Politics

‘It’s pissing people off’: Centrist Democrats are livid with AIPAC after primary fiasco

Published

5 months ago

February 6, 2026

The American Israel Public Affairs Committee uncorked $2 million to try to sink a mainstream Democrat in a multi-candidate special House election primary in New Jersey — and it’s infuriating mainstream Democrats and some of the pro-Israel’s lobby’s supporters.

“It’s pissing people off,” said Steve Schale, a longtime Democratic strategist and former Obama campaign adviser, who described it as “maddening.”

The organization spent heavily through its super PAC, Unite Democracy Project, to attack former Rep. Tom Malinowski (D-N.J.), a pro-Israel moderate who would not support unconditional aid to Israel. In doing so, it provided an opening to Analilia Mejia, a progressive organizer backed by Bernie Sanders who has said Israel committed genocide in Gaza.

Malinowski, who has not conceded the race, now trails Mejia by around 500 votes, with some outstanding votes left to be counted for the affluent, suburban seat.

AIPAC’s interventions in the New Jersey special election for Democratic Gov. Mikie Sherrill’s House seat was the first test of the group’s muscle ahead of the 2026 primary season, when they are expected to spend millions on Democratic primaries across the country. AIPAC’s super PAC is expected to weigh in on House primaries, starting in Illinois’ April primaries. Democratic candidates and strategists are also bracing for them to potentially wade into contentious Senate primaries in Michigan and Minnesota.

And their first foray of 2026 backfired spectacularly.

Matt Bennett, the co-founder of the center-left think tank Third Way, called their efforts “one of the greatest own-goals in American political history,” and warned that “It hurt everybody in the moderate movement” as they head into a competitive primary season.

Even steadfast allies are frustrated. Rep. Brad Schneider (D-Ill.), a longtime AIPAC supporter, said its moves in the New Jersey primary, held Thursday, “raised eyebrows this morning.”

“There’s a chance that it’s not going to be a New Dem that’s in that seat,” Schneider said, referring to the New Democrat Coalition, the centrist caucus he leads in the House. “As we do the analysis, a lot of factors play into that, but certainly any group spending against a candidate that would’ve been a New Dem and instead electing a far-left candidate … Come on, guys, this is not what we were hoping for here.”

Former Rep. Steve Israel (D-N.Y.), another AIPAC supporter who led House Democrats’ campaign efforts in 2012 and 2014, said he “wasn’t privy to AIPAC’s strategy and I certainly wouldn’t have advised it,” but “they are not the first group to make a bet that didn’t pan out on election day.”

Malinowski said AIPAC’s attacks on him sent a clear message to “other mainstream Democrats.”

“They are now demanding 100 percent fealty,” Malinowski said. “On some level, they may have preferred to elect an anti-Israel progressive versus a mainstream Democrat, who departs from their hard line in a small way.”

A spokesperson for UDP said in a statement shared with Blue Light News: “The outcome in NJ-11 was an anticipated possibility, and our focus remains on who will serve the next full term in Congress.” The spokesperson added that UDP will “be closely monitoring dozens of primary races, including the June NJ-11 primary,” which will be held ahead of the November 2026 general election, “to help ensure pro-Israel candidates are elected to Congress.”

Progressives, meanwhile, took a victory lap. Justice Democrats communications director Usamah Andrabi said AIPAC’s spending in primaries “is becoming a kiss of death” because “of the work our movement has done to expose them.” Mejia told reporters on Friday that she’s “glad that New Jersey 11 voters got to see the terrible tactics so that we could reject it in the future” and denounced AIPAC’s heavy spending.

Much of UDP’s playbook in the New Jersey primary has been deployed by them before — attacking candidates on issues unrelated to Israel. The group hit Malinowski in TV ads for a 2019 vote he took, along with most House Democrats at the time, that, in part, provided funding to Immigration and Customs Enforcement. ICE funding is a particularly hot-button issue, after President Donald Trump’s immigration crackdown in Minnesota led to two fatal shootings of protesters by federal agents.

There are signs that AIPAC is already getting involved in Illinois. Two super PACs, Elect Chicago Women Now and Affordable Chicago Now, are now supporting three Democrats in House races with six-figure TV ad buys — which some of their primary opponents have publicly accused the groups of shell groups.

The super PACs were formed last month, so they have not yet been required to disclose any information yet with the Federal Elections Commission. UDP’s spokesperson did not respond to a request for comment on these super PACs.

