on Israel while becoming more sympathetic toward Palestinians, [surveys show.][6] That has not stopped AIPAC, through a super PAC called the United Democracy Project and other campaign arms, from plowing cash into Democratic primaries to elect pro-Israel candidates. Most recently it spent [at least $22 million on Democratic primaries in Illinois][7], where its preferred candidates won two of four contested races. “Given the recent primaries in Illinois, but also what we’ve seen across the country, I think it’s important that we specify that AIPAC as a growing force in our primaries needs to be specifically addressed when we talk about dark money,” Minnerly said. [ ## Related ### DNC Votes Down “Overwhelming Popular Position” Calling for Arms Ban to Israel ][8] Minnerly’s resolution notes that AIPAC has expended massive amounts on political campaigns, then adds that “corporate money PACs have concentrated spending in primary races to oppose candidates who have advocated for Palestinian human rights, ceasefire efforts, or changes to U.S. foreign policy, raising concerns about the role of large outside spending in shaping Democratic Party positions.” It later adds, “Democratic elections should reflect grassroots participation and the will of voters, rather than the disproportionate influence of wealthy donors or special interests.” While the resolution’s is couched as a condemnation of dark money spending, it could nevertheless open a tense debate over AIPAC’s role in the primaries that some party leaders would rather avoid. Ahead of the debate over the Israel arms embargo resolution last year, Minnerly was pressured to withdraw her proposal. DNC Chair Ken Martin put forward a competing resolution. The ultimate product of that debate was the creation of a working group that has yet to produce any public findings. Critics have derided the group as a [stalling mechanism.][9] This time around, Minnerly fears that the timing of the DNC resolution committee meeting could curtail debate of the measure. Her measure is set for discussion on the morning of April 9, as many DNC members will still be arriving for the meeting in New Orleans. As high-ranking Democrats [distance themselves][10] from AIPAC, the group is [hiring a new director of political operations][11] and trying to defend itself against the critiques. Michael Sacks, a Democratic megadonor who [helped bankroll][12] two secretive dark-money groups affiliated with AIPAC in the Illinois primaries, alleged that the group’s critics are trying to “chase” Jewish people out of the party in a [Chicago Tribune op-ed][13] on Tuesday. [ ## Related ### Illinois Results: Daniel Biss Beats Kat Abughazaleh in Blow to Left and AIPAC Alike ][14] “Let’s be clear: The campaign against AIPAC is not a policy discussion,” he wrote. “It’s a thinly disguised effort to make support for Israel politically toxic in the Democratic Party, to chase Jews and their allies out of our big tent coalition.” AIPAC shared the op-ed on social media. [Jim Zogby][15], the president of the Arab American Institute, said the criticisms of AIPAC and its dark-money affiliates were about the group’s “hardball” tactics. “Having been a witness to AIPAC handling of campaigns going back to the 1970s and ’80s,” he said, “it takes a certain degree of chutzpah to play victim, when in fact what they have done is victimize candidates and incumbents who didn’t fall in line behind their positions.” The post [DNC Resolution to Reject AIPAC Funding Puts Democratic Leaders in the Hot Seat][16] appeared first on [The Intercept][17]. [1]: https://theintercept.com/2023/11/27/israel-democrats-aipac-book/ [2]: https://theintercept.com/2019/06/20/steny-hoyer-aipac-j-street-israel/ [3]: https://theintercept.com/2025/12/30/aipac-campaigns-elections-israel-congress/ [4]: https://theintercept.com/2025/08/26/dnc-israel-arms-ban/ [5]: https://theintercept.com/2025/08/26/dnc-israel-arms-ban/ [6]: https://news.gallup.com/poll/702440/israelis-no-longer-ahead-americans-middle-east-sympathies.aspx [7]: https://theintercept.com/2026/03/17/illinois-house-senate-primary-results-biss-abughazaleh/ [8]: https://theintercept.com/2025/08/26/dnc-israel-arms-ban/ [9]: https://www.truthdig.com/articles/the-dncs-middle-east-working-group-is-a-stalling-mechanism/ [10]: https://www.politico.com/news/2026/03/24/2028-democrats-reject-aipac-00841350 [11]: https://www.notus.org/2026-election/aipac-political-director-hiring-lobbying-money-israel [12]: https://evanstonroundtable.com/2026/03/21/filings-confirm-aipac-funded-millions-in-outside-spending-on-congressional-primary/ [13]: https://www.chicagotribune.com/2026/03/24/opinion-aipac-israel-democrats-michael-sacks/ [14]: https://theintercept.com/2026/03/17/illinois-house-senate-primary-results-biss-abughazaleh/ [15]: https://theintercept.com/2025/10/17/briefing-podcast-gaza-ceasefire-deal/ [16]: https://theintercept.com/2026/03/27/dnc-aipac-funding-democratic-party/ [17]: https://theintercept.com https://theintercept.com/2026/03/27/dnc-aipac-funding-democratic-party/

Sunrise Movement Pushes Anti-War Candidates, Endorsing Melat Kiros in Denver The youth-led Sunrise Movement is seizing on the U.S.–Israel war in Iran to boost challengers to sitting Democrats, joining a coalition of progressive groups arguing that lawmakers who take money from defense contractors and AIPAC cannot meaningfully oppose the war. In Denver, Sunrise is endorsing Melat Kiros, an anti-war candidate and attorney who was [fired for refusing to take down her post][1] on the genocide in Palestine, the group shared exclusively with The Intercept. Kiros is challenging longtime Rep. Diana DeGette, D-Colo. “Voters today, they want to see their candidates and their representatives refusing AIPAC money and refusing [military industrial complex] influence,” said Kiros. “They’re seeing how much it has dragged us into these endless wars, and how much it is dragging our taxpayer dollars into funding this violence as well.” Kiros is among a growing list of insurgent candidates — including William Lawrence in Michigan and Chris Rabb in Pennsylvania, also both [Sunrise-endorsed][2] — who are taking Democrats to task on their complicity in the endless wars in the Middle East. [ ## Related ### Sunrise Movement, Founded to Fight Climate Change, Pivots to Fighting Trump ][3] Sunrise’s endorsement is part of a [broader strategy shift][4] in which the activist group, founded in 2017 to fight climate change in particular, pivots to fighting authoritarianism more broadly. “There’s just no winning on climate unless we address how absolutely broken our political system is,” said Aru Shiney-Ajay, executive director of the Sunrise Movement. Focusing on corporate PAC money and the wars it fuels abroad is an essential part of the organization’s broader mission, she added. “The path towards winning climate legislation lies towards having a functional democracy, and that includes having a democracy that doesn’t prioritize endless wars abroad over the very real constraints of people right here.” > “The path towards winning climate legislation lies towards having a functional democracy … that doesn’t prioritize endless wars abroad over the very real constraints of people right here.” Shiney-Ajay said Sunrise Movement organizers are “really excited” about Kiros, 28, because of her moral clarity. “She is really clear about standing up for working people,” she said. “And she’s very clear about not taking corporate PAC money.” Historically, foreign policy issues have not been top of mind for Democratic primary voters, said Don Haider-Markel, a political science professor at the University of Kansas. But as the Trump administration wages its unpopular war on Iran, he said, “candidates that are able to mesh together affordability and war, and opposition to support for Israel, I think, are gonna be the ones that might be able to break through.” This argument requires nuance, as most Democrats — at least publicly — oppose the Trump administration’s war with Iran, often citing affordability as a concern. “This war is costing at least $1 billion every day,” [said DeGette][5], Kiros’ opponent, in a public statement about her support for a War Powers resolution to block the administration’s violence. “That is billions of dollars that could go towards affordable health care and housing. I refuse to support this war.” DeGette’s statement “rings hollow,” Kiros told The Intercept. “Democrats like DeGette had the [opportunity to cut the military budget by 10 percent ][6]for that very reason — especially during Covid, when we needed that money for health care — and still voted no,” she said. Kiros blames the “military–industrial complex” and actors like AIPAC for pushing lawmakers to support defense contractor spending and wars that line their pockets. [ ## Related ### Trump’s War on Iran Could Cost Trillions ][7] “There are corporations that are actively profiting from the war,” she said. “And I think it also has to do with the impact and the influence that we have seen from AIPAC and from Israel.” Kiros has criticized DeGette for [receiving over $5 million from corporate PACs][8]. The incumbent’s top contributor is the law and lobbying firm Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, which is founded and chaired by former AIPAC vice president and board member [Norman Brownstein][9], according to OpenSecrets. “At the end of the day, the people who get you into office are the ones you are going to be accountable to,” said Kiros. Nicole Shea Niebler, a Sunrise Movement organizer in Denver, recently confronted DeGette at a meet and greet for declining to support Block The Bombs, a bill that would [limit offensive weapons transfers to Israel][10]. Niebler said voters are right to be worried about candidates who take money from the groups pushing for war with Iran. “If you’re not willing to say no, what else are you willing to do that is not in the interest of your constituents?” she said. Niebler sees her organization’s broader shift toward supporting anti-war candidates like Kiros as a moment of “clarity” for the organization, calling the U.S. military “the true number one danger to our environment.” Sunrise is hoping to reverse its luck in recent races, where two of prominent endorsed anti-war candidates, Durham County Commissioner Nida Allam in North Carolina and activist [Kat Abughazaleh][11] in Illinois lost their primaries. Allam, in particular, [centered anti-Iran war messaging][12] in her advertisements. “I will never take a dime from defense contractors or the pro-Israel lobby,” Allam said in an ad days ahead of the election earlier this month. “I have opposed these forever wars my entire career.” [Abughazaleh][13] and [Allam][14] both lost by relatively narrow margins, which Shiney-Ajay said she doesn’t see as a broader defeat for their cause. “We’re up against a really steep battle and … millions and millions of dollars being poured in, and that is causing us to lose several races,” she said. “I do think there’s something happening where the narrative is that AIPAC money is poisonous, that corporate PAC money is poisonous, and that wasn’t true a few years ago.” > “There’s something happening where the narrative is that AIPAC money is poisonous, that corporate PAC money is poisonous, and that wasn’t true a few years ago.” It’s challenging to parse out how successful the anti-war messaging was, because there were so many other factors in the races, Haider-Markel noted. “These challenger candidates also tend to be significantly younger and significantly more liberal than the incumbents they’re challenging. So all of those wrapped together,” he said. “It’s hard to distinguish which one actually played a role in some of these early defeats.” In Denver, Kiros said she sees the anti-war and anti-military–industrial complex movement as a perpetual battle, one that will be fought in this election and others to come. “The anti-war movement is one that has had to have this fight cyclically,” she said. “And so for me, it’s about understanding the military–industrial complex … and how we have allowed the military–industrial complex to influence our foreign policy, and to not just wait until it’s convenient, and it’s popular among the American people to be anti-war as it is right now.” The post [Sunrise Movement Pushes Anti-War Candidates, Endorsing Melat Kiros in Denver][15] appeared first on [The Intercept][16]. [1]: https://theintercept.com/2025/12/04/denver-primary-melat-kiros-diana-degette-justice-democrats/ [2]: https://www.sunrisemovement.org/election-cycle/2026/ [3]: https://theintercept.com/2025/10/02/sunrise-movement-climate-change-trump-protest/ [4]: https://theintercept.com/2025/10/02/sunrise-movement-climate-change-trump-protest/ [5]: https://degette.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/degette-statement-iran-war-powers-resolution [6]: https://readsludge.com/2020/07/22/dems-voting-against-pentagon-cuts-got-3-4x-more-money-from-the-defense-industry/ [7]: https://theintercept.com/2026/03/17/trump-iran-war-cost/ [8]: https://theintercept.com/2025/12/04/denver-primary-melat-kiros-diana-degette-justice-democrats/ [9]: https://www.jpost.com/influencers-25/50jews-25/article-867957 [10]: https://theintercept.com/2025/08/27/block-bombs-israel-arms-gaza-aipac/ [11]: https://theintercept.com/2025/11/01/briefing-podcast-kat-abughazaleh-indictment-protest/ [12]: https://theintercept.com/2026/03/02/iran-war-democratic-primaries-trump/ [13]: https://theintercept.com/2026/03/17/illinois-house-senate-primary-results-biss-abughazaleh/ [14]: https://theintercept.com/2026/03/05/nc-house-primary-valerie-foushee-nida-allam/ [15]: https://theintercept.com/2026/03/27/sunrise-movement-war-denver-melat-kiros/ [16]: https://theintercept.com https://theintercept.com/2026/03/27/sunrise-movement-war-denver-melat-kiros/

