Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has spoken out against Zohran Mamdani, referring to the Democratic New York City mayoral candidate’s proposed policies as “nonsense.”

During an appearance on the Full Send Podcast—which was filmed on July 8 in Washington, D.C., and premiered on Monday—Netanyahu engaged in a wide-ranging conversation with the right-wing hosts. He mentioned the protests across the U.S. in relation to the Israel-Hamas war, and accused participants of being “against” Israel and America.

It was after this that one of the hosts, Aaron “Steiny” Steinberg, brought up Mamdani, the Muslim democratic socialist who celebrated a decisive victory after the Democratic mayoral primary in June.

“In New York City, right. Zohran? He’s an antisemitic guy in the highest population of Jews,” alleged Steinberg, seemingly referencing how the New York metropolitan area has the largest Jewish population in the United States.

Netanyahu responded by labeling Mamdani’s proposed policies as “nonsense” and said the 33-year-old assembly member would likely only serve “one term” if elected in November.

“A lot of people have been taken in by this nonsense. You want to defund the police? You want to have people go into stores and rob them and be free? You think that really creates a good society?” said Netanyahu. “Sometimes you have to get mugged by reality to understand how stupid that is.”

Mamdani has said he will “not defund the police.” Addressing that concern during a debate in June, he said: “I will work with the police because I believe the police have a critical role to play in creating public safety.” He went on to flag the numbers of unsolved crimes from this year alone, saying police need to have the time to “focus on those crimes” and that the city should have “mental health professionals and social workers” to address the “mental health crisis and homelessness.” The Democratic NYC mayoral candidate has also proposed city-run, non-profit grocery stores as part of his “affordability” platform.

Read More: Netanyahu at the Crossroads

This isn’t the first tussle of words exchanged between Netanyahu and Mamdani.

In December, Mamdani said, if he were to become the Mayor, then New York City would arrest Netanyahu if he visited. Netanyahu has an arrest warrant from the International Criminal Court (ICC) for alleged war crimes, which Israel has strongly denied. The U.S. is not a signatory to the ICC.

During Netanyahu’s visit to the White House in early July, Mamdani’s mention of a possible arrest was brought up at a roundtable conversation. Netanyahu said he was “not concerned” about Mamdani’s vow, while President Donald Trump interjected: “I’ll get him out,” referring to the Democratic mayoral candidate.

It’s thought that Netanyahu may travel to New York in September, prior to the mayoral election, to speak at the U.N. General Assembly’s world leaders meeting.

Meanwhile, there have been numerous instances of Mamdani being referred to as “antisemitic” by critics. He has strongly rejected any accusations of antisemitism.

“It pains me to be painted as if I am somehow in opposition to the very Jewish New Yorkers that I know and love and are such a key part of this city,” Mamdani said in June.

The mayoral candidate has also vowed to increase spending to tackle hate crimes in New York by 800%. In an interview with NBC after his primary election victory, he said: “Ultimately, we cannot simply say that antisemitism has no home in this city or no place in this country. We have to do more than talk about it. We have to tackle it, and that’s what we will do through this funding and through this commitment, we will root out bigotry across the five boroughs.”

Mamdani, who is a member of the Democratic Socialists of America, has faced criticism from Republicans and some Democrats, also.

After Mamdani’s victory in the primary, Republican Rep. Mike Lawler of New York said: “A radical, antisemitic socialist was just nominated to be the Democratic candidate for mayor of New York City—and Kathy Hochul [New York’s Governor] didn’t lift a finger to stop it from happening.” (Lawler is thought to be mulling over a potential run for New York Governor.)

Read More: Islamophobia Surges Online After Zohran Mamdani’s Win

In the immediate aftermath of Mamdani’s primary victory, Islamophobia surged online, research found.

Mamdani previously addressed his experience of Islamophobia during his campaign, sharing the impact it has on him.

“I get messages that say ‘the only good Muslim is a dead Muslim.’ I get threats on my life, on the people that I love,” he said in June. “I try not to talk about it, because the function of racism, as Toni Morrison said, is distraction.”

Israeli aggression appears to be vexing the Trump Administration.

The White House said Monday that President Donald Trump had not approved of Israel’s airstrikes on Syria last week, which reportedly continued even after the U.S. had told Israel to “stand down” after Israel bombed Syrian tanks on Tuesday. Israel launched new airstrikes on Damascus on Wednesday, killing at least three people and wounding dozens of others. 

Israel said its strikes were aimed at “protecting” the Syrian Druze community after days of clashes between members of the Druze militia and Bedouin tribes as well as Syrian military intervention. At the same time, Israel’s government said the strikes were in retaliation for Syrian troops entering a region in southern Syria that Israel had unilaterally declared a demilitarized zone. The Syrian government has rejected that claim and repeatedly condemned Israeli military action towards Syria, including in recent months the seizure of Syrian territory and multiple airstrikes.

The Trump Administration brokered a cease-fire between Israel and Syria, U.S. envoy to Syria Tom Barrack said on Friday, but some within the Administration have grown restive over Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s recalcitrance, Axios reported on Sunday. “Bibi acted like a madman. He bombs everything all the time,” one official told the outlet. “This could undermine what Trump is trying to do.”

Trump was “caught off guard by the bombing in Syria and also the bombing of the Catholic Church in Gaza,” White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters on Monday, although she added that Trump “enjoys a good working relationship with Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu and stays in frequent communication with him.”

“In both cases, the President quickly called the [Israeli] Prime Minister to rectify these situations,” Leavitt added.

Israel’s strikes on Syria and a Catholic Church in Gaza came after Netanyahu’s visit to Washington earlier this month, which appeared to signal progress towards a Gaza cease-fire deal even as critics have worried that a Trump-mediated cease-fire would involve the removal of Palestinians and redevelopment of the Gaza Strip under U.S. and/or Israeli control.

Clemens Chay, a research fellow at the National University of Singapore’s Middle East Institute, tells TIME that Trump has emboldened Israel by backing it militarily even as Israel has put at risk many U.S. goals, including by bombing Iran when Tehran was in the midst of nuclear talks with Washington and now bombing Syria after Trump had earlier signalled a desire to improve relations with the country by lifting U.S. sanctions.

Netanyahu likely took Trump’s “vague response to any military action as a ‘go-ahead,’” Chay says. “The U.S. President is well-known for vacillating in his positions towards various foreign policy issues, but the Israeli Prime Minister is now—following U.S. strikes on Iranian nuclear [facilities]—confident in his own ability of being the ‘Trump whisperer.’”

“Trump is continuing the failed policies of his predecessors by ceding the initiative to Israel,” Jon Hoffman, a foreign policy analyst at the Cato Institute, posted on X.

Even so, Israel depends critically on U.S. support: “It is not surprising that Israel signs a cease-fire when the United States applies real pressure, because they could not pursue any conflict, in Iran or in Gaza, without the continual supply of weapons, ammunition, and military tech from the United States,” William Figueroa, an assistant professor of international relations at the University of Groningen, previously told TIME. “When the person signing the checks says they really mean it, you listen.”

It’s not the first time Israel has gambled that the U.S. would back it despite going against the Trump Administration’s advice. While Netanyahu has managed to sustain U.S. support, in part by “stroking Mr Trump’s ego” with a nomination for the Nobel Peace Prize and by allowing Trump to “claim victory” over brokering cease-fires in the Middle East, Chay says, Israel’s continued actions risk not only being seen as “an overstepping of boundaries by Trump officials, but worse, also as a form of unchecked Israeli military power by regional states.”

