The Dictatorship
Democrats toe a line on Israel as AIPAC’s grip on Congress starts to slip
For decades, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee operated as the quiet enforcer of a bipartisan consensus: Politicians of both parties supported Israel — AIPAC made sure of it — and the U.S.-Israel relationship was widely understood to be a non-issue in campaigns.
That arrangement publicly ruptured this week with a House floor vote that split Democrats, including their leadership, on whether to cut off military aid to Israel over its actions in Gaza and the West Bank.
The amendment was symbolic. Lawmakers in both chambers have rejected similar versions for years, and this one, like the others, was never going to pass.
But the numbers voting in favor of such measures have surged in tandem with the mounting Democratic primary wins by candidates who built their campaigns on opposing Israel’s war in Gaza, often over AIPAC-backed opponents.
In May, a record 40 Senate Democrats voted against further military aid to Israel, a roll call that would have been unthinkable two cycles ago. On Wednesday, 103 out of 211 Democrats voted similarly on the House amendment.
Some of those voting against the amendment to cut $3.3 billion in security aid to Israel, including Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., said they had concerns about its scope and political ramifications but agreed with its message.
Some of those voting in favor of cutting off aid, including Democratic Whip Katherine Clark and former Speaker Nancy Pelosi, said they didn’t actually want it to pass but cast their votes to mark the need for a fundamental shift in U.S. policy toward Israel.
“For the good of the Israeli people and the Palestinian people, it is clear that U.S. policy must change,” Pelosi said after her vote. “The United States must be a force for security and stability. The American people are rightly demanding an end to a perpetual cycle of war, and the Netanyahu government cannot maintain its current course.”
In April, a Pew Research Center survey found that 80% of Democrats now hold an unfavorable view of Israel, up from 69% a year earlier and 53% in 2022. Those feelings are showing up at the ballot box in Democratic primaries:
- In New Jersey, progressive organizer Cries Mejia ran openly against AIPAC and won her February special election for a New Jersey congressional seat after AIPAC affiliates spent millions on attack ads targeting a relatively moderate candidateformer Rep. Tom Malinowski. Then in May, Army veteran and physician Adam Hamaviwho operated on children in Gaza, beat out a crowded field of candidates hoping to replace Rep. Bonnie Watson Coleman, who announced her retirement last year. Hamawy had the backing of American Priorities, a new pro-Palestine super PAC founded to counter the power of AIPAC.
- In Illinois, Evanston Mayor Daniel Biss, who is Jewish, won a House primary in March after explicitly criticizing AIPAC; the lobbying group spent at least $5 million trying to defeat him before dialing back its attacks in the final days, when it became clear his replacement could be a candidate still more critical of Israel.
- In Denver, attorney and first-time candidate Melat Kiros defeated longtime Rep. Diana DeGette, a progressive Democrat backed by AIPAC, by making Gaza advocacy a centerpiece of the campaign.
- In New York last month, a trio of House candidates endorsed by Mayor Zohran Mamdani triumphed: Former city comptroller Brad Lander ousted Rep. Dan Goldman, a two-term Brooklyn Democrat endorsed by AIPAC, in a contest between two men who embrace the terms “liberal” and “Zionist.” Union organizer Claire Valdez snagged the nomination for an open seat encompassing parts of Queens and Brooklyn, saying “free Palestineorganize your union and join DSA” in her victory speech. And in Upper Manhattan, first-time candidate Darializa Avila Chevalier — a Gaza activist who attended a pro-Palestinian rally in Times Square the day after Hamas killed roughly 1,200 people, the overwhelming majority of them Israeli — defeated Rep. Adriano Espaillat, the chair of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, who was backed by an AIPAC-affiliated super PAC.
Asked about its recent losses in primaries, AIPAC referred MS NOW to the group’s statement from June: “While disappointed that some of our endorsed candidates did not prevail, our community is proud to support pro-Israel Democrats and Republicans who stand for our values, and we are encouraged that voters in races across the country this primary season continue to choose serious, thoughtful leaders who support a strong U.S.-Israel partnership.”