Protesting the Smash-and-Grab Presidency With Nikhil Pal Singh Donald Trump’s second term has been broadly defined by an overwhelming sense of chaos. Every week the U.S. finds itself in a new crisis of the president’s making. The war in [Iran][1] and the broader Middle East is stretching into its fourth week, as the administration prepares to send thousands of troops to the region for a possible [ground invasion][2]. The U.S. oil blockade on [Cuba][3] has plunged the country deeper into a humanitarian crisis. The Department of Homeland Security [sent ICE to airports][4] across the country on Monday to allegedly assist TSA agents who have gone without pay due to a partial government shutdown over congressional efforts to apply the most minimal of reforms to ICE. Meanwhile, Trump’s sons are backing a [new drone company][5] vying for a Pentagon contract as the president and his family have amassed about $4 billion in wealth this term, according to the [Wall Street Journal][6]. “It’s a constant stream of violence, corruption, spectacle,” Nikhil Pal Singh tells The Intercept Briefing. “They smash, grab, move on. But I think now they’ve actually broken something.” The professor of social and cultural analysis at New York University and the author of several books, including “Race and America’s Long War” joins host Akela Lacy in a conversation about protests and movement-building in the latest Trump era. Trump “said the real enemy — the real threat — [was within][7]. He reversed the Bush priority, which said, we fight the terrorists over there so we don’t have to fight them at home. And instead said, no, we actually have to bring the fight home. And he brought the fight home,” says Singh. “The idea there then also is that Americans themselves — that is us — we need to be governed violently first and foremost.” “What we saw in Minneapolis and in Chicago and other places is almost like a really spontaneous emergence of that civic energy where people are basically like, ‘No, this is not OK in my city,’” says Singh. With the upcoming nationwide [No Kings protests][8] on Saturday, Lacy brings up the challenges of protesting under the second iteration of the Trump administration, and whether it’s fair to question the efficacy of protests at a time when they’re being [met with paramilitary forces][9]. “We’ve lived through a period where the protests against the war in Gaza were pretty brutally suppressed by the Democratic Party and by the very institutions that the Trump administration is trying to destroy,” notes Singh. For there to be long-term meaningful change during this increasingly hostile environment to dissent or opposition, big alliances are needed, including with parts of the Trump coalition, he says. “Those kinds of cross-class alliances that cross the parties that are oriented around what we might call left economic populist politics and anti-war politics are going to have to be built.” Listen to the full conversation of The Intercept Briefing on [Apple Podcasts][10], [Spotify][11], [YouTube][12], or wherever you listen. ## **Transcript ** **Akela Lacy: **Welcome to The Intercept Briefing, I’m Akela Lacy, senior politics reporter at The Intercept. **Jessica Washington: **And I’m Jessica Washington, politics reporter at the Intercept and co-host of the Intercept Briefing with Akela. **AL:** I don’t know about you, Jessie, but I honestly feel like I’ve had constant whiplash the past few months. Maybe it would be helpful for our listeners if we start with just breaking down exactly where we are right now in the world. I’ll do a quick recap. We are, as many people know, in a full-blown war with Iran after being told for years that that would effectively mean the beginning of the end. The U.S. has killed more than [150 people][13] in boat strikes around the world and successfully [kidnapped][14] the Venezuelan president and his wife. Trump has consolidated the nation’s largest paramilitary police force and unleashed it on U.S. cities and [now airports][15]. The number of people being detained by ICE is at an [all-time high][16]. Federal agents have [killed][17] two [protesters][18], and more than a dozen other people have died this year alone [at the hands of ICE][19]. At the same time, prices are soaring. The Treasury just declared the [U.S. insolvent][20], in case you missed that, which I certainly did. The government is still partially shut down, and Trump and his allies are still [withholding documents][21] from the public on Jeffrey Epstein. And in case anyone forgot, we’re knee-deep in a [midterm cycle][22] that’s seen [unprecedented levels of dark money][23] and efforts by corporate lobbies to influence elections. So how are you feeling about all of this? How are you processing all of this? **JW**: Yeah, it’s a lot to process as a journalist and a person in the country. The way that I’m thinking about this is really in the context of protests, and whether or not we’re going to see a real resistance to the Trump administration emerge. Obviously, what we’ve seen in Minneapolis has been a [real resistance][24] to their efforts [from everyday people][25]. What I’m thinking about now is just how can we exist in this society and push back against some of these really awful things, when there’s so much [repression of protests and of activism][26] in general, and of journalism? **AL:** The conventional wisdom for moments like this is that this is when the opposition should theoretically be at its strongest. Is that the case right now? What is the opposition right now, and how are regular people responding to this, and is it having any effect? **JW:** Yeah, we can talk about [poll numbers][27]. Certainly Donald Trump is historically unpopular, so we are seeing people react in that way. But I think we have to take into account the real ways in which the Trump administration, but also the Biden administration — and if we’re going to talk about college protests — university administrators really clamped down on college campus protesters, on protest in general. And we’ve seen the indictment of protesters in the [Cop City case][28]; we’ve seen the indictment of protesters in the [case in Chicago][29], where we saw [Kat Abughazaleh][30] indicted. So there’s a real risk to protest. [ ## Related ### Google Secretly Handed ICE Data About Pro-Palestine Student Activist ][31] I mean, we interviewed [Momodou Taal ][32]on this very podcast, a Cornell student who had to flee the country in order to escape being detained by the Trump administration because of his actions on college campuses. So there’s real fear. I think there’s also real movement organizing. We’ve seen it in Minneapolis, we’ve seen it in even deep-red places like Hagerstown, Maryland, which I’m interested in talking a little more about. There’s certainly still activity, but there’s a lot of fear and a lot of that fear is understandable. **AL**: Jessie, you mentioned the Cop City case, and I think those indictments were obviously an effort to intimidate those protestors. I will just note that a judge [dismissed most of the charges][33] against them, but the Georgia attorney general is trying to appeal that dismissal. So the intimidation tactic continues, whether or not the charges were dismissed. **JW**: No, I think that’s a really good point that a lot of the [early intimidation][34] we’ve seen of protesters has been [unsuccessful][35] in terms of actually getting them detained and locked up. We’ve also seen many of the students who were detained by the Trump administration for protesting have [since been released][36] or have fled the country and are no longer within the administration’s grasp. But nonetheless, it still has this [chilling effect on protest][37] on college campuses, but obviously across the country when people have to worry about whether or not they’re going to end up in prison [for trying to protect their neighbors][38], I think that becomes a really difficult decision for a lot of people. [ Read our complete coverage ## Chilling Dissent ][39] **AL**: Specifically on this question of protest or how communities are responding to the increasing state violence that we’re seeing, you’ve been doing some reporting on a rapid response ICE watch group in a red county in Maryland. Is that right? **JW**: Yes. I have been covering the potential development of an [ICE facility in technically Williamsport, Maryland][40], but the closest, largest city would be Hagerstown. But what’s been really fascinating about this story — the ins-and-outs of how this warehouse is going to become habitable for human beings is a large part of what I’m focused on. But we’ve seen in this county, which is Washington County, where the warehouse ICE facility would exist — it’s this deep red county where they’re trying to build this ICE warehouse, and you’ve actually seen massive resistance. So first, I would really point to this Hagerstown Rapid Response group. There’s this group that emerged really in the wake of what they [watched in Minneapolis][41]. They saw the successful ICE observers and ICE watches that were going on in communities in the Twin Cities, and they wanted to build something similar to that. So they developed the Hagerstown Rapid Response. [ ## Related ### Can Trump’s Plan for Warehouse Immigrant Detention Camps Be Stopped? ][42] But over the course of developing their group, they realized that there was this ICE detention facility that was going to be potentially built in their community. So they really organized these pinpoint protests against the county commissioners where they live. So they’ve held weekly protests outside of the county commissioner’s office, but they’ve also worked to surveil the warehouse. They have drones they have used to get images to send out to the press, to the public, to really raise public awareness about this issue. So we are seeing people in communities, even in [conservative communities][43], really coming together and finding ways to protest and organize against ICE and against the Trump administration. **AL: **We touch on all of this and more with our guest today, Nikhil Pal Singh, a professor of social and cultural analysis at New York University and the author of several books, including “Race and America’s Long War.” Nikhil, welcome to The Intercept Briefing **Nikhil Pal Singh:** Thanks for having me. **AL:** Trump’s second term has been broadly defined by this overwhelming sense of chaos. As we speak, the war in [Iran][44] and the broader Middle East stretches into its fourth week. The U.S. oil blockade on [Cuba][45] has plunged the country deeper into a humanitarian crisis. The Department of Homeland Security [sent ICE to airports][46] across the country on Monday to — it’s unclear exactly how — assist TSA agents who have gone without pay due to a partial government shutdown over congressional efforts to apply even the most minimal of reforms to ICE. Meanwhile, Trump is minting a [new coin][47] with his face on it, continuing to [renovate the White House][48], and his sons are backing a [new drone company][49] vying for a Pentagon contract as the president and his family have amassed about $4 billion in wealth this term, according to the [Wall Street Journal][50]. It’s a lot to keep up with. You’ve written that the question facing the American public today is less about whether what we’re seeing is unprecedented and more about what purpose the chaos serves, and how we