Israel’s strikes on Syria

Israel reportedly agreed on Tuesday to stand down at Barrack’s request in order for the U.S. to negotiate a peace deal. But the next day, Israel escalated its attacks, bombing Syria’s military headquarters and a facility near the presidential palace.

“The bombing in Syria caught the President and the White House by surprise. The President doesn’t like turning on the television and seeing bombs dropped in a country he is seeking peace in and made a monumental announcement to help rebuild,” one official told Axios.

Another official suggested that the Israeli government was harming its reputation among the Trump Administration. “The Israelis need to get their head out of their asses,” the official told Axios.

Meanwhile, an Israeli official told Axios that Trump had not indicated concerns about Israeli intervention in Syria and had even supported Israeli action in Syria during his first few weeks in office.

Bombing of Catholic church in Gaza

Israel also came under fire after striking on Thursday the Holy Family Church in Gaza City, killing three people and wounding others who were sheltering there. The news shook the Catholic community around the world. Before his death, Pope Francis had held daily calls with the parish—Gaza’s only Catholic church. Francis’ successor, Pope Leo XIV posted on X that he was “deeply saddened to learn of the loss of life and injury” and reiterated the need for an immediate cease-fire.

The news also angered the Trump Administration. Leavitt said Thursday that Trump did not have a “positive reaction” to the attack and that he “called Prime Minister Netanyahu this morning to address the strikes on that church in Gaza.”

Netanyahu said in a Thursday statement that Israel “deeply regrets that a stray ammunition” hit the church, calling it a mistake. He said Israel was “investigating the incident and remains committed to protecting civilians and holy sites.”

The Israel Defense Forces said in a later statement that “an initial inquiry into reports regarding injured individuals in the Holy Family Church in Gaza City, suggests that fragments from a shell fired during operational activity in the area hit the church mistakenly. The cause of the incident is under review.”

Israel’s military added, “The IDF directs its strikes solely at military targets and makes every feasible effort to mitigate harm to civilians and religious structures, and regrets any unintentional damage caused to them.” Gazans, journalists and humanitarian organizations have recorded numerous Israeli attacks on civilian, religious, and aid sites over the course of the two-year war.

Murder of Palestinian American by Israeli settlers

The July 11 murder of Palestinian American Saif Musallet by a mob of Israeli settlers in the Israeli-occupied West Bank has also incited backlash from the U.S. government. Musallet’s family told CBS News that he had been visiting his family’s land in the town of Sinjil when he was surrounded and beaten by settlers for over three hours. The settlers blocked an ambulance and paramedics from reaching him, his family said. Musallet’s brother eventually carried him to an ambulance, but he died before reaching the hospital.

In a rare albeit tempered criticism of Israel, U.S. Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee, who is known to be an outspoken ally of Israeli settlers, called the attack a “criminal and terrorist act.” Huckabee said he asked Israel to “aggressively investigate” Mussallet’s murder. “Saif was just 20 yrs old,” Huckabee added. The IDF told CBS News last week that “a joint investigation was launched by the Israel Police and the Military Police Criminal Investigation Division.”

The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Thameen Al-Kheetan sounded the alarm on rising violence by Israeli settlers and security forces in the West Bank. “Israel must immediately stop these killings, harassment and home demolitions across the occupied Palestinian territory,” Al-Kheetan said last week. “As the occupying power, Israel must take all feasible measures to ensure public order and safety in the West Bank. It is under the obligation to protect Palestinians from settler attacks and to end the unlawful use of force by its security forces. There must be thorough, independent and transparent investigations into all killings and all other alleged violations of international law. Those responsible must be held to account.”

Huckabee also visited the Christian community of Taybeh in the West Bank on Saturday after a church was reportedly attacked and vandalized by Israeli settlers.

“To commit an act of sacrilege by desecrating a place that is supposed to be a place of worship, it is an act of terror, and it is a crime. There should be consequences, and it should be harsh consequences because it is one of the last bastions of our civilization, the places where we worship,” Huckabee said in a statement. He later clarified on X that he did not attribute the cause of the arson attack on the church to anyone.

Israel’s post-cease-fire strikes on Iran

Israel came under fire directly from Trump in June when it continued to trade strikes with Iran within hours of the U.S. President publicly announcing a cease-fire. Trump’s cease-fire came after nearly two weeks of attacks between Israel and Iran that the U.S. even joined militarily, bombing three key Iranian nuclear facilities, despite Trump’s longtime professed aversion to military entanglement.

“I’m not happy with Iran, but I’m really not happy with Israel,” Trump told reporters on June 24, characterizing an Iranian missile strike that Israel cited as reason to retaliate as “one rocket that didn’t land anywhere.”

“Israel, as soon as we made the deal, they came out and they dropped a load of bombs, the likes of which I’ve never seen before,” Trump added.

The President also posted on Truth Social the same day: “ISRAEL. DO NOT DROP THOSE BOMBS. IF YOU DO IT IS A MAJOR VIOLATION. BRING YOUR PILOTS HOME, NOW!”Netanyahu appeared to heed Trump’s warning at the time, as the fragile cease-fire appeared to hold and the Israeli leader’s friendship with Trump seemed stronger than ever. But as the Trump Administration may be tiring of focusing attention on addressing issues created by Israel, whether Netanyahu will again come near or even cross a red line for Trump remains an open question.

Mehdi Hasan is “one of the most formidable debaters and interviewers of our times,” the debate-hosting company Intelligence Squared said of the British-American journalist in 2023. Hasan rose to fame on both sides of the Atlantic for his confrontational interviews of politicians and public figures, often advocating a left-of-center view on Al Jazeera, BBC, The Intercept, MSNBC, and now his own Substack site Zeteo.

But the author of a book titled Win Every Argument has also spoken about when not to take part in a debate. “There are certain people who there is no point arguing with,” he said in 2023, pointing specifically to those who operate in bad faith. “It’s pointless. It doesn’t go anywhere.”

It may have come as a surprise then to many of Hasan’s fans to see him arguing less against alternative facts than against self-proclaimed fascists on the latest episode of Jubilee Media’s Surrounded.

The one-versus-many debate web series has repeatedly gone viral since its premiere in September, featuring episodes from “Can 25 Liberal College Students Outsmart 1 Conservative?” to “Can 1 Woke Teen Survive 20 Trump Supporters?” and “Can 1 Cop Defend Himself Against 20 Criminals?”

Hasan appeared as the titular progressive in the 100-minute “1 Progressive vs 20 Far-Right Conservatives,” which has garnered more than 3.5 million views and counting on YouTube since it was posted on Sunday and millions more views of clips shared on social media.

But Hasan was the first to admit that he didn’t expect what he would encounter.

“You can see my shock when they start expressing their views openly,” Hasan posted on X in response to a critic who suggested he eagerly signed up to debate “a bunch of nazis.”

According to Zeteo, Jubilee Media “chose the participants, with Mehdi meeting them for the first time in the studio itself.”

Hasan, whose supporters have showered him with praise for his performance, claimed in the final minutes of the program, during which participants assessed the debate, that he was both taken aback but also unsurprised by the extreme views he met: “I thought it would be an interesting exercise in trying to understand what genuine far-right conservative folks think. And it was kind of disturbing to see that they think what I thought they think, and they were happy to say it out loud. I am disappointed that I had to sit across from people who believe in white genocide, who believe I’m not a citizen. … The people here today were way beyond conservative.”