“We’re bracing [for AIPAC’s spending], yes, and it is alarming in a cycle where five seats are open, which almost never happens in Illinois,” said a Democratic strategist working on Illinois races, granted anonymity to speak candidly. “AIPAC is actively trying to buy three or possibly four seats.”

The winner of Thursday’s special primary election in New Jersey will face Joe Hathaway, a Republican councilmember from Randolph, N.J., on April 16, to fill the remainder of Sherrill’s term. Then, Democrats will hold another primary on June 2.

Though some centrist Democrats fretted that Mejia’s potential victory could hurt their chances to hold on to the seat, pollster Patrick Murray said a Republican victory is highly unlikely, both in the special general election in April or in November.

“It’s just so anti-Trump now,” he said. “We saw in the 2025 general election that there was more motivation among Democrats than Republicans. And that mood still holds.”

Of the upcoming primary season, where dark money from an array of outside groups is expected to saturate Democratic primaries, Malinowski called it “a significant challenge to the Democratic Party that needs to be addressed.”

“My election was the beta test,” he said.

Madison Fernandez and Matt Friedman contributed reporting.

Politics

A ‘pride match’ between Iran and Egypt — and Washington state’s gay leaders couldn’t be happier about it

Published

1 hour ago

June 26, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

SEATTLE — On Thursday, the Washington state House speaker and its Senate president — likely the country’s first-ever pairing of openly gay state capital legislative leaders — met to strategize with progressive campaigners against a pair of conservative-backed ballot initiatives that would impose new rules on transgender children in schools and sports.

To defeat the measures, the campaign will have to convince voters beyond Seattle’s progressive enclaves to accept their arguments about privacy, liberty and acceptance.

But on Friday, Washington’s LGBTQ+ leaders were thinking about how they might address an even more hard-to-reach constituency: citizens of Egypt and Iran, whose governments criminalize homosexuality but have seen their national teams paired through a scheduling quirk in the World Cup’s only official “Pride Match.”

Members of Seattle’s World Cup organizing committee set out to make the June 26 game a showcase of the city’s inclusivity before a random draw ensured two of the world’s most repressive states toward sexual minorities would take the field. While FIFA has banned critics of the regime in Tehran from flying the country’s pre-revolutionary flag (under rules prohibiting the display of political symbols), soccer’s governing body hassaid it will permit rainbow flags over objections from Iranian and Egyptian soccer officials.

“How many opportunities do you have to get positive messages about happy queer people beamed into Iran and Egypt?” said state Senate President Jamie Pedersen. “I don’t think there’s going to be any way for people who are watching the game and seeing images of the stands to be able to avoid the fact that there’s going to be a huge contingent of rainbow flags waving.”

Pedersen and House Speaker Laurie Jinkins have known each other since the 1990s, when they first worked together on a failed campaign to pass a statewide non-discrimination law. Both were subsequently elected to the legislature — she from Tacoma, he from a Seattle district encompassing Capitol Hill, the traditional seat of gay power — and rose to lead Democratic majorities in their respective chambers. Along the way they became friends, attending each other’s marriages and raising children in parallel.

Now they are collaborating with the No Hate in WA State campaign to defeat two separate initiatives that will appear on the November ballot after the two leaders refused to take them up in their legislative chambers. One,characterized as a parents-rights measure, would allow parents to opt out of classes related to sexual education or gender diversity and compel educators to notify parents if their children request medical attention. Aseparate measure would “prohibit biologically male students from competing with and against female students” in interscholastic sports, and require girls to receive a medical examination confirming their biological sex.

Both Pedersen and Jinkins said they expected to build on the coalition that helped enshrine gay and lesbian rights at the ballot, first bypassing a domestic-partnership regime in 2009 and then three years later by approving a same-sex marriage law that had passed the legislature before facing a citizen’s-veto threat. (Let’s Go Washington, the campaign committee organized to pass the two transgender-related initiatives this year, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.)

“What we saw, going back to the 1980s and 1990s, is people didn’t think they knew anyone who was gay or lesbian. Once they started to realize they knew people, that started changing opinions dramatically,” said Jinkins. “It stopped the other side from being able to use stereotypes to characterize us.”

In interviews Friday morning, both of the legislative leaders cast the day’s unusual Pride matchup — and its likelihood for friction with soccer fans in Seattle’s streets — as a healthy development for the state’s LGBTQ+ community.

“That’s one of the best things about the World Cup, some of the exposure that different communities are having to one another,” said Jinkins. “It’s not just Iranian and Egyptian fans learning about Pride, it’s us learning about Iranian and Egyptian culture and thought.”