respond to it. But what effect has this constant whiplash had on the public and its ability to organize or to respond? **NS:** It’s a good question, and it’s where I began the piece that [I wrote][51]. You didn’t even mention “[Operation Total Extermination][52]” in Latin America and Ecuador, which Nick Turse wrote about this week. And of course, the signs that [insiders have been trading ][53]on information in Trump’s tweets, making directional trades against them in the oil market and in the futures markets. **AL:** Right. **NS:** It’s a constant stream of violence, corruption, spectacle. The term that the Trump administration likes to use, and Pete Hegseth’s favorite term, is “kinetic action”: *We’re moving fast and breaking things all the time and showing and asserting our dominance over every situation. *Those of us who try to comment upon this, report on it, analyze it, are always trailing behind it, trying to keep up, trying to make sense of the next thing — it does induce a state of whiplash. It does induce a state of paralysis by design. One of the things I’ve been trying to do is to try to think about: How do we create a broader framework to understand what’s happening? Not a framework that tries to say this all makes sense, or it has some rationality, because there is a substantive irrationality to all of this, but I do think there is a method in their madness. And that method is really about keeping us off balance. > “Everything they do has a short-term calculus associated with it.” It’s about allowing them to continue to raid the Treasury. It’s about destabilizing the institutions that create a sense of organization, order, coherence within our society that then allows them to have more room to maneuver, at least within the short term. It’s hard to say what the long term’s going to look like, because everything they do has a short-term calculus associated with it. I think the long term looks quite grim for them and for us, especially if we can’t get a handle on this. I think that’s part of what we need to try to understand. We need to almost not take a step back, but balance ourselves against the impulse to constantly be shaken and reactive in relationship to everything that they do and the next thing that they do and the next thing that they do. I will say, as a last point in this opening, that I think in the [Iran war][54] they might really have met their match. That smash and grab, which has essentially been the mode right? “We’ll seize [Maduro][55]. We’ll send an ICE team into [Minneapolis][56].” Of course, they met their match in Minneapolis too, and we can come back to that. **AL:** Yeah, we will. **NS:** But they smash, grab, move on. But I think now they’ve actually broken something. That is going to have[ long-term consequences for many, many, many of us][57], and political consequences for them that they’re not going to be so easily left behind. > “We need to … balance ourselves against the impulse to constantly be shaken and reactive in relationship to everything that they do and the next thing that they do and the next thing that they do.” **AL: **This is a great segue into what I wanted to ask you about. So for our listeners, we’re talking about this essay you wrote for [Equator][58] magazine in January, really central to which is the idea of “Homeland Empire” that you write about. This notion — which is linked with your last point about the long-term ripple effects in Iran and beyond that we can’t necessarily account for yet — this notion that you cannot understand Trump’s project if you separate the realms of the domestic and the foreign. That what we’ve heard for years about the [U.S. turning its global wars back on its own citizens][59] is happening now. That it’s more than a disturbing phenomenon. It’s a symptom of this broader rot at the core of U.S. institutions, which Trump is an outgrowth of. You write, “Trump’s real innovation has been to marry the archaic geopolitics of a settler empire to the modern legal frameworks devised by his liberal predecessors. What distinguishes his latest regime is its effort to reimagine and remake the borders of American state power, collapsing the foreign and the domestic in a single domain of impunity: Call it ‘Homeland Empire.’” What is the utility of that specific framing, and what does it tell us that we don’t already know or understand about Trump? **NS:** I do think that the concept of the “homeland,” which really comes into focus in the global war on terror. And there’s a great book by Richard Beck called “[Homeland][60],” which has been really important for me. It’s suggested that national security and the security complex needed to be in some ways reshored. You have the [development of the Department of Homeland Security][61], which is a massive government reorganization, creating a whole new government department that you might even think of as being on par with the creation of the Department of Defense after World War II. So there’s the beginning of a reorientation institutionally in terms of policy. Of course, [George W.] Bush frames it in a very telling way. He says, we have to be able to fight the terrorists over there so we don’t have to fight them here. That’s still within the old model, even though the model is shifting. It’s the old model which tells us Americans are going to be safe as long as we keep our power projection and fighting the enemies and the bad guys all around us. That idea that there are threats everywhere, and that the United States has this global mandate and remit to fight them — that really does go back to the end of World War II and the Cold War. So there’s a long arc of that thinking. But what begins to shift in the global war on terror, and partly because of the attacks of 9/11, is this sense that the homeland is actually under a real threat. That it actually can be attacked. It can be destabilized. [ ## Related ### “Terrorist”: How ICE Weaponized 9/11’s Scarlet Letter ][62] Now, that doesn’t just come out of 9/11. If you think about the period since the end of the Cold War, the search for new enemies dissipates. If you’re as old as I am, you remember when they were promising a huge [peace dividend][63]. Of course, the wars in the Middle East immediately begin to ratchet up. But the other thing that begins to ratchet up is the war on crime and the war on migrants. If you track the government spending — that precedes the origins of the Department of Homeland Security — on the prison complex and on the border–control complex, those are also going through the roof. They’re being imagined, again, in terms of this primary sense that Americans are being rendered i by street criminals, by migrants coming across the border, and now also by terrorists who might infiltrate. If you remember back to the war on terror period when Bush was fighting in Iraq, some Republican congressmen then were already running ads saying terrorists and migrants were essentially the same thing — that brown people coming across the border wanting to do us harm. So the idea that the terrorists, the migrant, the criminal represent this new nemesis that is actually now much more proximate, that has been building up for a long period of time. It’s been helping to produce spending streams, funding streams, institutions. And Trump has cemented it into a [single ideological complex][64]. > “The idea that the terrorists, the migrant, the criminal represent this new nemesis … has been building up for a long period of time. It’s been helping to produce spending streams, funding streams, institutions. And Trump has cemented it into a single ideological complex.” One of the things Trump was very, very clear about, even though he promised that he was going to be a peace president and wind down the wars and the forever wars, not be involved in overextension of American power overseas, et cetera, et cetera, which he numerously described as foolish, reckless — even though he did support the Iraq War, let’s not forget that. He also said the real enemy — the real threat — [was within][65]. He reversed the Bush priority, which said, we fight the terrorists over there so we don’t have to fight them at home. And instead said, no, we actually have to bring the fight home. And he brought the fight home. He began to imagine bringing the fight home through the framework of a mass deportation campaign through the idea of making what was [already a paramilitary organization][66] in a sense — Customs and Border Protection, but more or less confined to the border — bringing that into the interior of the country. Adding huge amounts of funding to DHS to build up an immigration police with paramilitary characteristics. We’ve seen the results of that over the last year. The idea is that it’s only the illegals who are being governed violently or the only the criminals. They’re always careful to say that, but that’s actually not how it’s played out at all. The idea there then also is that Americans themselves — that is us — we need to be governed violently first and foremost. **AL: **Right. The end result is the expansion of state power and state violence. **NS: **Right. **AL: **So this brings us to Minneapolis. We’re seeing this massive escalation of state violence at home and abroad, while the public is also weathering increasingly [difficult economic hardship][67], which is being exacerbated again by the war in Iran. That is the same issue that many people argued posed such an obstacle to former President Joe Biden and Kamala Harris’s 2024 campaign, and what brought us a second Trump term, right? **NS: **Yeah. **AL: **This economic hardship issue, this is the time that you would expect the height of mobilization by the opposition. While we’ve seen massive public opposition to ICE raids. We have “[No Kings][68]” protests; there’s another one planned for this weekend. But we’ve also seen the state deploy [intense violence][69] in response to that opposition, obviously [killing two protesters][70] in Minneapolis. Do you think that the state’s response has effectively crushed whatever opposition has come up? Whether the answer to that is yes or no, where does the opposition go in this increasingly hostile environment? **NS:** I think it’s a good question, and it’s definitely one that I’ve been mulling over. We would all like to see the streets filled with people again like 2020. I do think Americans have proved more attuned to violence at home and violence against their own neighbors and in their own neighborhoods. I think that’s been amazing and inspiring. [ ## Related ### Federal Agents Are Intimidating Legal Observers at Their Homes: “They Know Where You Live” ][71] It really gives the lie to what the Trump administration professes when [JD Vance ][72]says something like, anybody would be uncomfortable, having someone next door to them who speaks another language. It’s actually not true. Actually Americans, even in small towns, even in rural spaces, have grown accustomed to living alongside people who are very different and figuring out how to either live and let live, or sometimes even more affirmatively, to cooperate, to play soccer together, to be in civic organizations, to go to church. I’m not saying the United States isn’t still a segregated country, or that there isn’t racial animus or distrust or any of those things. But I think we really underestimate the degree of ordinary comity among people. Obviously what we saw in Minneapolis and in Chicago and other places is almost like a really spontaneous emergence of that civic energy where people are basically like, “No, this is not OK in my city.” These might even be people who have sensitivities and anxieties about unauthorized migration, which is a legitimate issue to debate. But the violence and impunity and lack of due process and disruption is offensive to people. We’ve seen the results of that in [public polling data][73]. We see it in the ways in which people act on the streets. I think wars overseas are more difficult for people in the United States. They feel more distant. The propaganda is so thick. You’ve been told for decades that Iran is some alien power that is irrational and in search of a nuclear bomb that might be eventually fired at like New York or something. It’s absolutely worthless propaganda, but it does its work. It’s very, very tied into the protection and safety of Israel, which is the most heavily propagandized topic in the U.S. foreign policy realm. People don’t really know what to think. And it doesn’t seem to affect them in the immediate sense — especially when you’re bombing from the sky and using remote warfare. But now they’re