While Hasan admitted he likes to debate “even people I disagree with,” he reiterated that he tries to “avoid bad faith folks” and said, “I think some of the folks today were bad faith.” He also seemed to criticize Jubilee’s airing of such extreme views, adding: “Free speech doesn’t mean you need to give credibility or oxygen or a platform to people who don’t agree in human equality.”

“This is open authoritarianism, and this is what is being normalized and mainstreamed in our country, by people in power, by the media, by people who don’t know any better,” Hasan said.

But some observers online have suggested that Hasan himself should have known better about what he signed up for.

“The fix is in”

Jubilee Media says its mission is to “provoke understanding” and “create human connection.” And, according to its website, “We believe discomfort and conflict are pivotal forces in creating human connection.” The company has since 2017 produced a number of web series on dating, identity, politics, and more.

“We want to show what discourse can and should look like. Sometimes it can be unproductive but other times it can be quite productive and empathetic,” founder Jason Y. Lee told Variety in late 2024 for an article about Surrounded, which according to the article has a goal to “promote open dialogue,” for which Jubilee sees itself as a neutral host. “We try our best to be as unbiased as possible when it comes to the political sphere,” said Lee.

For the most part, Jubilee’s debate series appears to be unmoderated, governed primarily by the participants themselves, with occasional on-screen fact-checks provided by billionaire Joe Ricketts’ media startup Straight Arrow News.

But critics have questioned the company’s supposedly noble aspirations. “Jubilee Media mines the nation’s deepest disagreements for rowdy viral videos. But is all the arguing changing anyone’s mind?” the Atlantic asked in January. 

Media reporter Julia Alexander suggested on X that the program’s producers are the ones operating in bad faith. “Jubilee Media’s done it again: taking 20 people with extremist views and putting them into a 90 minute video knowing that they’ll say extreme things and get an extreme amount of attention,” she posted on Sunday after the Hasan episode. They’ve figured out, Alexander added, “how to monetize the very essence of the internet.”

Filmmaker and entrepreneur Minh Do posted that Jubilee’s producers “are mainly interested in clickbait views and incendiary clips that don’t lead anyone to think any deeper about these topics” rather than any sense of responsibility to the public. “Senseless conversation purely for views.”

“It only takes watching a couple clips of these to see that the fix is in,” posted podcaster Alex Goldman.

Writer and disability rights advocate Imani Barbarin, who shared in March that she turned down an invitation from Jubilee to appear in a Surrounded episode about feminism, posted a video Monday in which she decried how she believed the debate-style program was made for viral moments, not serious engagement.

“That very same debate where Mehdi Hasan was standing up to 20 fascists or whatever, where you all think he won, is being cut up and chopped up across the internet to present it as though he lost,” Barbarin said. Indeed, one only needs to scroll through the social media pages of some of the participants to see them taking victory laps and their supporters praising their performances.

“This,” Barbarin emphasized, “is what the memeification of politics looks like in practice.”

The Trump Administration on Monday released a trove of FBI documents related to the 1968 assassination of Martin Luther King Jr., ending a court-ordered seal that had kept the documents out of public view since they were collected by the FBI in 1977.

The release includes more than 230,000 pages of records detailing the FBI’s investigation into King’s assassination, including internal bureau memos, foreign intelligence cables, and previously unpublished material related to James Earl Ray, the man who pleaded guilty to King’s assassination before recanting.

It was not immediately clear if the documents would reveal any new information about King’s murder or his life.

King’s family released a statement on Monday urging the public to view the files “within their full historical context,” noting the personal nature of the matter. They also reiterated their belief that Ray was not solely responsible for King’s death.

“As the children of Dr. King and Mrs. Coretta Scott King, his tragic death has been an intensely personal grief—a devastating loss for his wife, children, and the granddaughter he never met — an absence our family has endured for over 57 years,” they wrote in a statement reviewed by The Associated Press. “We ask those who engage with the release of these files to do so with empathy, restraint, and respect for our family’s continuing grief.”

In a statement, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard described the release as a “historic step” that fulfills President Donald Trump’s Executive Order issued in January that directed agencies to declassify and publish assassination records related to King, President John F. Kennedy, and Senator Robert F. Kennedy.

“The American people have waited nearly sixty years to see the full scope of the federal government’s investigation into Dr. King’s assassination,” Gabbard said. “Under President Trump’s leadership, we are ensuring that no stone is left unturned in our mission to deliver complete transparency on this pivotal and tragic event in our nation’s history. I extend my deepest appreciation to the King family for their support.”

The files were originally not scheduled for public release until 2027, 50 years after they were put under court-ordered seal.

King was assassinated on April 4, 1968, while visiting Memphis. In the lead-up to his death, he had increasingly turned his focus toward economic justice and opposition to the Vietnam War, drawing heightened scrutiny from political leaders and law enforcement. Then-FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover authorized an aggressive campaign of wiretaps, hotel room bugs, and disinformation intended to discredit King and undermine the civil rights movement.

Though Ray pleaded guilty to the assassination, he later tried to withdraw the plea and insisted he was not involved. Members of King’s family have long expressed doubts about Ray’s role, with Coretta Scott King and others publicly calling for a broader investigation into possible government involvement. A Justice Department inquiry concluded in 2000 that there was no evidence to support those assertions.

The Southern Christian Leadership Conference, which King co-founded in 1957, opposed the release, arguing that the FBI illegally surveilled King and other civil rights figures.

The timing of the MLK files’ release has raised questions, as the Trump Administration is currently facing pressure over its refusal to release additional files related to the federal investigation into Jeffrey Epstein, the disgraced financier and convicted sex offender who died in custody in 2019. Trump last week ordered the release of limited grand jury testimony but declined to unseal the full case file, prompting frustration among his supporters.

President Donald Trump’s decision to direct Attorney General Pam Bondi to release grand jury testimony in the Jeffrey Epstein case was intended to appease his political base after he had called them “stupid” for demanding the files to be released. But a group of House Republicans and right-wing influencers is arguing that they will accept nothing short of the federal government releasing everything it has on Epstein’s network and any high-profile connections.

The dispute has opened a rare and unusually public rift within Trump’s MAGA movement, as some of his most vocal allies accuse the Administration of falling short of its promises. Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky is leading a bipartisan effort with Democrat Ro Khanna of California to force a vote on legislation requiring the full release of Epstein-related government files. At least 10 other House Republicans have endorsed the measure, including longtime Trump allies Reps. Marjorie Taylor Greene and Lauren Boebert. That’s enough Republicans to pass the bill out of the House if every Democrat supports it.

But Republican leaders are closing ranks behind Trump. On Monday, House Speaker Mike Johnson ruled out bringing Massie’s bill to the floor before the upcoming August recess. “There is no daylight between the House Republicans and the President on maximum transparency,” Johnson told reporters. “He has said he wants all the credible files related to Epstein to be released… My belief is we need the Administration to have the space to do what it is doing.”

Pressed on whether the House would vote before recess, Johnson replied: “No.”

Massie and others aren’t backing down. Responding to a social media post from podcast host Theo Von asking why the bill can’t be brought up now, Massie wrote: “We should not punt this until after the 5-week recess, nor should we wait for my discharge petition to ripen and collect the required signatures to force the vote.”

Despite Trump’s insistence that the issue is overblown, a recent CBS News poll found that 89% of Americans—including majorities across party lines—believe the Justice Department should release all documents related to Epstein.