The next major test comes in August, in Michigan’s Democratic Senate primarywhere AIPAC-backed Rep. Haley Stevens faces Abdul El-Sayed, a Mamdani-aligned progressive endorsed by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. AIPAC has spent more than $49 million on Stevens’ behalf, while El-Sayed has repeatedly ruled out AIPAC money.
The Democratic referendum
For a generation of Democratic politicians, AIPAC’s endorsement was an asset and its opposition a campaign-ending threat. Criticism of the group or its mission risked being labeled antisemitic.
“Twenty years ago, everybody acknowledged how powerful AIPAC was and hardly anyone was willing to take it on or defy what it wanted. There was even something of a taboo talking about it,” said Stephen Walt, a professor of international affairs at the Harvard Kennedy School and co-author of “The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy.”
Now, for a growing share of the party’s electorate, that calculus has reversed. For some Democratic voters, AIPAC’s involvement in a race is itself a reason to vote against the candidate it backs. A candidate’s public opposition to both AIPAC and to Israel’s policies, on the other hand, is seen by some as a sign of “moral clarity and moral courage,” said Usamah Andrabi, communications director at Justice Democrats, the progressive PAC that helped elect Ocasio-Cortez.
AIPAC remains influential, but “it’s no longer an unchallengeable leviathan,” Walt said, likening it to any other domestic lobby, such as the National Rifle Association.
“It’s pretty open now to ask serious questions about the nature of the U.S. relationship with Israel, the amount of support that we give it — both military aid and diplomatic backing,” said Walt, who has had to defend his work against criticism from pro-Israel groups.
For Democrats, the reckoning began in 2024, when President Joe Biden’s campaign was dogged by protesters pressing his administration to push for a ceasefire in Gaza and an embargo on sending arms to Israel.
The human toll of Israel’s response to the Hamas attack — which killed more than 20,000 Palestinians in Gaza within the first three months, a toll that has since reached at least 73,000, according to Gaza’s Health Ministry — spurred the creation of the Uncommitted movement, which sought to register disapproval of Biden’s Middle East policies by urging Democratic voters to support “uncommitted” rather than Biden on their primary ballots. After he withdrew from the presidential race, many in the movement carried their opposition forward in declining to support Vice President Kamala Harris.
Then came Mamdani, who built his 2025 New York mayoral campaign in part on open support for Palestinians and opposition to U.S. military aid to Israel. He did not flinch from calling Israel’s actions in Gaza a genocide, and went from polling at 1% to winning by 9 points in the city with the largest Jewish population in the country.
Mamdani’s win was more than a long shot victory. It was evidence that a pro-Palestinian message could be an asset rather than a liability in a Democratic primary. The message for the rest of the party was hard to miss: On Israel, the primary electorate had begun rewarding the candidates willing to criticize its policies, and punishing those who wouldn’t.
That pressure has reshaped how some Democratic elected officials talk, even those closer to the ideological center. Gov. Gavin Newsom of California, a prominent 2028 White House prospect, has been visibly recalibrating. In a March “Pod Save America” interview, he likened Israel to an “apartheid” state and said the U.S. had no choice but to reconsider military support.
Weeks later, he told Politico he regretted the word and drew a line many in the party, like Pelosi, are trying to draw: “I revere the state of Israel. I’m proud to support the state of Israel. I deeply, deeply oppose Bibi Netanyahu’s leadership.” On accepting AIPAC money, he was unequivocal: “Never have and never will.”
There are still plenty of Democrats who proudly accept AIPAC’s support and win with it. Rep. Greg Landsman of Ohio raked in $593,169 from AIPAC-affiliated groups and individuals this cycle. His primary opponent tried to tag him “Genocide Greg” for his full-throated support of Israel; Landsman carried 68% of the vote.
Although Landsman speaks passionately about the humanitarian crisis in Gaza, which he calls “awful,” his voting record reflects continued support for Israel.
“I just think it’s really important for Israel to maintain its ability to defend itself. And sometimes it means getting in front of issues as opposed to sitting there and waiting for people to attack you,” Landsman told MS NOW.
But he too pointed to Netanyahu rather than Israel itself as the problem, and agreed that “there should be a debate” about what the U.S.-Israel “partnership looks like.”