really at a crossroads. They are [amassing troops][74] in the region. If American troops start going into combat situations and getting killed, you’re going to see people start to pay a lot more attention as gas prices rise, as the cost of everything increases. > “It’s very, very tied into the protection and safety of Israel, which is the most heavily propagandized topic in the U.S. foreign policy realm. People don’t really know what to think.” Trump is going to be bedeviled with all the problems that Biden faced because people are going to feel that very profoundly. People who, as you say, are living paycheck to paycheck who are struggling to make rent, for whom a $1 increase in the price of gas when they have to commute two hours each day is actually a huge amount of money on a weekly basis. Trump owns that. So they’re extremely reckless people, and I have to think that politically they will pay a huge price. They already are. As long as we — that is, those of us who are opposed to this — are able to exercise our civil and political rights both in the streets and at the ballot box. That obviously is going to be a real question. Is repression going to ramp up? Is there going to be chicanery around the elections? I think we can expect both of those things. Then we’re going to see where the balance of forces are. But I don’t think we should interpret the current quietness around the anti-war stuff necessarily as evidence that civic energies and oppositions has been beaten. **AL:** To that point, these No Kings protests are taking place around the country on Saturday. Co-founder of the group, Indivisible, which organizes the protest, Leah Greenberg, [told The Guardian][75], “Every No Kings is going to be about the issues that are driving people most at that moment and it’s also going to be about the collective ways in which they begin to harm our democracy.” I want to talk a little bit more about the challenges. We touched on this a little bit, but I want to go a little bit deeper in the challenges of protesting under the second iteration of the Trump administration, and whether it’s fair for us as journalists and analysts to question the efficacy of protests at a time when they’re being met with paramilitary forces. I’ve seen some questions about the specific demands of the No Kings protests or lack thereof. I’m curious, what do you make of that? **NS:** I tend to be a little bit on the side of, let a thousand flowers bloom. Anybody who wants to organize something and signal their opposition, that’s great. But I do think the opposition has to be sharpened and has to become more pointed around what the issues are. I think, by necessity, the anti-ICE protests have become that way. There’s obviously synergies between these different things. People find their ways into different kinds of organization and different senses of action that may not always be strictly compatible with each other. Again, the anti-war stuff is very specific. We’ve lived through a period where the protests against the [war in Gaza][76] were pretty brutally suppressed by the Democratic Party and by the very institutions that the Trump administration is trying to destroy. So the ways universities responded, the ways nonprofits and civic organizations often remained very silent on Gaza, the way the Democratic Party was obviously complicit fully with the genocide in Gaza — all of these things have left a mark on some of the most militant people who were out there in front and who were right, and who were correct in the positions that they were taking after October 7 about the Israeli response and the disproportionality of it, and the mass killing of civilians and the way in which it had the potential to unleash a regional war. And of course, Israel started this regional war three years ago. That’s a huge problem for some of these big-tent protest projects, which are very tied into the Democratic Party — a Democratic Party that in some ways we are now engaged in a huge battle over. Israel has split the Democratic Party. We have one side, which is the side I would say that I’m on, that really thinks that there has to be an extremely hard red line around future funding for Israel, around AIPAC and the use of PAC money that is flowing into candidates and races on behalf of Israeli interests. This is very divisive because of the way in which it pricks this whole set of arguments about whether it’s antisemitic and so forth, and it’s a real dilemma. But I think we have to be able to win this battle in the Democratic Party. Otherwise, we’re going to find ourselves in just another situation where even if the Democratic Party is back in power, it is still like the controlled opposition. **[Break]** **AL:** I wanted to touch on the same thing basically that happened with Gaza protests, we can map that back onto BLM protests in 2020, which is that Democrats were nominally supportive of this. But when it came down to brass tacks, they were still sending police to crush these protests. Then when it was time to actually pass legislation, at least at the federal level, there was basically like a do nothing bill that Democrats calculated would pacify this movement for the long term. Now we’ve seen that so much of that momentum was basically co-opted or diluted and that all the things that people were calling for in terms of police reform, the evidence that none of that happened is the paramilitary police that we’re seeing respond to all these protests today. **NS: **For sure. **AL: **People still have a bit of that taste in their mouth of OK, even when Democrats were in control or even when these protests seem to be taking off, what was the legislative payoff? I’m curious today, whether we need to be thinking differently about what we are going to count as a positive result of a protest or as an effective protest, whereas we could argue that community resistance in Minneapolis and backlash to the agents killing Renee Good and Alex Pretti led to in some ways DHS Secretary Kristi Noem and Border Patrol Officer Greg Bovino losing their jobs, while there’s still been very little change to DHS policy. So I wonder how we value those outcomes — those cosmetic outcomes versus long-term legislative change and knowing that the Democratic Party that we have is the one that we have? Does that alter the calculus with these protests or should it? **NS:** When you think back to BLM, you could say they helped Biden win 2020, even as then, it not only translated into the very anemic policy wins, but then also there was a belated or delayed backlash, which exploited some of the weaknesses of the movement itself, of course. The ways in which it had already had some of these problems internal to it around leadership, around nonprofit funding, around internal corruption and so forth, and the sidelining of grassroots protests — that really going back to Ferguson — really emerged out of direct community action and need based upon the experience of being under police occupation. We have to be able to learn from these cycles. I don’t think the lesson necessarily is that protest is ineffective or irrelevant. Protests are going to happen. We live in what my dear old friend who passed away last year, [Joshua Clover ][77]called the “age of riots.” People are under stress. A lot of this emerges very spontaneously. There’s obviously a viral environment that allows people to gather in outrage — the outrage is palpable throughout the society. It crosses left and right. Public opinion is what they like to call thermostatic. It can change and switch very quickly. We haven’t really been able to figure out on the left how to harness that and develop that for a more ambitious and large scale transformation. To harness it for a larger scale transformation, we really have to be able to start thinking across different kinds of divides. That would be my view. The modalities of certain kinds of identity politics have not served us well, ultimately. The hierarchies of oppression have not served us well, especially when they’re advanced by people who are not actually interested in economic redistribution or anti-war politics. It’s quite easy and we’ve all encountered this, someone who will talk about priorities of anti-racism or anti-sexism or homophobia or whatever else. But actually basically just has mainstream Democratic Party politics at this point. So the Democratic Party succeeded in harnessing and appropriating protest energies that legitimately came out of the experience of people who are being racially brutalized. But people being racially brutalized — and this is something that, someone like even [Martin Luther] King, understood very well at the end of his life — need a big alliance to be able to make any real change in this country. That big alliance is actually going to involve an alliance with poor white people, many of which who have been part of the Trump coalition, and have been hailed by a certain Trumpian politics. I’m not saying all poor white people. But those coalitions, those kinds of cross class alliances that cross the parties that are oriented around what we might call left economic populist politics and anti-war politics are going to have to be built. In my view, there’s really not much hope for us without building those without some root through mass politics that allows us to change the dispensations of the political reality we live under, which, for all the ways in which people talk about polarization, there’s a lot of bipartisan consensus between the Republicans and the Democrats around war, around economic policy, around taxes around monopolies, around feeding donor interests and around a willingness on both sides to use a culture war polarization discourse to keep their own base close while not really doing much for them. Unless we can really demystify that and really think about solidarity and alliances even with people we don’t necessarily agree with on everything or even like very much. **AL:** This is something we’ve been talking about in our newsroom as well, like this bipartisan consensus on these issues, even when it’s coming from the conservative movement, like with people like Candace Owens or Tucker Carlson or Marjorie Taylor Greene, or even Megyn Kelly particularly criticizing the war in Iran and Israel’s influence. Sure, you can say that’s interesting, but I think the more instructive approach to thinking about something like that is OK, what do we take from this? Are people doing that because it’s politically expedient for them or because they’re trying to appeal to their base, or because they’re actually looking for a way to advance some counter policy at the national level? I feel like every other day I see news about the fact that these Republicans are breaking, but it’s like OK, does that actually matter? **NS:** I want to be really, really, really clear about this. I think it’s a really important point to be clear about. **AL:** Yeah. **NS:** Tucker Carlson, Megyn Kelly, Kelly, Candace Owens. I’ll leave [Marjorie Taylor Greene on the side][78]. I’m not sure, something about the sincerity of her conversion convinces me a little bit more for whatever reason. **AL:** Interesting. OK. Yeah. **NS:** These are odious people. These are reactionaries. These are people who actually would want to advance many of the same policies that Trump is advancing, particularly around deportation and mass incarceration. But who knows? President Tucker Carlson might preside over the final war against Iran. Trump was anti-war until he was pro-war. Once these guys get hold of the machinery of state, which is what interests them, they’re absolutely interested in prosecuting a vision of the country that does not include people like us. That is deeply and profoundly hostile to democracy. That’s deeply and profoundly hostile to the poor. That’s deeply and profoundly hostile to immigrants and people of color. That’s deeply and profoundly hostile to women. There’s no question in my mind that that’s true and that we shouldn’t be paying much attention to their antagonisms towards Trump and the splits within MAGA, except in so far as those become tactically useful. What I’m talking about when I say, public opinion is thermostatic, people who voted for Trump, who are working class and poor and stressed, don’t necessarily have an absolutely ideologically sealed and impenetrable view of the world, that those are the people that have to be admitted as possible parts of a bigger coalition. My model there would be Zohran Mamdani going out into Queens, the day after Trump was elected, and talking to people who voted for Trump and trying