These are the 11 House Republicans who have backed the resolution to compel the full release of Epstein-related documents:

Thomas Massie—Kentucky’s 4th District

The libertarian from rural Kentucky has been a frequent foil to the Trump Administration, and he’s leading the charge along with Democratic Rep. Khanna to force Congress to vote on publicizing Epstein-related records. “We all deserve to know what’s in the Epstein files, who’s implicated, and how deep this corruption goes,” he wrote on social media. “Americans were promised justice and transparency.”

After Bondi said on Thursday that the Justice Department would move to release grand jury transcripts, Massie said: “Folks, Keep the pressure on, it’s working. But we want all the files.”

Trump’s allies recently launched a Super PAC to oust Massie, who is up for re-election next year and opposed the President’s domestic policy bill.

Marjorie Taylor Greene—Georgia’s 14th District

The firebrand Republican has been one of Trump’s most ardent supporters on Capitol Hill since her election in 2021. But on Monday, she appeared to warn Trump that his supporters would no longer stand behind him if the Department of Justice does not release more information on Epstein. 

“If you tell the base of people, who support you, of deep state treasonous crimes, election interference, blackmail, and rich powerful elite evil cabals, then you must take down every enemy of The People,” Greene posted to social media. “If not,” she continued, “The base will turn and there’s no going back. Dangling bits of red meat no longer satisfies. They want the whole steak dinner and will accept nothing else.”

Tim Burchett—Tennessee’s 2nd District

Burchett has continued to urge the Department of Justice to release evidence in the Epstein case. On Sunday, he called Trump’s decision to direct the DOJ to unseal grand jury evidence “a start” but warned the full truth may never come out. “I don’t think we’re ever going to get to the bottom of … all of it, Ma’am,” Burchett said on ABC’s This Week. “You know, this town doesn’t give up its secrets very easy.” 

Asked if Bondi should resign over her handling of the Epstein case, Burchett said: “I have a saying: It’s not how you start, it’s how you finish. If she finishes strong on this, then I’m all for it,” Burchett said. “I’m sure the learning curve is steep, and I think she blundered in the beginning, I really do, as most Americans do.”

Eric Burlison—Missouri’s 7th District

Burlison, a member of the House Oversight Committee, has urged Trump to go beyond releasing grand jury testimony, warning that such testimony may cover only a narrow slice of the case and omit critical evidence. “He needs to direct Pam Bondi to release everything they possibly can,” Burlison said in an interview with the Daily Signal. “And if you don’t have the answers, go find them. Dedicate resources to investigate it.”

Burlison has also called for congressional hearings that give victims a platform and suggested Trump consider appointing a special prosecutor to probe the Epstein case.

On Monday, he posted on social media: “From the JFK files to the Russian collusion hoax, it’s clear the deep state likes to hide the truth from the American people. Uncovering the truth about Epstein needs to be a priority as well.”

Lauren Boebert—Colorado’s 4th District

Boebert last week said that Trump should appoint a special counsel to investigate the Epstein case, suggesting that former House Republican Matt Gaetz should lead the investigation. “I think moving forward, we need a special counsel,” Boebert said, offering up Gaetz’s name. “There has to be a special investigation into this if we aren’t going to be provided information.” (Gaetz was Trump’s original pick for Attorney General before his candidacy was marred by allegations that he had paid for sex with a minor, which Gaetz denies).

The White House on Thursday said that Trump did not support the appointment of a special counsel.

Jeff Van Drew—New Jersey’s 2nd District

The former Democrat from New Jersey joined the Republican Party in 2019 during his first term in Congress. He has co-sponsored Massie’s resolution calling for the release of Epstein records. “The American people deserve full transparency,” Van Drew said in a post. 

Eli Crane—Arizona’s 2nd District

Crane, who has served in the House since 2023, also signed onto the resolution forcing the Epstein files to be released, telling Axios that it’s “something that I’ve supported from day one.”

“I think there needs to be transparency, and I’m glad to see that this is bipartisan because it should be,” he said.

Cory Mills—Florida’s 7th District

Mills, an Army Veteran who joined the House in 2023, co-sponsored the resolution last Wednesday, but has not publicly commented on the Epstein case.

Tom Barrett—Michigan’s 7th District

The Michigan Republican said that he co-sponsored the resolution because “there are too many questions and not enough answers about the Epstein files.”

“I agree that it’s time to release them, which is why I put my name on a resolution to force their release and give the American people the transparency they deserve,” he wrote on X.

Max Miller—Ohio’s 7th District

Miller, who has served in the House since 2023, said he co-sponsored the resolution because “I believe in transparency and delivering the truth to the American people.”  

Nancy Mace—South Carolina’s 1st District

The South Carolina Republican, who is considering a run for governor, gave a speech on the House floor in Febraury accusing four men—including her ex-fiancé—of rape, sex trafficking and other sex crimes against her. She has said she wants the Epstein files to be released and called on “any one who raped underage girls [to be] in handcuffs and behind bars.”

“I’ve always been an advocate for women and children,” she said in a social post. “The Jeffrey Epstein case is no different. I want to see arrests.”

This article is part of The D.C. Brief, TIME’s politics newsletter. Sign up here to get stories like this sent to your inbox.

Over the weekend, a lot of institutional Washington suddenly and enthusiastically discovered James Talarico, a seminary student and member of the Texas state House. The find came during an impressive outing for the 36-year-old Democrat on Joe Rogan’s podcast in which the aspiring preacher espoused the same brand of sharp sound bytes that has earned him almost a million TikTok followers. Over more than two hours, Talarico explained to Rogan why a Texas law requiring the posting of the Ten Commandments in public school classrooms is “un-Christian,” the coming political fights won’t be about Left or Right but rather the top and the bottom of society, and how both parties get it wrong when they treat politicians like Messianic figures.

“James Talarico, you need to run for President,” Rogan said. “We need someone who is actually a good person.”

Still, Talarico’s sudden place in the imagination of D.C.’s elites is not entirely unwarranted. He is seen as a dark-horse candidate to challenge Sen. John Cornyn’s already dicey re-election bid in Texas, where a scandal-soaked Attorney General Ken Paxton may plausibly land a Trump endorsement for his primary challenge. Paxton is ahead in polling and is better-liked among Texas’ MAGA base, but Cornyn, who’s held his seat since 2002 and is still a power center in the Upper Chamber, is seen as a stronger candidate in the general election. Their fight to the March primary is already getting ugly, as Paxton’s wife has recently filed for divorce “on biblical grounds,” which Cornyn cited to The Washington Post as news that “is going to tell a lot of people that there was more fire there where there was smoke.” 

Talarico might have some steps between his desk in Austin and the Resolute Desk, to be sure. Few have seen an ascent that clear-cut, although Barack Obama went from the Illinois state Senate to a national ticket in a harried four years. And the excitement the Texan is drawing might say more about the anemic state of the Democratic Party than Talarico’s national prospects. 

There is a deep reservoir of talent on the Democratic side in the Lone Star State, many of whom are champing at the bit to face a potentially bruised GOP nominee at the top of the 2026 ticket. Former Rep. Colin Allred, who lost a bid for Senate last year against incumbent Ted Cruz, said he is racing next year for the seat against Cornyn. Rep. Joaquin Castro, too, is in the mix for the race. And former Rep. Beto O’Rourke on Sunday said he was undecided on running for the Democratic nomination himself; he unsuccessfully ran for Senator in 2018, President in 2020, and Governor in 2022. “I’m very optimistic about Democrats’ opportunity in 2026,” O’Rourke said on CNN’s “State of the Union.”