The Republican shift
The change has not been confined to the left. A month ago in Kentucky, Rep. Thomas Massie lost his primary to Ed Gallrein, a former Navy SEAL who was backed by Trump and was the beneficiary of more than $9 million in AIPAC-affiliated spending. Massie — a seven-term incumbent and one of the few Republicans willing to break publicly with Trump — wanted everyone to know who he blamed.
Facing his supporters on primary night, Massie opened with a joke about the man who had just defeated him. “I would have come out sooner,” the Kentuckian said, “but I had to call my opponent and concede, and it took a while to find Ed Gallrein in Tel Aviv.”
The line drew laughs. But it also touched on an old and ugly insinuation — that a rival’s true loyalties lie abroad — even as it captured something real about a fault line now running through the Republican coalition.
Massie, who sponsored the most recent amendment to cut off aid to Israel, drew the ire of AIPAC, which denounced him as a troublemaker seeking to undermine U.S .-Israeli relations.
“We are deeply appreciative of the 314 Republicans and Democrats who voted to reject Thomas Massie’s latest anti-Israel effort and are disappointed by the 103 Democrats who voted with Massie to weaken America and our ally Israel,” AIPAC posted. “This so-called messaging vote on Israel’s security sends a dangerous signal to both our allies and our enemies around the world.”
Some of the conditions that produced the New York sweep are also contributing to this: a Republican electorate that, while still broadly supportive of Israel, is fracturing at its generational edges. That same Pew Research Center survey from April found that 57% of Republicans under 50 now view Israel unfavorably, up from 50% the year before; in both parties, majorities of voters under 50 now rate Israel negatively.
A bloc of prominent MAGA figures — former Fox News host Tucker Carlson, Megyn Kelly and former Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene among them — have broken with Trump in his second term. Among the reasons, by their own account, is that they no longer believe the U.S. should support Israel unconditionally.
There are notable differences in the forces reshaping the two parties, however.
Democrats are responding to a base that increasingly views the war in Gaza as a moral failure; Republicans are splintering along generational lines and around a MAGA media ecosystem newly willing to question the alliance.
But the two currents converge on the same institution: For decades, AIPAC helped set the boundaries of acceptable debate over Israel in American politics. Those boundaries are now being tested from both sides at once — and increasingly, they are not holding.
Erum Salam is a breaking news reporter for MS NOW, with a focus on how global events and foreign policy shape U.S. politics. She previously was a breaking news reporter for The Guardian.
The Senate Judiciary Committee postponed a vote on acting Attorney General Todd Blanche’s nomination, a spokesperson said late Wednesday, as two retiring Republicans on the panel dug in over President Donald Trump’s personal “anti-weaponization” deal with the government he runs.
Sen. Chuck Grassley’s decision to delay the committee vote that had been set for Thursday marks a setback for one of Trump’s highest-profile Cabinet nominees, at the hands of Texas Sen. John Cornyn and Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina, a pair of Republicans set to leave the chamber next year.
“Chairman Grassley works to set President Trump’s nominees up for success in committee, not failure. Senators Cornyn and Tillis want written assurances from the Department of Justice regarding the Trump-IRS settlement,” the committee spokesperson said.
Blanche’s nomination to permanently head the Department of Justice needs the support of either Cornyn or Tillis to make it out of the committee to a vote by the full Senate, assuming all Democrats remain opposed.
“Why don’t you call over the Department of Justice and tell them they have one hour and 50 minutes to get me what I asked for,” Cornyn told reporters Wednesday afternoon amid the hardening standoff over his demand that Blanche and the DOJ put in writing a commitment never to pursue the president’s prized “anti-weaponization” fund, and to clarify the terms of Trump’s personal deal with the Internal Revenue Service.
Tillis told MS NOW that the conversations were complicated by the need for the Justice Department to get “several parties” to agree on the language of the statement Cornyn and Tillis are seeking.
“What I’ve advised the chair, and I would assume Senator Cornyn said something similar, is that we’re not prepared to vote yes yet,” he added.
“The Department has been in regular communication with Committee members for weeks, and we look forward to continuing to work productively with Senators to address any concerns,” a Justice Department spokesperson said in response to the decision to postpone the committee vote.