to figure out why and trying to say that he could offer something different. That to me is really different than saying that the Megyn Kellys of the world, these cynical influencers, are people that like we should take any sucker from. **AL:** That we need in our coalition. **NS:** Or that we need in our coalition. No, I think and I’m absolutely not saying that we don’t continue to draw really hard red lines around certain things. You’re not allowed to be racist, you’re not allowed to be sexist. Like these are not acceptable positions. I don’t want to get back into an argument about whatever cancel culture and all of that, but that has been not useful ultimately, for our side, like we have to be able to be people who can allow an internal differences in dialogue, even over issues that are really contentious and painful to people and allow people to move forward and grow. That’s how you develop solidarity. That’s how you build it. **AL: **I’ve spoken to people on the left who think that it’s a good idea to go on Tucker Carlson’s show because he reaches all of these people and I think we have to be able to differentiate between having an inclusive tent and allow for growth and allow for change. The difference between that and enabling people who will betray you when it’s convenient for them. And I think that’s difficult in some ways. I don’t think there’s a hard and fast rule, but I do think it’s frustrating to me that I see so many people like, “You gotta hand it to these people for coming out against the Iran war.” Do we? I don’t know that we really have to do that. **NS:** It’s a super tough question, and I don’t think anybody has a single clear program for how to deal with it. I remember back to when people on the left were condemning Bernie Sanders for going on Joe Rogan. I remember thinking at that time Bernie should go on Joe Rogan. Joe Rogan has some terrible attitudes and some terrible views and some very misinformed conceptions of the world. Maybe in an ordinary sense too, as a reactionary, the reactionary guys I like grew up with in New Jersey who I played soccer with or whatever. Just normal reactionary opinions that you encounter, if you talk to ordinary people. He’s like that and that’s why he’s popular. So should Bernie go on there and talk to him? I thought so, and a lot of people really condemned Bernie back then. I think that was when we were in a much more stringent cancel culture mode. [ ## Related ### Tucker Carlson Outdid the Mainstream Media — But Still Missed This Crucial Point ][79] Now would I say the same thing about Tucker Carlson? No, because I think Tucker Carlson has serious political ambitions and is actually like a master manipulator of media. That’s my call, that’s how I would judge it. Somebody else might judge it differently. I don’t think it’s super easy. I feel like we have to believe in the possibility of building bigger coalitions through dialogue, through change, through struggle sometimes. Yet I think the questions you’re asking and the way that we will pose these questions in public, we should be very clear about what we think. **AL:** I’ll close with this question. I’m going to quote your wonderful essay one more time. For Equator, you write that the future is really up to the leadership of the opposition that Trump has turned America toward, “the vulgar, predatory, racist, great-power conflicts of old. He does not transcend history, but affirms what [Stephen] Miller calls its ‘iron laws.’ Reversing this will require something more than a return to normalcy, particularly as the American security state tends to be accretive – recent history suggests that it only metastasises. A more profound and comprehensive democratic renewal and reconstruction is needed.” What does that mean? What does the democratic renewal and reconstruction entail? Who is involved and what are they doing? **NS:** I think we’ve been talking about it. It’s clearly going to have to be at multiple scales. There’s a civic scale to all of this, a local scale to all of this, that I’m seeing in New York City where I live, and extremely, heartened by it. It also has its limits. There’s a national electoral scale. Our government, which accesses billions and billions of dollars of our tax money to do all kinds of terrible things with it. We have to be able to transform and change that. A lot of people I know have given up on electoral politics altogether, but I don’t see any way to not work also at that scale. So to me it’s always we’re all always thinking about something like a dual power struggle, like a struggle within civil society and civil society organizations, and a struggle to actually affect the dispensations of our government. For me, primarily right now, that is the struggle inside the Democratic Party to change what it is to make it a true opposition party in the current moment, to make it a party that will really actually try, actually, not try, but succeed in constructing a real majority for the kinds of policies that we would support, which would involve shrinking the defense budget, which would involve something like Medicare for all, which would involve investments in the ordinary things people need to live and work in this country, including various kinds of social insurance, including transportation, including energy. There were some elements of this in the Biden program. I think it’s really clear how those went off the rails, particularly in the foreign policy arena. The foreign policy arena often does derail domestic reform in the United States. That’s why we need to think of these things together. So I have an analysis, for what it’s worth. I don’t really have a program because we’re so far — it feels like we’re so far — from being able to affect the change that we need. That leads a lot of people to say “Well, let’s do the best we can. Let’s win this race or that race and maybe eke out another bare majority.” But I think every time we do that — and I think those of us who have lived long enough through enough political cycles see this — every time we do that, we’re left with something that’s just a little bit shittier. **AL: **[Laughs] **NS: **Now with Trump, I think we see that the bottom is potentially going to drop out here, Americans are going to be poorer after this war. They’re going to be more stressed, they’re going to have fewer resources, they’re going to be more afraid. The challenge then is going to be even greater politically because the ability of politicians to exploit these kinds of stresses and anxieties is obviously immense, particularly in this media ecosystem that is now essentially owned by billionaires and manipulated through algorithms. We really face a serious challenge. We have a lot of decentralized power, but we haven’t really been able to figure out how to get hold of some of the real levers of power in this country. **AL:** The evergreen story of the left. **NS:** Yes. **AL:** Nikhil, we’re going to leave it there. Thank you for joining us. This was a wonderful discussion. **NS:** Thanks for having me, Akela. I really appreciate it. **AL: **That does it for this episode. This episode was produced by Laura Flynn. Ben Muessig is our editor-in-chief. Maia Hibbett is our Managing Editor. Chelsey B. Coombs is our social and video producer. Fei Liu is our product and design manager. Nara Shin is our copy-editor. Will Stanton mixed our show. Legal review by David Bralow. Slip Stream provided our theme music. This show and our reporting at The Intercept do not exist without you. Your donation, no matter the amount, makes a real difference. Keep our investigations free and fearless at [theintercept.com/join][80]. And if you haven’t already, please subscribe to The Intercept Briefing wherever you listen to podcasts. And leave us a rating or a review, it helps other listeners find our reporting. Let us know what you think of this episode, or If you want to send us a general message, email us at [email protected]. Until next time, I’m Akela Lacy. The post [Protesting the Smash-and-Grab Presidency With Nikhil Pal Singh][81] appeared first on [The Intercept][82]. [1]: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/liveblog/2026/3/24/iran-war-live-tehran-says-trumps-claims-of-peace-talks-fake [2]: https://theintercept.com/2026/03/24/82nd-airborne-leadership-ordered-to-middle-east-as-trump-iran-war/ [3]: http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5740997-trump-cuba-oil-blockade/ [4]: https://www.cnn.com/us/live-news/tsa-wait-times-ice-airports-03-23-26 [5]: https://www.wsj.com/politics/national-security/trump-sons-back-new-drone-company-targeting-pentagon-sales-2f74abca?gaa_at=eafs&gaa_n=AWEtsqfalXd6M3iiUcCTEnp1ZCwj8GpodvyZ642bb00R-fM3NZAuX63hdyUVvEL2IRA%3D&gaa_ts=69c16b08&gaa_sig=HV5Tj3YqGd05m6vykETG8wev8UQHTj-8UxAUMPPyXrZlBPY6IcuhVt1MY7UzxW7uj_6c-FFXWWo38L2ybyj9kA%3D%3D [6]: https://www.wsj.com/politics/trump-family-business-visualized-6d132c71?gaa_at=eafs&gaa_n=AWEtsqcJPsbsZfo3DFfBIvM_SkpwUnTLppagBD6WPMIb6Gn6eDeNUB-opEndSSCbn-g%3D&gaa_ts=69c2a618&gaa_sig=ZUKCZJ-wXVv8FPMEWsP91JDg2BCmwu0RU3UhmF8Q8Kf1lFzdxxkHT5m9FjWZ1bBF6FRF7zyqsf93AWLkpUrR6w%3D%3D [7]: https://theintercept.com/2020/10/03/trump-immigration-antifa-fascism/ [8]: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/jan/28/third-no-kings-protest-march-minnesota-ice [9]: https://theintercept.com/2026/01/16/trump-abolish-ice-renee-good-jonathan-ross/ [10]: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-intercept-briefing/id1195206601 [11]: https://open.spotify.com/show/2js8lwDRiK1TB4rUgiYb24?si=e3ce772344ee4170 [12]: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLW0Gy9pTgVnvgbvfd63A9uVpks3-uwudj [13]: https://theintercept.com/2025/11/17/trump-boat-strikes-death-toll-caribbean-pacific/ [14]: https://theintercept.com/2026/01/04/trump-maduro-venezuela-war-media/ [15]: https://theintercept.com/2026/03/25/ice-airports-phone-security-privacy-safety/ [16]: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/dec/22/ice-detentions-record-immigration [17]: https://theintercept.com/2026/01/08/ice-minneapolis-video-killing-shooting/ [18]: https://theintercept.com/2026/02/13/alex-pretti-first-aid-emt-federal-agents/ [19]: https://www.npr.org/2026/03/10/g-s1-111238/immigration-detention-deaths-custody [20]: https://fortune.com/2026/03/23/us-government-insolvent-fiscal-crisis-fix/ [21]: https://www.cnn.com/2026/03/19/politics/epstein-files-next-steps-congress-victims-law [22]: https://theintercept.com/collections/midterms-2026/ [23]: https://theintercept.com/2026/03/17/illinois-house-senate-primary-results-biss-abughazaleh/ [24]: https://theintercept.com/2026/03/05/ice-cbp-minnesota-surveillance-intimidation-observers/ [25]: https://theintercept.com/2026/01/24/strike-minnesota-ice-renee-good-alex-pretti/ [26]: https://theintercept.com/collections/chilling-dissent/ [27]: https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trumps-approval-hits-new-36-low-fuel-prices-surge-amid-iran-war-reutersipsos-2026-03-24/ [28]: https://theintercept.com/collections/cop-city/ [29]: https://theintercept.com/2025/10/29/kat-abughazaleh-ice-protest-indictment/ [30]: https://theintercept.com/2025/11/01/briefing-podcast-kat-abughazaleh-indictment-protest/ [31]: https://theintercept.com/2025/09/16/google-facebook-subpoena-ice-students-gaza/ [32]: https://theintercept.com/2025/03/24/briefing-podcast-momodou-taal/ [33]: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/feb/02/cop-city-atlanta-police-case-appeal [34]: https://theintercept.com/2018/07/13/j20-charges-dropped-prosecutorial-misconduct/ [35]: https://theintercept.com/2025/12/31/trump-ice-protests-tow-truck-los-angeles/ [36]: https://theintercept.com/2026/02/26/mahmoud-khalil-deportation-case-free-speech/ [37]: https://theintercept.com/collections/chilling-dissent/ [38]: https://theintercept.com/2026/03/05/ice-cbp-minnesota-surveillance-intimidation-observers/ [39]: https://theintercept.com/collections/chilling-dissent/ [40]: https://www.npr.org/2026/03/17/nx-s1-5736087/ices-detention-expansion-meets-resistance-in-communities-across-the-political-spectrum [41]: https://theintercept.com/2026/01/16/trump-abolish-ice-renee-good-jonathan-ross/ [42]: https://theintercept.com/2026/02/17/warehouses-immigration-detention-camp-prisons-immigrants/ [43]: https://theintercept.com/2025/12/03/appalachia-nc-ice-protest-immigrants/ [44]: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/liveblog/2026/3/24/iran-war-live-tehran-says-trumps-claims-of-peace-talks-fake [45]: http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5740997-trump-cuba-oil-blockade/ [46]: https://www.cnn.com/us/live-news/tsa-wait-times-ice-airports-03-23-26 [47]: https://www.npr.org/2026/03/23/nx-s1-5758069/the-trump-gold-coin-is-not-normal [48]: https://www.axios.com/2026/03/19/white-house-trump-changes-photos [49]: https://www.wsj.com/politics/national-security/trump-sons-back-new-drone-company-targeting-pentagon-sales-2f74abca?gaa_at=eafs&gaa_n=AWEtsqfalXd6M3iiUcCTEnp1ZCwj8GpodvyZ642bb00R-fM3NZAuX63hdyUVvEL2IRA%3D&gaa_ts=69c16b08&gaa_sig=HV5Tj3YqGd05m6vykETG8wev8UQHTj-8UxAUMPPyXrZlBPY6IcuhVt1MY7UzxW7uj_6c-FFXWWo38L2ybyj9kA%3D%3D [50]: https://www.wsj.com/politics/trump-family-business-visualized-6d132c71?gaa_at=eafs&gaa_n=AWEtsqcJPsbsZfo3DFfBIvM_SkpwUnTLppagBD6WPMIb6Gn6eDeNUB-opEndSSCbn-g%3D&gaa_ts=69c2a618&gaa_sig=ZUKCZJ-wXVv8FPMEWsP91JDg2BCmwu0RU3UhmF8Q8Kf1lFzdxxkHT5m9FjWZ1bBF6FRF7zyqsf93AWLkpUrR6w%3D%3D [51]: https://www.equator.org/articles/homeland-empire-trump-ICE [52]: https://theintercept.com/2026/03/23/trump-operation-total-extermination-ecuador-colombia-cuba/ [53]: https://www.ft.com/content/1171d623-3709-4f6e-8ded-a5df4ec57696?syn-25a6b1a6=1 [54]: https://theintercept.com/2026/03/11/podcast-trump-ai-world-wars/ [55]: https://theintercept.com/2026/01/09/trump-venezuela-maduro-greg-grandin/ [56]: https://theintercept.com/2026/01/16/trump-abolish-ice-renee-good-jonathan-ross/ [57]: https://theintercept.com/2026/03/17/trump-iran-war-cost/ [58]: https://www.equator.org/articles/homeland-empire-trump-ICE [59]: https://theintercept.com/2026/02/06/spencer-ackerman-9-11-terrorists-ice/ [60]: https://shop.nplusonemag.com/products/homeland-by-richard-beck?srsltid=AfmBOopexmZqc95RyASn5-9Ejf3_lAmJhn8C1951P_nLuJj1O9k9QoEE [61]: https://theintercept.com/2021/09/10/immigration-enforcement-homeland-security-911/ [62]: https://theintercept.com/2026/02/06/spencer-ackerman-9-11-terrorists-ice/ [63]: https://prospect.org/2001/12/19/lost-peace-dividend/ [64]: https://theintercept.com/2026/02/06/spencer-ackerman-9-11-terrorists-ice/ [65]: https://theintercept.com/2020/10/03/trump-immigration-antifa-fascism/ [66]: https://theintercept.com/2019/01/12/border-patrol-history/ [67]: https://theintercept.com/2024/03/01/biden-israel-gaza-weapons-child-care/ [68]: https://theintercept.com/2025/10/18/no-kings-protests-trump-fascism/ [69]: https://theintercept.com/2025/06/13/briefing-podcast-ice-raids-la-protests-military/ [70]: https://theintercept.com/2026/01/30/minneapolis-ice-watch-alex-pretti-mary-moriarty/ [71]: https://theintercept.com/2026/03/05/ice-cbp-minnesota-surveillance-intimidation-observers/ [72]: https://bsky.app/profile/factpostnews.bsky.social/post/3m4dpdtjbc227 [73]: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/poll-nearly-two-thirds-of-americans-say-ice-has-gone-too-far-in-immigration-crackdown [74]: https://theintercept.com/2026/03/24/82nd-airborne-leadership-ordered-to-middle-east-as-trump-iran-war/ [75]: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/jan/28/third-no-kings-protest-march-minnesota-ice [76]: https://theintercept.com/collections/israel-palestine/ [77]: https://www.versobooks.com/products/115-riot-strike-riot?srsltid=AfmBOorQw8Lh3sgVnZcezbd318EemXaAvZ2mWUazPJdjvRMTqy7CAyzv [78]: https://theintercept.com/2025/12/23/marjorie-taylor-greene-trump-maga-2028/ [79]: https://theintercept.com/2025/06/18/tucker-carlson-ted-cruz-iran-israel/ [80]: https://join.theintercept.com/donate/Donate_Podcast?source=interceptedshoutout&recurring_period=one-time [81]: https://theintercept.com/2026/03/27/briefing-podcast-nikhil-pal-singh/ [82]: https://theintercept.com https://theintercept.com/2026/03/27/briefing-podcast-nikhil-pal-singh/

How Does TrackAIPAC Actually Track AIPAC? The social media outfit TrackAIPAC’s signature anti-endorsement cards have become a fixture of the 2026 midterms. The ubiquitous graphics show a disapproved candidate’s face in grayscale over a smoky red backdrop. To the right, a number denoting their pro-Israel funding glows. Controversially, not all of that money comes from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. “It’s as broad as possible, and that’s by design,” TrackAIPAC co-founder Casey Kennedy told The Intercept. Instead of just AIPAC, the group tracks spending from across the pro-Israel lobby. “We want to provide the most encapsulating picture that we can of who’s giving to the lobby and where they’re giving to,” Kennedy said. TrackAIPAC started in 2024 as a scrappy bulwark to the powerful, conservative pro-Israel lobbying group for which it is named. Amid TrackAIPAC’s rise, U.S. voters’ support for Israel plummeted to [historic lows][1] as horrified Americans watched their government support genocide in Gaza, and AIPAC, once an indispensable ally for most federal politicians, transformed into an electoral liability. Depending on whom you ask, TrackAIPAC is a hero for pushing pro-Israel spending into the forefront of voters’ minds, a scourge peddling antisemitic tropes, or a well-intentioned activist group with an imperfect, ever-evolving model. An advocacy group called Citizens Against AIPAC Corruption launched in May 2024 and soon merged with TrackAIPAC, giving the lobby watchers the power to endorse and fund candidates. TrackAIPAC’s graphics are easily digestible and often go viral, lending the group political weight in an era when online audiences want to consume information in as little time and with as little brainpower as possible — and turning its signature red card into a political scarlet letter. TrackAIPAC’s growing influence has set off a debate over its messaging and methodology, part of a broader conversation about outside spending in politics refracted through the lens of Israel. This was especially felt in Illinois’ recent primary elections, where AIPAC funneled its financial contributions through front PACs, or its major donors [gave as individuals][2]. AIPAC’s more elusive strategy proves the necessity of lumping several kinds of pro-Israel money together, TrackAIPAC allies say, giving the group the responsibility of acting as an analyst rather than a conduit of information. [ ## Related ### AIPAC Is Retreating From Endorsements and Election Spending. It Won’t Give Up Its Influence. ][3] “The work tracker accounts do is important because AIPAC and other dark money lobbies are intentionally very difficult to track,” said Morriah Kaplan, executive director of the progressive Jewish-led Palestinian solidarity organization IfNotNow. Calling AIPAC’s tactics “extremely antidemocratic,” she noted that major donors can have a range of political aims, favoring tech giants, weapons manufacturers, and fossil fuels in tandem with supporting Israel. “Without understanding how TrackAIPAC defines ‘pro-Israel,’” Kaplan said, “it’s not as valuable a tool for transparency as it could be.” In the 9th district of Illinois, TrackAIPAC’s broad approach drew controversy when it deployed a red graphic not just for state Sen. Laura Fine, the Congressional candidate [AIPAC’s funders and front groups supported][4], but also for Evanston Mayor Daniel Biss, who campaigned and won as a progressive, said he [would support][5] the Block the Bombs Act, and was a main target of AIPAC-funded attack ads. When TrackAIPAC posted a [red graphic][6] for Biss, the group pointed to his refusal to call Israel’s actions a genocide, his opposition to the Boycott Divestment and Sanctions movement, his support for U.S. funding for Israel’s Iron Dome, and $460,357 “spent by the pro-Israel lobby groups and their donors.” > “Without understanding how TrackAIPAC defines ‘pro-Israel,’ it’s not as valuable a tool for transparency as it could be.” That money mostly came from [J Street][7], which bills itself as a liberal alternative for Zionist American Jews who want to counter AIPAC’s hardline influence. In recent years, the group has supported halting [some weapons][8] transfers to Israel and opposed Israeli settler violence against Palestinians in the West Bank. But J Street was slow to label Israel’s assault on Gaza a genocide — its president Jeremy Ben-Ami came around to the term [in August][9]— and it [opposed][10] initial calls for a ceasefire. Tali deGroot, J Street’s vice president of political and digital strategy, was frustrated by her group’s conflation with AIPAC, calling TrackAIPAC “intellectually dishonest” for the distance between its name and its methodology. TrackAIPAC does label the specific sources of pro-Israel funding that make up its sums on its website, along with [a list][11] of organizations it tracks in addition to AIPAC, but they seldom appear on the red cards that circulate on social media. Some critics have labeled this blurring of lines sloppy or confusing, while others on the [left][12] and [right][13] have accused the group of [antisemitism][14] over its generalized “pro-Israel” language. “I think the candidates and members should be held to account for taking AIPAC support,” deGroot said, “but the way that [TrackAIPAC] is going about it is only doing so much harm.” > [#IL09][15] UPDATE: the pro-Israel lobby has now spent >$460,000 supporting Daniel Biss ([@DanielBiss][16]). > > He won't call Israel's actions a genocide, opposes the BDS movement while lobbing accusations of antisemitism, and continues to support "defensive" weapons transfers to Israel funded… [pic.twitter.com/guV8xxfLwK][17] > > — AIPAC Tracker (@TrackAIPAC) [March 17, 2026][18] A TrackAIPAC spokesperson said the group’s members “wholeheartedly agree” that J Street and AIPAC have significant differences, but said they would still classify J Street as part of the pro-Israel lobby. “J Street might have some disagreements with AIPAC,” Kennedy said, “but they are both working in favor of a foreign government within our government.” The group does appear responsive to some of the criticism. TrackAIPAC is planning to modify its anti-endorsement cards in response to recent controversies. They’ll still be red, but the graphics will now spell out how much a candidate has received from specific pro-Israel groups, or individual major pro-Israel lobby donors, as well as additional information about their policy positions on Palestine and Israel. “Every graphic released regarding Daniel Biss stated clearly that the total of the donations reported were from the pro-Israel Lobby,” the TrackAIPAC spokesperson said. “It would be intellectually dishonest to call J Street anything but a member of that advocacy wing in the United States. That said – we will be breaking their donations out and labeling them separately for transparency purposes moving forward.” ## **Changing the Cards** As the founders tell it, the “AIPAC” in TrackAIPAC’s name was always meant as a synecdoche, with the lobbying giant serving as an eye-catching stand-in for the entire Israel lobby. The broad approach is intentional, said TrackAIPAC founders Kennedy and Cory Archibald, and their project is a work in progress. > “It’s as broad as possible, and that’s by design.” The group has made several changes to its methodology since its launch. Some of them are spelled out [online][19], but others, such as how the group tracks individual donors, are not. At the beginning, TrackAIPAC relied on Federal Election Commission data compiled by the transparency organization OpenSecrets, which also groups the pro-Israel lobby as a whole. Last year, TrackAIPAC began to analyze the FEC data for itself and started adding individual expenditures, or money spent on campaign ads, which triggered jumps in some members’ totals. That was the case for Reps. Wesley Bell, D-Mo., and George Latimer, D-N.Y., who toppled progressive incumbents last cycle with massive amounts of [AIPAC support][20]. This year, the group began including bundlers and major donors ($200 or more) who have given to pro-Israel lobby groups and are donating directly to candidates, especially as AIPAC shields some of its spending. “They’re going underground, so we’re going to have to go underground too,” said Archibald, previously a campaign staffer for former Reps. Cori Bush, D-Mo., and Jamaal Bowman, D-N.Y., who were respectively unseated by Bell and Latimer in 2024. The approach still seems to rile candidates who find themselves on TrackAIPAC’s bad side, like Rep. Jasmine Crockett, D-Texas, who [accused][21] the group on Instagram of being “MAGA plants who are meant to disrupt and confuse” for giving her a [red card][22] listing more than $100,000 from “Israel Lobby” donors. TrackAIPAC told The Intercept that it stands by Crockett’s rating, and that it used FEC data to identify major donors who have given to pro-Israel lobby groups and gave directly to Crockett. (It also gave a red card to [Texas state Rep. James Talarico][23], who beat Crockett in the state’s Democratic Senate primary.) [ ## Related ### Will James Talarico Really Fight for Justice in Texas? ][24] The founders also said they have received a number of requests from members who want their red graphics taken down. TrackAIPAC is working on a new questionnaire that would give members a chance to get their cards changed if they make specific policy commitments, like committing to an arms embargo and opposing laws that would restrict BDS or promote a controversial definition of antisemitism that conflates the term with criticism of Israel. Some politicians have already had their cards changed. Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., who has received J Street funding, [used to][25] have a red card, but his photo [now appears][26] on TrackAIPAC’s website in its original coloring, earning neither the damning red backdrop nor the smooth green ring that indicates endorsement. Khanna, who last year [exchanged][27] kind [words][28] with TrackAIPAC on social media, is among the members of Congress who receive the label: “We encourage this representative to continue improving their legislative record on Israel-Palestine issues.” Kennedy said those lawmakers exist in the “squishy middle,” calling it “the most ambiguous part of what we do.” He said they removed their red graphics to avoid the members “getting harangued as an AIPAC supporter,” while nudging them toward continuing to vote in favor of Palestinian rights. One of the group’s enduring questions is “how do we still apply the pressure without kind of souring our relationship?” Kennedy said. “So it’s definitely, you know, there’s some politicking that goes on there.” Archibald interjected with more precise terms. “But it’s still very much rooted in their record — we’re not ever picking winners or losers,” she said. “It’s all based on the scorecard … on the facts that are present.” To round out its rating system, TrackAIPAC relies heavily on the Congressional Democrat Palestine Tracker, [a spreadsheet][29] run by the New York City chapter of the Democratic Socialists of America that uses a scorecard [system][30] devised by the U.S. Campaign for Palestinian Rights Action. (It has a separate tracking system for Republicans.) For candidates who do not have a federal voting record, TrackAIPAC looks to public statements, public policy positions, or associations with pro-Israel lobby groups. If a candidate has pro-Israel positions but campaign finance data is not yet available, TrackAIPAC issues a red graphic with a “[warning][31]” label. In some cases, J Street and TrackAIPAC have backed the same candidate. Progressive Rep. Delia Ramirez, D-Ill., for example, is J Street-supported but has TrackAIPAC’s endorsement because of her policy positions on the genocide in Gaza, BDS, and blocking weapons to Israel. “The money alone is not enough to get you a red graphic,” Archibald said. ## A Political Force The question of how TrackAIPAC assesses its more subjective measures — and whether its targeting is even-handed — has spurred controversy, too. Last week, TrackAIPAC drew criticism for deploying a red card for Mallory McMorrow, a Michigan state senator running for the Democratic nomination for U.S. Senate on a platform that includes backing Block the Bombs and calling for a two-state solution. McMorrow’s graphic stood out because of her two opponents for the nomination: Rep. Haley Stevens, a hardline Israel supporter who has taken over $9 million from the pro-Israel lobby, by TrackAIPAC’s [count][32], and appeared in an AIPAC [promotional video][33] earlier this month, and Abdul El-Sayed, a vocal supporter of Palestinian rights who earned the endorsement of TrackAIPAC’s campaign arm, Citizens Against AIPAC Corruption. McMorrow’s most recently issued [red graphic][34] cites $100,439 from the general “pro-Israel lobby groups & their donors.” El-Sayed’s [green endorsement card][35], meanwhile, lists only the amount he has received from AIPAC: $0. McMorrow’s campaign argued that this reflected an uneven treatment, pointing to El-Sayed donors listed in FEC filings who have previously given to J Street. (Unlike in the Illinois race, J Street is not publicly backing either candidate.) > Abdul is the ONLY candidate who hasn't courted AIPAC![https://t.co/HErDM3sbvH][36] [pic.twitter.com/HeaUJRdJpN][37] > > — AIPAC Tracker (@TrackAIPAC) [March 20, 2026][38] “It remains unclear how Track AIPAC has arrived at their number, and we invite them to share their methodology so as to not mislead voters,” a spokesperson for McMorrow’s campaign told The Intercept, adding that she had not taken any money from AIPAC and had opposed its involvement in the race. TrackAIPAC acknowledged that some J Street donors had given to El-Sayed and said the different treatment between the two candidates was decided only by their differing policy positions on Israel and Palestine. Circulating McMorrow’s red card, TrackAIPAC cited McMorrow’s [admission][39] of having “returned policy papers to at least one Democratic pro-Israel group,” as well as reporting from [Drop Site News][40] that she had drafted an AIPAC position paper, but critics noted that the group was harsh on a relatively untested candidate running as a progressive. [ ## Related ### A New PAC Wants to Counter Israel’s Influence. It Also Welcomes Hitler Apologists. ][41] DeGroot objected to a similar dynamic in Illinois’ 9th District, where the campaign side supported candidate and activist Kat Abughazaleh, who finished as the runner-up to Biss. To deGroot, the group’s dual work as a data project and a political action committee allows its “masquerading support for a chosen candidate – Kat – as journalism, as fact finding.” Candidates in TrackAIPAC’s good graces, however, may have reason to appreciate the two-part approach. Angela Gonzalez-Torres, a Los Angeles community activist and congressional candidate in California, said Citizens Against AIPAC Corruption was among her earliest supporters, giving her campaign a boost months before the more established progressive group Justice Democrats got behind her. She said that she was initially drawn to challenge incumbent [Rep. Jimmy Gomez, D-Calif.][42], because of his responses to local issues like the construction of a controversial housing project atop [a toxic dump site][43] and an adjoined [trucking depot][44] that posed health risks to neighboring residents, but when she dug into his campaign, she came across TrackAIPAC’s red graphics. “When we as a community saw those profiting off of our pain and contributing to the very issues hurting our district and other humans, I think we were immediately encouraged to find someone to challenge Jimmy Gomez,” Gonzalez-Torres said, citing his AIPAC connections. She said some of her supporters told her they donated to her campaign after seeing [her and Gomez][45] in TrackAIPAC’s side-by-side graphics. The post [How Does TrackAIPAC Actually Track AIPAC?][46] appeared first on [The Intercept][47]. [1]: https://news.gallup.com/poll/702440/israelis-no-longer-ahead-americans-middle-east-sympathies.aspx [2]: https://theintercept.com/2026/03/12/aipac-illinois-senate-stratton-kelly-krishnamoorthi/ [3]: https://theintercept.com/2025/12/30/aipac-campaigns-elections-israel-congress/ [4]: https://theintercept.com/2025/12/16/laura-fine-illinois-primary-aipac-donors/ [5]: https://dailynorthwestern.com/2026/02/09/city/congressional-candidates-face-off-at-naacp-forum-marking-start-of-black-history-lecture-series/ [6]: https://x.com/TrackAIPAC/status/2033697880821928388?s=20 [7]: https://theintercept.com/2019/12/14/j-street-israel-jeremy-ben-ami/ [8]: https://theintercept.com/2025/02/26/bernie-sanders-israel-arms-gaza/ [9]: https://jstreetdotorg.substack.com/p/genocide [10]: https://theintercept.com/2023/10/15/j-street-gaza-ceasefire-staffers-letter/ [11]: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1h3JASnY_LJ3sOOvBeXkDExfiL5a8Mx_5Oy2hZrCn6TU/edit?gid=1515232731#gid=1515232731 [12]: https://bsky.app/profile/whstancil.bsky.social/post/3mhg6uyfbis2l [13]: https://x.com/repdonbacon/status/1794904138754703383?s=46 [14]: https://x.com/shannonrwatts/status/2034986603001659401?s=20 [15]: https://twitter.com/hashtag/IL09?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw [16]: https://twitter.com/DanielBiss?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw [17]: https://t.co/guV8xxfLwK [18]: https://twitter.com/TrackAIPAC/status/2033697880821928388?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw [19]: https://www.trackaipac.com/faq [20]: https://theintercept.com/2024/10/24/aipac-spending-congress-elections-israel/ [21]: https://www.facebook.com/roguednncc/posts/rep-crockett-accused-the-group-trackaipac-of-being-maga-plants-after-the-account/1426747262973864/ [22]: https://www.trackaipac.com/states/texas [23]: https://www.trackaipac.com/states/israel-first-candidates [24]: https://theintercept.com/2026/03/04/james-talarico-jasmine-crockett-texas-senate-primary/ [25]: https://x.com/TrackAIPAC/status/1780300588183634068?s=20 [26]: https://www.trackaipac.com/congress [27]: https://x.com/RoKhanna/status/1976388271199625660 [28]: https://x.com/TrackAIPAC/status/1976402329047085167?s=20 [29]: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1VU1y_jSb2hanU2MrLsjRx8tujB-C--UAQ2EahaTXGUo/edit?gid=1984730710#gid=1984730710 [30]: https://www.uscpraction.org/scorecard [31]: https://x.com/TrackAIPAC/status/1905030614178545802 [32]: https://x.com/TrackAIPAC/status/2030495846752833582 [33]: https://www.instagram.com/p/DVmkEdqCKXw/ [34]: https://www.trackaipac.com/mallory-mcmorrow [35]: https://x.com/TrackAIPAC/status/2035040419999003117?s=20 [36]: https://t.co/HErDM3sbvH [37]: https://t.co/HeaUJRdJpN [38]: https://twitter.com/TrackAIPAC/status/2035040419999003117?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw [39]: https://x.com/TrackAIPAC/status/1920800919295242634 [40]: https://www.dropsitenews.com/p/mallory-mcmorrow-michigan-dem-senate-candidate-aipac-israel-position-paper [41]: https://theintercept.com/2026/02/19/israel-palestine-antisemitism-azapac-michael-rectenwald/ [42]: https://theintercept.com/2025/09/04/aipac-la-jimmy-gomez-primary-gonzales-torres/ [43]: https://www.latimes.com/environment/story/2022-04-30/an-old-toxic-dump-brings-new-worries-for-lincoln-heights [44]: https://www.instagram.com/p/DBh8PesPZYi/ [45]: https://x.com/TrackAIPAC/status/2033587954913034327 [46]: https://theintercept.com/2026/03/26/track-aipac-midterms-2026-israel-palestine/ [47]: https://theintercept.com https://theintercept.com/2026/03/26/track-aipac-midterms-2026-israel-palestine/

Pentagon Wants It to Be Illegal for Reporters to Ask “Unauthorized” Questions [ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA - MARCH 19: Secretary of War Pete Hegseth and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Air Force General Dan Caine (R) provide updates on the continued military operations on Iran 2during a press briefing on the Iran war at the Pentagon on March 19, 2026 in Arlington, Virginia. The U.S. and Israel have continued their joint attack on Iran that began on February 28. (Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images)] Secretary of War Pete Hegseth and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Air Force Gen. Dan Caine (R) provide updates on the continued military operations in Iran during a press briefing on the Iran war at the Pentagon on March 19, 2026, in Arlington, Virginia. Photo: Win McNamee/Getty Images A judge last week [struck down][1] the Pentagon’s restrictions on journalists seeking “unauthorized” information, siding with the New York Times in its lawsuit against the government. In response, the Pentagon on Monday added some meaningless [window dressing][2] and essentially reissued the same restrictions. The administration pledged to “immediately” appeal the decision on the original policy, and on Tuesday, the Times filed a [motion][3] to compel the administration to comply with the judge’s order. As alarming as the Pentagon’s antics are, the Times’ lawsuit is not the only case about whether reporters have the right to ask questions. It’s not even the only one in the news this week. In 2017, police in Laredo, Texas, [arrested][4] citizen journalist Patricia Villarreal under an obscure and never previously used law making it a felony to ask government employees for no information for personal benefit. Her supposed crime was asking a police officer about two local tragedies — a suicide and a deadly car wreck. Her arrest was [widely ridiculed][5], and a judge quickly [threw out][6] the charges. When Villarreal sued over her arrest and mistreatment by