Still, let’s zoom out for a minute. For close to two decades, we’ve been just one election away from Texas turning blue. The last time a Democrat won statewide in Texas was 1994—a year before Windows 95 hit the market. Texas is in a record dry spell, and there’s no point pretending otherwise.

O’Rourke is high-water mark in recent memory, and he captured 48% of the vote in his 2018 campaign. He raised $80 million and impressed even those of us who went to Texas that October with plans to slag him. And, to his credit, Cornyn is a far less divisive figure than O’Rourke’s rival in 2018, Sen. Ted Cruz.

To his credit, Talarico sounds a whole lot different than the partisan Democrats or Republicans here in Washington. 

“I think we need to start listening to Democrats who are in red and purple areas. There is something about living in a red state that makes you different from a national Democrat who lives in a blue city on the coast. I think we learn how to talk with people outside of our party in a more effective way, because it’s a matter of political survival out here,” Talarico told Rogan. “I can’t pass anything in the Texas Legislature without getting Republican support, so I’ve had to find ways to build relationships and build bridges across partisan divides as a Texas Democrat.”

Keep in mind, he is making these comments as national Democrats are weighing their own post-2024 reckoning. According to reporting over the weekend from The New York Times, their autopsy of the Joe Biden-turned-Kamala Harris Democratic ticket last year will avoid any real accounting for Biden’s decision to run or any real choices Harris made. Instead, the focus of the still-being-written report is on outside allied groups’ choices, a move that kind of avoids the point and spares the party and real accountability.

Talarico might be able to put some distance between himself and national Democrats without too much effort. His studies of theology are not natural fits in the secular Democratic identity of late. His fluency on digital platforms may mesh neatly with a relatively younger cohort of Democrats who finally seem to be meeting voters where they are on social platforms while the Old Guard clings to a playbook from the 1990s rooted in buying television ads and postcards. And Talarico is so far outside the splash zone of partisan Washington that he might just be able to stand unstained by the ugliness of this town. 

Still, that so many Democrats spent the weekend obsessing over a relatively unknown figure in Austin, who represents about 200,000 people in a deep-blue district, shows the extent of their desperation. They failed to stop Trump’s hugely unpopular tax- and spending-cuts package. They are heading into an August recess with an unhappy base and little to show for a completely shut-out-of-power reality. The midterms should be ripe for Democratic gains but the party has no one at the helm calling the shots. And there won’t be a viable leader until Democrats pick a presidential nominee for 2028. Given the uncertainty drifting toward that moment, Talarico is just as plausible as anyone—blessed by a podcaster who helped Trump win the White House and the manosphere last year. It’s long odds, but Democrats don’t exactly have a guide to firmer ground in the offing.

Make sense of what matters in Washington. Sign up for the D.C. Brief newsletter.

Texas Republicans are poised to consider new districts in a special session after President Donald Trump called for the state to redraw its congressional map to allow for the GOP to pick up seats in the midterm elections in 2026.

Trump told reporters that there are several states in which he believes Republicans can redraw districts in order to pick up seats in Congress and keep a narrow majority.

“Texas would be the biggest one,” he said on July 16. “Just a very simple redrawing, we pick up five seats.”

Republican Texas Gov. Greg Abbott put redistricting on his special session agenda for Monday. Abbott said his decision was in light of a letter he received from the Department of Justice earlier this month. The letter alleges that four of the current districts were racial gerrymanders that violate the Constitution’s 14th Amendment, thus opening the door for redistricting as a whole to be decided.

Typically, states redraw their congressional district maps every ten years to accommodate shifts in population. But in many states, lawmakers have taken to changing the lines whenever they see it as politically advantageous to help their party gain an advantage.”

The fact that Trump and Texas Republicans are currently weighing their options of redistricting in the middle of a decade is non-traditional, but not completely unheard of. But the move has, unsurprisingly, raised concerns and discussions about gerrymandering.

Read More: To End Gerrymandering, Change How We Elect Congress

California Gov. Gavin Newsom of the Democratic Party has vowed to retaliate by redistricting his own state’s 52 seats to pick up more Democratic representation.

“Trump said he’s going to steal five Congressional seats in Texas and gerrymander his way into a 2026 win. Well, two can play that game,” Newsom said via X on July 15. “Special sessions. Special elections. Ballot initiatives. New laws. It’s all on the table when democracy is on the line.”

Beyond any potential retaliation, Republicans risk a lot in redistricting, says Jay Dow, a professor of political science at the University of Missouri.

“If you cut [the margins] too thin, you can really put your own party in danger,” Dow notes. “If you make those margins too thin and you have a bad year, you can end up losing four or five seats instead of gaining them.”

This can be referred to as a “dummymander.”

Ismar Volić, a professor at Wellesley College who has done research on how mathematics can equalize redistricting, argues that Trump’s attitude towards redistricting points to how “okay everyone is” with partisan gerrymandering.

“The courts say this is politics as usual,” he says. “Anyone who cares about some kind of fairness, representation, or competitiveness in our democracy would think it’s terrible that the President is so open about it. But it’s not illegal.”

Here is what you need to know about redistricting and gerrymandering, and the difference.

What is redistricting?

Redistricting is a process of drawing the borders of districts for which representatives are elected. As states grow, they often do not grow evenly, and thus redistricting allows for states to represent population growth and racial diversity in their cities—according to the Constitution, all districts in a state must have equal population.

“We reapportion the House seats in response to the census, and so every 10 years we do the census, and that changes the number of House seats. Some states get more, some states get fewer because of internal shifts in population,” explains Dow. “Now, the legislature will have to draw the boundaries of these districts to reflect that.”

Often, this can reflect people moving from rural areas to urban areas, or from state to state. 

For example, as a result of the 2020 Census, Florida gained a seat in the House, while states including California and Illinois lost a seat.

Read More: Gerrymandering Isn’t New—But Now We Have a Solution

What is gerrymandering?

According to Richard Briffault, a professor at Columbia Law School, gerrymandering is a “pejorative” for a kind of redistricting that favors a political party, or in some cases, looks to disenfranchise a group of people.

There are two principle ways that a legislature can gerrymander for partisan purposes, says Briffault. Packing and cracking.

“With packing, you put as many of the voters of the other party into one district. Instead of the voters being equally spread around so they get an influence on a lot of places, they are in one district,” Briffault says.

Whereas with cracking, those creating maps would split a voting bloc—be that a specific party affiliation or a certain demographic—across multiple districts to dilute voting power, making it difficult for them to elect their preferred candidates.

Briffault says in a scenario where Republicans would try to use cracking in a district with a lot of Democrats, they could “carve it up into multiple districts and make [Democrats] the minority in several other districts, so that they’re dispersed and they’re never going to be the dominant force in any one district.”

There are several tells, Briffault says, that a district has been gerrymandered. But it tends to be a hard legal battle as it’s not always clear-cut. In fact, courts will often disagree on whether a district has been gerrymandered.

Briffault says that if the process is done entirely by one party with no input from another party, it is more likely to be gerrymandering. If it is done mid-cycle, rather than based on new population data, then that’s another warning sign. Lastly, experts recommend looking to the shape of the states. Districts drawn with “odd shapes” to capture some “small group” is also “evidence of gerrymandering,” according to Briffault.

Recognizing the difference between partisan and racial gerrymandering

Experts emphasize the difference in legality between partisan gerrymandering and racial gerrymandering. 