Cornyn was set to meet with Blanche on Wednesday morning, but the meeting was called off after Blanche failed to meet the senator’s demand for written proposals to modify the controversial settlement agreement he brokered between Trump and the IRS. The Republican senator is set to leave Congress when his term ends in January after a bruising May primary loss to Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, Trump’s chosen candidate.
“Maybe John Cornyn’s upset with me because I didn’t endorse him,” Trump told reporters Wednesday afternoon in the Oval Office. “I don’t know what it is, but I haven’t heard that there’s a problem. I heard (Blanche) is going through quite nicely.”
Cornyn made clear to Blanche during his confirmation hearing that he will not get his support until he agrees to reopen and modify the settlement. Due to the committee’s narrow Republican majority, one GOP “no” vote is enough to sink Blanche’s nomination.
The senator has asked Blanche to provide proof that the proposed nearly $1.8 billion “anti-weaponization” fund established as part of the deal between Trump and the IRS is formally dead, and he has also demanded Blanche narrow the tax audit immunity provisions the settlement afforded to Trump and his family.
Blanche has publicly stated that his department has dropped the fund, but he and the DOJ have dodged requests from Cornyn and a federal judge to put that in writing.
After announcing his meeting with Blanche would not take place Wednesday morning, Cornyn told reporters that changes from Blanche “in a modified release form” would be acceptable, but that “for some reason … they simply refuse to do it,” referring to the DOJ.
Shortly after the meeting was called off, a Justice Department official told MS NOW that the department “provided a written proposal to Senator Cornyn’s staff yesterday following ongoing discussion with both the Committee and the Senator’s office.”
Cornyn said that proposal was “not responsive” to his demands because it did not address the tax audit immunity provisions in the settlement, one of his key demands.
In May, Blanche signed an addendum as part of the deal that granted Trump, his family and his businesses immunity from pending IRS tax audits. That agreement, which has been decried by former IRS officials and legal experts as unlawful self-dealing, is being contested in federal court.
Cornyn noted that Blanche testified under oath that he could meet the request during his confirmation hearing.
“Maybe they think I’m just going to give up or you know, go along, but they’re mistaken,” Cornyn said when asked why he thinks the DOJ could be slow-walking his request.
Kevin Frey contributed to this report.
Sydney Carruth is a breaking news reporter covering national politics and policy for MS NOW. You can send her tips from a non-work device on Signal at SydneyCarruth.46 or follow her work on X and Bluesky.
Mychael Schnell is a reporter for MS NOW.
Ebony Davis is a breaking news reporter for MS NOW based in Washington, D.C. She previously worked at BLN as a campaign reporter covering elections and politics.
When Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu arrived this week for his tour of Washington, he may have had a mission in mind.
Netanyahu needed to overcome his newly diminished stature and waning influence over his once close friend President Donald Trump as both leaders grapple with the unpopularity of a war they started together and is escaping their control.
His meeting at the White House with Trump on Tuesday, which was closed to the press, was the first face-to-face encounter between the two allies since the U.S. and Israel launched a joint attack against Iran on Feb. 28.
Trump gave him a muted welcome and afterwards simply described the meeting as “very good.” “Obviously, many important subjects were discussed,” the president wrote on Truth Social.
Rather than an intimate one-on-one setting, the Oval Office was full of top U.S. officials — Vice President JD Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Dan Caine, and special envoy Steve Witkoff.
But Netanyahu continued the full court press on the Trump administration.
Over the course of two days, in addition to seeing Trump and attending Sen. Lindsey Graham’s funeral at the Capitol, Netanyahu also met separately with Vance, Hegseth, and Rubio, White House and Israeli officials confirmed to MS NOW.
The Israeli prime minister’s slate of meetings with key U.S. national security officials comes at a pivotal moment in the Iran conflict as tensions escalate in the region and Americans increasingly sour on the war. A recent Quinnipiac poll shows 60% of American voters opposing U.S. military action against Iran and 74% against sending U.S. ground troops into Iran.
Not only does Trump face pressure as Republicans face an uphill battle to retain congressional control in this fall’s midterms, Netanyahu’s fate as prime minister is at stake in Israel’s upcoming September elections – and he can’t afford to lose Trump’s favor.
The talks largely focused on what to do next as Iran continues to menace shipping in the Strait of Hormuz and retaliate against American bases in the region and launch attacks on Gulf allies.