officers, the legal question wasn’t whether the charges against her were permissible but whether they were so obviously bogus that she could overcome [qualified immunity][7], the [unjust][8] and expansive legal shield that protects government employees from liability for all but the most blatant violations. That issue [went][9] to the Supreme Court twice, but on Monday, the Court [declined][10] to review a federal appellate court’s ruling that the officers were shielded from liability. [ ## Related ### FBI Raid on WaPo Reporter’s Home Was Based on Sham Pretext ][11] No matter what our severely [compromised][12] Supreme Court thinks, the local cops who arrested Villarreal were embarrassingly ignorant of the Constitution. But they were also ahead of their time: The Department of Justice is making the same claims that turned the Laredo police into a First Amendment laughingstock — that reporters simply asking questions to the government is criminal — to federal district Judge Paul Friedman. Most discussion of the Pentagon’s restrictions has focused on their conditions for reporters to receive press credentials, which the Pentagon says can be revoked if reporters publish “unauthorized” information. That policy is wildly [unconstitutional][13] on its own, and every mainstream outlet gave up their press passes rather than sign on, leaving war coverage inside the Pentagon [to the likes of ][14]Turning Point USA’s Frontlines and MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell’s LindellTV streaming service. But the Pentagon’s legal filings imply that reporters who don’t follow the rules risk more than their press passes. On March 12, the DOJ filed [a brief][15] to clarify its lawyers’ earlier comments in a discussion with Friedman at a hearing of “whether asking a question was a criminal act.” The government argued that although journalists may lawfully ask questions of “authorized” Pentagon personnel, “a journalist does solicit the commission of a criminal act, and that solicitation is not protected by the First Amendment, when he or she solicits … non-public information from individuals who are legally obligated not to disclose that information.” There you have it. What was once a fringe, failed legal theory concocted by some local cops in one Texas border city is now the official position of the federal government’s lawyers, which it felt compelled to put in writing in case anyone wasn’t sure where it stood after the hearing. Both the rogue cops and the DOJ’s lawyers contend that journalists merely asking questions to government officials constitutes unlawful solicitation. > “These Pentagon policies remind us that people in power will stop literally at nothing to control the story.” As JT Morris, supervising senior attorney at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (which represents Villarreal) told me in an email last week, the First Amendment “unquestionably protects our right to ask questions, whether it’s a citizen asking police about a local crime or the New York Times asking Pentagon officials about matters of national security. Officials can always respond, ‘no comment.’ But they cannot jail Americans for asking.” The government’s argument would have turned countless Pulitzer-winning national security reporters into criminals. As Friedman [put it][16] in his ruling, the “role of a journalist is to solicit information. … [A] journalist asking questions is not a crime!” (You can tell a judge is miffed when scholarly language fails and they resort to exclamation points.) The DOJ’s “concession” in its clarification brief (and later in its revised policy) — that journalists can direct questions to authorized spokespeople — makes no difference. That the administration even felt the need to state something so obvious, presumably because they thought it would make them sound more reasonable, signals the extent to which they’ve threatened the First Amendment. [Reporters carry their belongings from the Pentagon in Washington, DC, on October 15, 2025 after US and international news outlets including The New York Times, AP, AFP and Fox News declined to sign new restrictive Pentagon media rules, and were stripped of their press access credentials. The new rules come after the Defense Department restricted media access inside the Pentagon, forced some outlets to vacate offices in the building and drastically reduced the number of briefings for journalists. (Photo by Brendan SMIALOWSKI / AFP) (Photo by BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI/AFP via Getty Images)] Reporters carry their belongings from the Pentagon in Washington, D.C., on Oct. 15, 2025, after news outlets including the New York Times, AP, AFP and Fox News declined to sign new restrictive Pentagon media rules and were stripped of their press credentials. Photo: Brendan Smialowski/AFP via Getty Images Government agencies have long routed journalists’ inquiries to PR flacks and instructed non-public-facing staffers not to answer reporters’ questions. That’s [unconstitutional][17] in its own right; earlier this month, the Village of Key Biscayne, Florida, became the [latest][18] government agency to [settle][19] a lawsuit over its employee gag rule. But until this administration, the government at least placed the burden on its own employees to comply with restrictions on talking to reporters. Now, the government expects journalists to make themselves a party to its censorship directives, and ignore Supreme Court [precedent][20] that they can print any government information they lawfully obtain, even if it shouldn’t have been released. “A contrary rule … would force upon the media the onerous obligation of sifting through government press releases, reports, and pronouncements to prune out material arguably unlawful for publication,” the Court reasoned. Journalist Kathryn Foxhall, who has for years [sounded the alarm][21] about “censorship by PIO,” including in collaboration with the Society of Professional Journalists, says the press has failed to meaningfully oppose these policies. “The media have done little to fight the ever-tightening rules at federal agencies and elsewhere banning reporters from buildings and prohibiting employees from speaking to journalists without the authorities’ oversight. With amazing negligence journalists just assume whatever reporters get is the whole story, even in the face of the many thousands of gagged staff people. Now these Pentagon policies remind us that people in power will stop literally at nothing to control the story,” she told me. The Pentagon’s position that newsgathering is a prosecutable offense is not just theoretical. Although the DOJ’s brief didn’t explicitly reference it, just like the officers in Laredo, federal prosecutors have their own archaic and constitutionally dubious law on the books to sane-wash their nonsense arguments — the [Espionage Act][22] of 1917. Read literally, that law (Rep. Rashida Tlaib recently introduced a [much-needed bill][23] to reform it) arguably prohibits reporters and anyone else from obtaining or attempting to obtain national defense information. But reading it that way to go after journalists would be unconstitutional and politically toxic, which is why past administrations have [refrained][24]. Had the Supreme Court denied the Laredo officers’ qualified immunity in Villarreal’s case, it would have signaled that arguments for expansive interpretations of arcane laws to criminalize routine reporting are a nonstarter. [ ## Related ### Trump Wants to Put You in a Massive, Secret Government Database ][25] The Court ducked the issue despite being fully aware that the present administration is looking for any excuse to punish reporters that dare to undermine its narratives. They’ve already [claimed][26] Washington Post reporter Hannah Natanson — whose home they raided, seizing terabytes of data — violated the Espionage Act by obtaining leaked information. The Trump administration is barging through the door the Biden administration left wide open, when, despite [warnings][27] from First Amendment advocates, it extracted a [plea deal][28] from WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange on Espionage Act charges for obtaining and publishing government records, including about Iraq war crimes. The DOJ’s adoption of the Laredo police’s discredited theory is an extension of the Assange and Natanson cases; the claim that publishing leaked documents is criminal has evolved into a theory that merely asking questions is, too. The administration lost in court this time, but it [said][29] it will appeal, and may be emboldened by the Supreme Court’s cowardice in the Laredo case. If this administration succeeds in chipping away at constitutional protections for journalistic practices as basic as asking questions, reporters who wish to do anything more than regime stenography may risk imprisonment just by doing their jobs. In her dissent to the Villarreal ruling, Justice Sotomayor put it well: “Tolerating retaliation against journalists, or efforts to criminalize routine reporting practices, threatens to silence ‘one of the very agencies the Framers of our Constitution thoughtfully and deliberately selected to improve our society and keep it free.’” The post [Pentagon Wants It to Be Illegal for Reporters to Ask “Unauthorized” Questions][30] appeared first on [The Intercept][31]. [1]: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/mar/20/us-judge-blocks-pentagon-policy [2]: https://freedom.press/issues/meet-the-new-pentagon-press-policy-same-as-the-old-pentagon-press-policy [3]: https://thehill.com/policy/defense/5800196-new-york-times-pentagon-media-restrictions/ [4]: https://www.cjr.org/the_media_today/priscilla_villarreal_texas_first_amendment_lawsuit.php [5]: https://www.fire.org/news/wide-ranging-coalition-friends-court-continue-support-citizen-journalist-priscilla-villarreal [6]: https://www.expressnews.com/news/local/article/Judge-throws-out-charges-against-La-Gordiloca-12788458.php [7]: https://freedom.press/issues/scotus-needs-to-hold-officials-who-ignore-press-freedom-accountable/ [8]: https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/02/19/qualified-immunity-is-burning-a-hole-in-the-constitution-00083569 [9]: https://thetexan.news/judicial/u-s-supreme-court-remands-laredo-citizen-journalist-s-first-amendment-case-back-to-appeals/article_87f52b54-8bdb-11ef-beac-5b15409ccb24.html [10]: https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/032326zor_7mio.pdf [11]: https://theintercept.com/2026/01/15/fbi-raid-washington-post-journalist/ [12]: https://theintercept.com/2025/07/18/litman-scotus-executive-overreach/ [13]: https://freedom.press/issues/pentagon-press-restrictions-are-an-affront-to-the-first-amendment/ [14]: https://www.politico.com/news/2025/10/22/pentagon-trump-press-corps-00619002 [15]: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.287334/gov.uscourts.dcd.287334.32.0.pdf [16]: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.287334/gov.uscourts.dcd.287334.35.0_2.pdf [17]: https://brechner.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Public-employee-gag-orders-Brechner-issue-brief-as-published-10-7-19.pdf [18]: https://www.wlrn.org/government-politics/2026-03-11/village-of-key-biscayne-to-settle-first-amendment-lawsuit-with-nonprofit-news-outlet [19]: https://www.prisonlegalnews.org/news/2024/dec/15/allegheny-county-settles-suit-lifts-media-gag-policy-pittsburgh-jail-employees/ [20]: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/491/524/#tab-opinion-1958043 [21]: https://www.cjr.org/criticism/public-information-officer-access-federal-agencies.php [22]: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793 [23]: https://freedom.press/issues/pass-the-daniel-ellsberg-act/ [24]: https://freedom.press/issues/how-espionage-act-morphed-dangerous-tool-used-prosecute-sources-and-threaten-journalists/ [25]: https://theintercept.com/2026/03/17/government-surveillance-centralized-database-privacy/ [26]: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/02/20/us/politics/washington-post-reporter-home-search.html [27]: https://www.theguardian.com/media/2023/may/04/julian-assange-us-justice-department-wikileaks [28]: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/jun/25/julian-assange-wikileaks-press-freedom-biden-administration [29]: https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/us-judge-blocks-restrictive-pentagon-press-access-policy-2026-03-20/ [30]: https://theintercept.com/2026/03/26/pentagon-reporters-first-amendment/ [31]: https://theintercept.com https://theintercept.com/2026/03/26/pentagon-reporters-first-amendment/