The Supreme Court ruled in the 2019 case “Rucho v. Common Cause” that partisan gerrymandering is not subject to a federal court review, because they present non-“justiciable” political questions that lie outside of the court’s jurisdiction.

“In a handful of states, there are limits on gerrymandering, or there are special procedures for redistricting that make gerrymandering more difficult, but as a matter of federal law, the Supreme Court said it’s not unconstitutional,” Briffault says.

Volić calls this court case a “watershed” moment in redistricting. As such, people trying to detect partisan gerrymandering can “only rely on” state supreme court or state judicial systems. He argues these judicial systems are “often faulty because they have been appointed by state legislature,” the same body that is likely working on the redistricting.

In terms of racial gerrymandering, the Supreme Court has said that this can be challenged. 

Dow points to the 2023 Supreme Court decision that claimed Alabama’s redistricting was not “simply a partisan gerrymander” by Republicans but actually a “racial gerrymander,” and those district lines were subject to revision.

Though Black Alabamians accounted for around 30% of the state at the time, they could only elect one of their preferred candidates in the state’s seven districts, according to the Brennan Center for Justice. When the Republican-controlled legislature failed to create a second district in which the Black population had a fair shot, a federal court created one, which eventually led to the state’s election of Democratic Rep. Shomari Figures.

Although acknowledging the difference, Volić says the line between “partisan” and “racial” gerrymandering tends to be “thin,” and in order for courts to tell states that they need to redistrict fairly, “you have to argue that the line has been crossed.”

In 2024, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of South Carolina Republicans, arguing that what a lower court said was a racial gerrymander that diluted the African American vote was, in fact, a partisan gerrymander.

Just this past week, the Florida Supreme Court, which is dominated by appointees hand-picked by the state’s Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis, upheld a congressional district map that eliminated a majority-Black district in north Florida, which DeSantis had chopped up following the 2020 census, dispersing the Black population into four different majority white districts.

Volić says the last 20 years have been “terrible for gerrymandering,” though he points to some progress, such as efforts to place redistricting in the hands of independent commissions and the role of mathematicians in recent years to create congressional maps that “rationally” create districts “detached from politics and partisanship.”

The issue is convincing legislatures to give up their power, and to do so in a timely manner, even if the courts have ruled that a district has been unfairly gerrymandered.

The judicial system is “tectonically slow moving,” Volić says, and while parties argue it at the court level, the U.S. continues to “conduct elections in these terrible maps.”

“Even if the final outcome is favorable to minorities or whoever is being disenfranchised, the damage has already been done in many ways,” Volić argues. “This is a system that’s very conducive to taking power away in a nefarious way.”

Protesters across the United Kingdom are rallying ahead of President Donald Trump’s upcoming visits.

In what has been referred to as an “unprecedented” honor by U.K. Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer, Trump is set to enjoy a second state visit to the U.K. in September, where he will be hosted by King Charles III and Queen Camilla at Windsor Castle. 

But Trump will be travelling across the Atlantic sooner than that, as he’s set to visit Scotland between July 25-29, where he’s scheduled to have private meetings with both Starmer and Scottish First Minister John Swinney. 

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt has confirmed that Trump will be visiting Turnberry in Scotland, where he owns a hotel and golf course. The trip will also include a stop in Aberdeen, a northern Scottish town close to his other golf course, the Trump International Golf Links.

The President has family links to Scotland, as his mother Mary Anne MacLeod was born and raised on the Scottish isle of Lewis. Trump announced in June that he plans to open a memorial garden in her memory, including a centerpiece tribute made of stone imported from Lewis.

“The Scottish people, they’re tough people. They’re good people. Actually, they’re very great people. But they’re good fighters,” Trump said on the Flagrant podcast last year.

While Trump has expressed excitement over his state visit, in particular, there are already protests taking place against his trips.

Read More: What to Know About Trump’s Second State Visit to the U.K.—and How the Nation Rebelled Against His First

The sentiment echoes the discontent some expressed when Trump attended a tea with Queen Elizabeth II at Windsor Castle in July 2018, before he returned to London the following year for his first state visit at Buckingham Palace. (Trump will be hosted at Windsor for his second state visit, as Buckingham Palace is currently undergoing renovations.)

Protesters lined the streets against both of Trump’s visits, but it was his state visit in 2019 that made worldwide news, as the President engaged in a war of words with Mayor of London Sadiq Khan prior to the trip. When he arrived in June 2019, Trump was greeted by thousands of protesters, who were accompanied by a giant “Baby Trump” balloon which depicted Trump as a baby wearing a diaper.

Trump has recently faced protesters in the United States, with rallies taking place across the country on June 14 when Trump hosted a national military parade on what happened to also be his birthday. He was the subject of further anti-Trump Administration protests on July 4.

In the U.K., some demonstrators have got a head-start on their rebellious acts.

Here’s what we know about the planned actions against Trump’s U.K. visits and the acts of protest already in progress.

A picture of Trump with Jeffrey Epstein has been placed nearby the U.S. embassy in London

An image of Trump alongside disgraced financier and convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein was installed at a bus stop in Nine Elms, London, near the U.S. Embassy last week.

The political campaign group Everyone Hates Elon posted a video of the image being installed, saying: “It would be such a shame for Donald if this photo of Trump with Jeffrey Epstein appeared absolutely everywhere on his tour of the U.K. It would truly be such a huge shame if everyone donated to make that happen.” 

Trump’s relationship history with Epstein is once again under major scrutiny, especially with calls for more transparency regarding the case coming from both within and outside the MAGA base.

The Wall Street Journal published an article on July 17 that alleged Trump had written a “bawdy” birthday note to Epstein in 2003. The message was said to have included a drawing of a naked woman, followed by a note that read: “Happy Birthday—and may every day be another wonderful secret.” Trump has denied writing the message, and has since taken legal action against the publication.

Meanwhile, the Trump Administration has requested that the grand jury records related to the 2019 indictment of Epstein be released. But it’s a process that could take weeks, months, or years, if the courts approve it. Furthermore, it has done little to settle the calls for transparency, as people continue to call for the release of the Department of Justice’s Epstein files.

Read More: Trump Administration Requests Release of Epstein Grand Jury Files. What Happens Next?

A “Twinned with Epstein Island” sign is placed at Trump’s golf course in Scotland

In another video posted to social media, the Everyone Hates Elon group once again made reference to Epstein. A sign that reads “Twinned with Epstein Island” was placed under the “Trump International Golf Links” placard at the President’s golf course in Aberdeen, Scotland.

Epstein owned the Little Saint James Island in the United States Virgin Islands, and the location became somewhat synonymous with his crimes. There has been much speculation as to who may have visited the island as a guest of Epstein.

Speaking to reporters in 2019, Trump said he had “never” been to the island, and urged them instead to query if former President Bill Clinton had.

“The question you have to ask is, did Bill Clinton go to the island? Because Epstein had an island. That was not a good place, as I understand it, and I was never there.” Trump said. “So you have to ask, did Bill Clinton go to the island? That’s the question. If you find that out, you’re going to know a lot.”

Clinton, who has acknowledged being a former associate of Epstein but has vehemently denied knowledge of his crimes, denied visiting the island.

The Stop Trump Coalition protests in Scotland

The Stop Trump Coalition has announced planned protests in both Aberdeen and the Scottish capital, Edinburgh, for Saturday July 26th. A member of the coalition, Tommy Campbell, has said that the group also plans to lay out an unwelcoming message on the coastline for Trump when he arrives in Aberdeen.