According to a senior Israeli official who was granted anonymity to describe the closed-door meeting, President Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu did not come to a final decision after discussing three paths forward: get a “good deal” focused on Iran’s nuclear program and enriched material, have no deal and instead continue the blockade and economic pressure, or take escalated military action.
But Netanyahu did not tell Trump what he should do – nor did he express a preference.
The senior Israeli official noted Netanyahu has not ruled out diplomacy – as long as it is coupled with “very strong pressures,” calling the push to dismantle Iran’s nuclear program “a contest of will and a contest of force.”
“There are ways of squeezing them and squeezing them and squeezing them and negotiating at the same time,” the official said.
Netanyahu did not present President Trump with new intelligence regarding the underground Iranian nuclear facility Pickaxe Mountain, per the senior Israeli official, noting the U.S. and Israel already are constantly sharing intelligence – and know where Iran’s highly enriched material is. “We don’t think it’s moved, and I think we have a pretty good grasp on that,” the official said.
During their meeting on Tuesday, Trump and Netanyahu discussed ways Israel and the U.S. can work together to stop Iran’s nuclear program and get the Strait of Hormuz open to maritime trade, the senior Israeli official said.
The two leaders also discussed a third goal: to continue to undermine the Iranian regime and “possibly create future conditions for a change in that area.” U.S. officials have backed away from pursuing paths that would overthrow the current leadership, but Netanyahu still believes that could happen.
“The chasm that has been created between the people and the regime is not about to be closed,” the senior Israeli official said of Netanyahu’s thinking.
Netanyahu advised Trump in February that Israeli intelligence indicated launching strikes against Iran would lead to the toppling of the Islamic Republic’s regime – and five months later, the slain ayatollah’s son retains power with a close circle of hardliners, calling into question the accuracy of Israel’s intelligence apparatus.
But the senior Israeli official said at the time, Netanyahu did not promise the Iranian people would take fate into their own hands following a coordinated attack. Rather, he chose his words carefully and said that an attack could create conditions to “advance the probability or the possibility that that would happen.”
The conditions needed for the Iranian regime to fall, “did not materialize,” the official told MS NOW, adding, “not for lack of insight, but for either operational failure or decisions that were made.”
Despite Netanyahu insisting Israel and the U.S. are on the same page, differences still remain: the sale of F-35 fighter jets to Turkey and the Saudi nuclear arrangement did not come up during Wednesday’s White House meeting, according to a second Israeli official granted anonymity to describe sensitive discussions.
Meanwhile, the conflict continues to spread, with an Iranian drone attacking a U.S. gas storage tanker off the coast of Egypt on Wednesday.
Trump indicated he would not let Iran’s latest action slide, telling reporters on Wednesday that the U.S. would retaliate against Iran even as he leaves room for diplomatic talks to resume.
“It’s our turn, and we’ll see if we get there with an agreement at some point,” Trump said. “But we’re going to hit them very hard.”
As for what it would take for Israel to join the U.S. strikes, the senior Israeli official said that if Israel is attacked by Iran, “We will respond very, very forcefully and very quickly. And I think Iran would make a great mistake.”
Julia Jester covers politics for MS NOW and is based in Washington, D.C.
International rage over FIFA’s close ties to President Donald Trump has reached a fever pitch after soccer’s governing body announced a plan to sell a significant stake to an investor group led by Joshua Kushner, the brother of Trump’s son-in-law.
The president and his family have all but turned the White House into their personal piggy bank. And FIFA — which has its own sordid history of corruption — seems to have made itself a party to Trump’s self-enrichment under Gianni Infantino’s leadership, such as by paying for space inside Trump Tower in New York. (The organization has defended the office rental as a World Cup outpost.)
Soccer is seen by many as a unifying game. But Trump’s incorporation of FIFA into his political dynasty is threatening that idea.
FIFA has announced plans to sell a large minority stake in a new company that will run its main events, including the World Cup and Club World Cup, as part of a plan to triple the amount of development money it dishes out to its 211 member associations.
Under the proposals — which are subject to approval by a majority of those national associations and FIFA’s 37-member council — a new entity called FIFA Forward Enterprises (FFE) will take over all commercial operations, while FIFA remains the game’s global governing body and retains a majority stake in FFE.