“We anticipate he will be flying in, possibly on a helicopter. We’ll make sure from the air that he will see our presence,” Campbell told the Huffington Post.

The Aberdeen protests have been described by the group as a “festival of resistance.”

“The people of Scotland don’t want to roll out a welcome mat for Trump, whose government is accelerating the spread of climate breakdown and fascism around the world,” a spokesperson for the organization said in a statement.

“Even if Keir Starmer bends the knee to Trump, John Swinney should stand with the people of Scotland and say ‘no’ to a humiliating photo opportunity with the leader of the international far-right,” the statement continued, referencing the First Minister of Scotland.

Police in Scotland are making significant preparations in anticipation of the President’s visit and the subsequent protests set to take place.

The head of the Scottish Police Federation has said: “This is a huge policing event for Scotland and we will require mutual aid because of the huge demand on my colleagues. This is already a difficult time for Police Scotland as they are trying to organise and deliver this at short notice during a period of high annual leave.”

Read More: ‘Free America’: Anti-Trump Administration Protests Take Place Across U.S. on July 4

The Stop Trump Coalition protest in London

The Stop Trump Coalition has also organized a march for Sept. 17, to coincide with Trump’s state visit.

Whilst Trump will stay at Windsor Castle, roughly 25 miles west of London, is it possible that he will visit the capital, too. The march in protest of his visit is set to begin at 5 p.m., local time.

During Trump’s last state visit in 2019, protests in London included a large balloon depicting a “Baby Trump” that has since been gifted to the Museum of London.

Up to 250,000 people were estimated to have taken part in the protest, with the Stop Trump Coalition group predicting an even larger turnout come September.

“This time it will be even bigger, uniting campaigners across a huge range of issues. We are confident that the disgust at Donald Trump is just as strong across the country,” said spokesperson Zoe Gardner.

A nationwide Youth Walkout Against Trump

As part of the Youth Walkout Against Trump demonstration, participating students are set to walk out of colleges and universities across the U.K. in protest of his visit. Hundreds of people have already signed up, according to Socialist Students, the organizers of the protest.

Adam Gillman, the group’s national organizer, said: “We can send a powerful message to young people and workers in America that we stand with them against Trump—not with Starmer, who issued the invite for this state visit.”

Lauren, a student from the Welsh town of Wrexham, said of her intention to be involved in the protest: “These walkouts are a chance to stand up to Trump, as well as our government who welcome him with open arms, and all other leaders who uphold this corrupt system.”

Donald Trump, who openly campaigned in 2016 against Hillary Clinton on chants of “lock her up” but was ultimately persuaded to not pursue her prosecution, now appears to be fantasizing about throwing his predecessor, former President Barack Obama, in jail. And his Administration is actively taking steps in that direction.

The current President shared on his Truth Social platform on Sunday a video from TikTok user @neo8171 that starts with a montage of Democratic politicians, including Obama, saying, “No one is above the law,” to the tune of Luciano Michelini’s “Frolic” (made famous as the theme song of sitcom Curb Your Enthusiasm). After about 40 seconds, the soundtrack changes to the Village People’s “Y.M.C.A.,” as apparently AI-generated video depicts Trump and Obama sitting in the Oval Office and FBI officers handcuffing Obama while Trump smiles and laughs. It ends with an AI-generated depiction of Obama pacing around a jail cell.

Trump also shared an AI-generated image attributed to X user @sirtemplemount that showed fake mugshots of Obama and officials from his Administration with the words “The Shady Bunch.”

And the President shared a screenshot from X of user @Real_JaredMarsh, who responded to a clip of Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R, Fla.) saying on Fox News that “there needs to be criminal prosecution and arrests.” Marsh posted, “I agree with @RepLuna!” alongside an image of men being arrested outside the U.S. Capitol with the words “Unless this happens, nothing will change” overlaid on the image.

Trump’s posts come after his Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, a former Democrat turned MAGA Republican, on Friday announced that she was turning over evidence of an “Obama Administration Conspiracy to Subvert Trump’s 2016 Victory and Presidency” to the Department of Justice “for criminal referral.” 

“President Obama and his national security cabinet members manufactured and politicized intelligence to lay the groundwork for what was essentially a years-long coup against President Trump,” she alleged in a DNI press release.

What Tulsi Gabbard claims about Obama officials

Gabbard’s office declassified a number of documents and released a memo outlining a timeline of alleged information “manipulated and withheld” by the U.S. Intelligence Community beginning in 2016. In a series of social media posts summarizing her findings, she said the documents “detail a treasonous conspiracy by officials at the highest levels of the Obama White House to subvert the will of the American people and try to usurp the President from fulfilling his mandate.”

The announcement backs Trump’s longtime contention that he was the victim of a “witch hunt,” which the President has previously dubbed the “Russiagate hoax.”

Gabbard’s announcement comes after Fox News reported earlier this month that the FBI is investigating its former director James Comey as well as former CIA director John Brennan for possible false statements to Congress after current CIA director John Ratcliffe released a review in June that was critical of a 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment that claimed Russia attempted to influence the 2016 election to help Trump.

Intelligence agencies in 2017 had assessed that “Russia’s goals were to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency.”

Gabbard alleges that Obama Administration officials leaked false statements to media outlets and manufactured information for the 2017 assessment. Gabbard’s office asserts that there was “no indication of a Russian threat to directly manipulate the actual vote count,” though the earlier assessment never suggested that.

Gabbard’s report is based on newly-declassified intelligence assessments and internal communications prior to the 2016 election that assessed that Russia and other foreign adversaries would “probably not” try to influence the election through cyber means, as well as emails concerning an intelligence assessment at Obama’s request after Trump’s victory in November 2016 into “tools Moscow used and actions it took to influence the 2016 election.” The Obama Administration openly accused Russia of trying to influence the election through hacking campaigns, including of the DNC, in October 2016, and it was publicly reported in early 2017 that Obama Administration officials had scrambled to preserve evidence related to the then-ongoing probe of Russian interference and potential coordination with Trump and his associates.

“This was politicized intelligence that was used as the basis for countless smears seeking to delegitimize President Trump’s victory, the years-long Mueller investigation, two Congressional impeachments, high level officials being investigated, arrested, and thrown in jail, heightened US-Russia tensions, and more,” Gabbard’s office said. 

“It’s worse than even politicization of intelligence. It was manufactured intelligence that sought to achieve President Obama and his team’s objective, which was undermining President Trump’s presidency and subverting the will of the American people. So, yes, next week we will be releasing more detailed information about how this took place and the extent to which this information was sought to be hidden,” Gabbard told Fox News on Sunday, in a clip that was also shared by Trump. “For the American people to have any sense of trust in the integrity of our democratic republic, accountability, action, prosecution, indictments for those who were responsible for trying to steal our democracy is essential for us to make sure that this never happens to our country again.”

How Republicans have reacted

Fox News called Gabbard’s announcement “a potential blockbuster scandal,” and Trump shared the clip alongside the latter two words in all caps. A number of Trump allies have also supported Gabbard’s declassifications and call for prosecutions.

“This is potentially Watergate-esque,” Rep. Pat Fallon (R, Texas) told the right-leaning news network over the weekend.

“Makes Watergate look like amateur hour,” Rep. Pat Harrigan (R, N.C.) posted on X.

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt boosted Gabbard’s posts on X, writing “Every American should read this.”

White House deputy chief of staff for policy Stephen Miller said in a post on X that Gabbard “exposed the startling depths of a seditious coup against the Republic. The forces behind this coup have done and will do anything to protect their grasp on illegal & illegitimate power. Do not underestimate their capabilities or depravities. But WE are stronger.”

“These tyrants are finally being called out for what they’ve done,” Sen. Mike Lee (R, Utah) posted on X. “The Russiagate hoax was a far more effective attack on our republic & our elections than any foreign adversary could have managed. Those who sold this lie to the American people became the very same villains they invented,” he added from his official account.

“The corruption runs deep in the Swamp. Thank goodness we have a President and administration committed to truth and accountability,” posted Rep. Troy Nehls (R, Texas).

“EVERYONE involved must be held to account,” Rep. Andy Biggs (R, Ariz.) posted. Added Rep. Greg Steube (R, Fla.): “This is only the beginning. Much more will be revealed.”

How Democrats have reacted

Democrats have criticized the report as misleading and politically motivated. Rep. Jim Himes of Connecticut, the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, called the report “baseless” and an attempt to rehash “decade-old false claims about the Obama Administration.”

“Few episodes in our nation’s history have been investigated as thoroughly as the Intelligence Community’s warning in 2016 that Russia was interfering in the election,” Himes said in a statement. “Every legitimate investigation, including the bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee investigation, found no evidence of politicization and endorsed the findings of the 2016 Intelligence Community Assessment.”

Himes referred to a Republican-led Senate report in 2020 that agreed with the 2017 findings of Russian influence. That report was backed by now-Secretary of State Marco Rubio and found “no evidence” of collusion between Trump and the Russian government in the 2016 election but did find “irrefutable evidence of Russian meddling.” There have been several other reviews since 2017 that also backed the assessment. Even the CIA report last month that criticized the 2017 assessment as rushed and potentially biased did not dispute the assessment’s conclusion that Russia favored Trump in the 2016 election.

Himes also seemed to suggest that the report is an effort to distract from controversy rocking the Trump Administration surrounding Trump’s links to convicted sex offender and alleged sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein. “It’s a day that ends with ‘y’ and Donald Trump desperately wants to change the subject,” Himes said in his statement.

Himes told CBS News that he doubted any charges against Obama Administration officials would actually come, saying: “They won’t, because there’s not a judge in the land—not a single judge—who will treat this with anything other than laughter that will be heard from the Atlantic to the Pacific.” Himes related the outrage Republicans are now ginning up among their supporters over alleged “treason” to the conspiracy theories Republicans had previously fanned about Epstein before Trump and his Administration told them the case was closed and to move on. “This is Epstein all over again.”

Read More: Why Trump Can’t Put Out the Epstein Fire He Helped Ignite

Sen. Mark Warner of Virginia, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Community, told the New York Times: “This is one more example of the Director of National Intelligence trying to cook the books.” He added that a March Intelligence Community report “acknowledged that Russia’s effort to meddle goes on. That was an assessment under [Gabbard’s] watch.”

“Moscow probably believes information operations efforts to influence U.S. elections are advantageous, regardless of whether they affect election outcomes, because reinforcing doubt in the integrity of the U.S. electoral system achieves one of its core objectives,” the annual threat assessment had said.

“It is sadly not surprising that DNI Gabbard, who promised to depoliticize the intelligence community,” Warner said in a statement, “is once again weaponizing her position to amplify the President’s election conspiracy theories.”

“Our country has far bigger problems! FOCUS on them, not nonsense,” Donald Trump tweeted in 2013. Then-President Barack Obama, Trump said, “should not be telling” Washington, D.C.’s NFL team “to change their name.”

But now, there is a need to focus on the nonsense, it seems. As President Trump continues to try to turn attention away from scrutinizing his relationship with the late alleged sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein, he posted twice on his Truth Social platform on Sunday about the name of the football franchise in the nation’s capital as well as that of the MLB team in Cleveland, Ohio.

“The Washington ‘Whatever’s’ should IMMEDIATELY change their name back to the Washington Redskins Football Team,” he posted. “There is a big clamoring for this. Likewise, the Cleveland Indians, one of the six original baseball teams, with a storied past. Our great Indian people, in massive numbers, want this to happen. Their heritage and prestige is systematically being taken away from them. Times are different now than they were three or four years ago. We are a Country of passion and common sense. OWNERS, GET IT DONE!!!”

In a follow-up, Trump added: “I may put a restriction on them that if they don’t change the name back to the original ‘Washington Redskins,’ and get rid of the ridiculous moniker, ‘Washington Commanders,’ I won’t make a deal for them to build a Stadium in Washington. The Team would be much more valuable, and the Deal would be more exciting for everyone. Cleveland should do the same with the Cleveland Indians. The Owner of the Cleveland Baseball Team, Matt Dolan, who is very political, has lost three Elections in a row because of that ridiculous name change. What he doesn’t understand is that if he changed the name back to the Cleveland Indians, he might actually win an Election. Indians are being treated very unfairly. MAKE INDIANS GREAT AGAIN (MIGA)!”

(Dolan, a Republican who served five years in the Ohio House of Representatives and eight years in the state senate and whose father purchased the Cleveland baseball team in 2000, ran unsuccessfully for U.S. Senate in 2022 and 2024.)

Amid widespread concern about social injustices across the U.S. in 2020, both the Washington Redskins and Cleveland Indians decided to change their controversial names out of respect for Native Americans. Washington became the Washington Football Team that year, and in 2022 adopted the name the Washington Commanders, while the Cleveland Indians transitioned to its current name, the Cleveland Guardians, in 2021.

Read More: A Linguist’s Analysis of the Redskins Defense

Trump was never a fan of the name changes, tweeting in 2020: “They name teams out of STRENGTH, not weakness, but now the Washington Redskins & Cleveland Indians, two fabled sports franchises, look like they are going to be changing their names in order to be politically correct. Indians, like Elizabeth Warren, must be very angry right now!”

(Sen. Warren, a Massachusetts Democrat, has been mocked by Trump and other Republicans for her claims of Cherokee ancestry.)

Trump’s urging of the sports organizations to reverse their rebrandings comes as his second-term Administration has targeted diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives in both the public and private sector.

Speaking to reporters Sunday, Guardians’ president of baseball operations Chris Antonetti said, “We understand there are different perspectives on the decision we made a few years ago but obviously it’s a decision we made. We’ve got the opportunity to build a brand as the Guardians over the last 4 years and are excited about the future.”

The Commanders did not immediately issue a statement, but earlier this year, controlling owner Josh Harris said his team had no plans to change its name again. “In this building, the name Commanders means something,” Harris said during a February press conference. “It’s about players who love football, are great at football, hit hard, mentally tough, great teammates.”

It’s unclear whether Trump has the authority to upend a deal that the Commanders and D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser announced in April to return the team in 2030 to its former home at the capital’s Robert F. Kennedy Memorial Stadium after having moved to Landover, Md., in 1997.

Amid years of discussions about redeveloping the storied-but-defunct sports and events campus, Trump’s predecessor, Joe Biden, signed into law in January a bill that transferred the land of the RFK Stadium from federal to local control for the next 99 years.

Still, earlier this month, as some members of the D.C. Council expressed skepticism about the timeline and financing of the mayor’s deal with the Commanders, Trump suggested he could intervene if the council doesn’t approve it. “It’s a very important piece of property. It’s a great piece of property,” Trump said, referring to the RFK Stadium site, “You know, ultimately we control that. The federal government ultimately controls it, so we’ll see what happens.”