A press release from FIFA confirmed the plans and said Thrive Eternal, which was launched by Joshua Kushner, is expected to lead the investment group that would control FIFA Forward Enterprise. FIFA did not clarify why Thrive Eternal was selected, and Kushner was already dabbling in sports.
But Trump basically has already given son-in-law Jared Kushner carte blanche to dictate U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East while simultaneously hatching business plans in the region. (Jared Kushner has denied any conflicts of interest.)
Joshua Kushner reportedly has been a major donor to Democrats. But, predictably, the idea of another Kushner becoming financially entwined with the World Cup — the world’s most popular sporting event — and basically being dropped into a position of global significance isn’t going over well. Several other soccer governing bodies have expressed concerns, including Europe’s UEFA.
“This crosses a line that football’s governing institutions should never cross,” UEFA said in a statement about The Athletic’s report, adding: “The soul and governance of football are not assets to trade — especially with zero transparency as to who gains financially. None of us are the owners of football. It is not FIFA’s to sell.”
Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee also rebuked the plan, writing on X: “Apparently the fake Peace Prize and giant lease with Trump Tower weren’t enough — now Infantino performs a kickback hat trick by pursuing a multibillion-dollar deal with Jared Kushner’s brother to sell ownership stakes in the World Cup to private investors.”
FIFA, Donald Trump’s favorite corrupt racketeering enterprise in world sports, is now going directly into business with the Trump family!
Apparently the fake Peace Prize and giant lease with Trump Tower weren’t enough—now Infantino performs a kickback hat trick by pursuing a… https://t.co/knSZibuMea
— House Judiciary Dems (@HouseJudiciary) July 28, 2026
Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., has already launched an investigation into the FIFA leader’s relationship with the Trump administration, while dozens of European lawmakers — citing concerns about “potential breaches of political neutrality” — have called for the FIFA Ethics Committee to investigate Infantino. This new proposal seems unlikely to assuage those concerns.
But what it does seem likely to do is fuel global anger toward the U.S. — the kind that has been growing since Trump retook office.
And when you consider that, it’s truly remarkable how the same MAGA movement whose members whined for years about politics mixing with sports is now in lockstep with a president who seems dead-set on casting his shadow over every sports event he can.
This post on X basically sums up the foul stench around FIFA’s latest proposal.
Sepp Blatter was Infantino’s predecessor as FIFA president and oversaw the organization amid some of its many scandals. When heof all people, is warning about how Trump and Infantino’s relationship is “deeply damaging” soccer, it’s a sign of how far FIFA has descended into the gutter.
Ja’han Jones is an MS NOW opinion blogger. He previously wrote The ReidOut Blog.
- How $600B of Biden’s clean energy funding escaped Trump’s cuts
- Trump has a plan to break China’s mineral grip. It needs workers first.
- Trump’s demands threaten Navy’s progress
- Pirro to file felony charges over bubbles and graffiti at WWII memorial
- Russell Fry backs Darline Graham for Senate in South Carolina
- Capitol agenda: Wasserman Schultz roils Democrats, again
- Who are the biggest social media stars in Congress?
- Bernie Sanders says he can’t get involved in every race. Some allies wish he would.
- Vance presses Justice Department to investigate hospitals over transgender care
- Senate kids’ safety probe targets Roblox gaming platform
-
The Josh Fourrier Show2 years agoDOOMSDAY: Trump won, now what?
-
Politics1 year agoFormer ‘Squad’ members launching ‘Bowman and Bush’ YouTube show
-
The Dictatorship1 year agoLuigi Mangione acknowledges public support in first official statement since arrest
-
Uncategorized2 years ago
Bob Good to step down as Freedom Caucus chair this week
-
Politics1 year agoFormer Kentucky AG Daniel Cameron launches Senate bid
-
The Dictatorship1 year agoPete Hegseth’s tenure at the Pentagon goes from bad to worse
-
Politics1 year agoBlue Light News’s Editorial Director Ryan Hutchins speaks at Blue Light News’s 2025 Governors Summit
-
The Dictatorship11 months agoMike Johnson sums up the GOP’s arrogant position on military occupation with two words