Neither, however, planned to attend the match itself despite receiving invitations to do so. Jinkins said she would likely visit a “fan zone” watch party being hosted by the Puyallup Tribe of Indians at its administrative headquarters in her Tacoma district. Pedersen, who concedes he is “not a sports fan,” was scheduled to participate in a Trans Pride event in Capitol Hill, the historic heart of gay Seattle where he is deep in an aggressive reelection campaign against a challenger to his left.

“I feel bad when I take up the ticket for something where there is a lot of demand,” Pedersen said. “People who really enjoy it should be having this experience, and probably not me.”

Politics

Judge halts executive order seeking to create federal voter list…

Published

1 hour ago

June 26, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

BOSTON (AP) — A federal judge on Thursday halted President Donald Trump’s executive order that sought to create a federal voter list and limit who can receive a mail ballot.

U.S. District Court Judge Indira Talwani, who was nominated by Democratic President Barack Obama, sided with a coalition of nearly two dozen states that challenged the Republican president’s order in granting a summary judgment. Her ruling applies to this year’s midterm election cycle.

Plaintiffs argued in two lawsuitsboth filed in federal court in Boston, that Trump’s order should be found unconstitutional because the states and Congress, not the president, have the power to set election rules. The judge agreed, saying in her ruling that the provisions of Trump’s order seeking to create a federal list of eligible voters and using the U.S. Postal Service to determine who can receive a mail ballot are “legally void” because they “unconstitutionally violate the separation of powers.”

It was the second ruling in as many days against executive orders Trump has signed seeking oversight of the nation’s elections. A separate ruling Wednesday prohibited an executive order he had signed last year that would have required people to show documents proving their citizenship when registering to vote.

Order targeted mail voting, administration likely to appeal

Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes, whose state was among the plaintiffs, celebrated the court’s decision.

“Millions of independents, Republicans and Democrats across Arizona have voted by mail for decades,” she said in a statement, noting that nearly 80% of ballots in the state are cast by that method.

Mayes, a Democrat, singled out military families, voters in the state’s rural expanses and Native Americans who cast ballots from tribal lands.

“Donald Trump’s executive order targeted all of these voters,” she said. “But today, the courts affirmed what the Constitution makes clear: States run their elections, not the President.”

AP AUDIO: Federal judge halts Trump’s election executive order seeking to create a federal voter list

AP Washington correspondent Sagar Meghani reports President Trump has suffered a legal setback for a second straight day in his bid to get oversight of the nation’s elections.

The White House stood by Trump’s executive order and indicated the administration would appeal the ruling. The order, said spokeswoman Abigail Jackson, “lawfully protects our elections, and we are confident that we will ultimately prevail in its implementation.”

The administration, in its motions to dismiss the lawsuits challenging the order, argued that the motions were premature and that plaintiffs lacked the legal basis to bring their claim based on the Administrative Procedure Act, which governs how federal agencies develop and issue regulations.

But in an interim order before Thursday’s ruling, Talwani said the motions pertaining to this year’s election cycle were relevant: “In light of the EO’s specific deadlines over the next three months, and the reality that elections will be occurring throughout this period with the November 3, 2026 midterm occurring in just five months, postponing judicial review is impracticable and may inflict significant hardship on Plaintiffs,” she wrote. That order denied the Trump administration’s motion to dismiss the challenges.

Executive order sought to give Postal Service a central role in elections

Trump’s executive order, the second one aimed at elections during his second term, comes as he continues to raise the specter of widespread voting by noncitizens as a reason to change election rules. But states already have detailed processes aimed at keeping their voter rolls accurate, and voting by noncitizens has been shown to be rare. It also is a felony that can be punishable by deportation.

Trump issued his second order in March after a bill he supported to overhaul voting stalled in Congress. The order would have had the federal government — through the director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services and the commissioner of the Social Security Administration — create a “state citizenship list” of eligible voters. It then directed the U.S. Postal Service to deliver mail ballots only to those on the list.

Election officials argued that it was ripe for abuse and could cause chaos.

The Postal Service has published a proposed rule required by Trump’s executive order in the Federal Register. Among other things, the rule would not apply to primary elections or overseas ballots.

Postal Service workers have pushed back against the order, saying they are not equipped to determine who is eligible to vote in each state. After Trump issued his order last spring, the National Rural Letter Carriers’ Association said forcing its members into such a role “risks politicizing one of the nation’s most trusted public institutions.”

Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows, a Democrat whose state was among the plaintiffs, said the executive order illustrated how Trump was attempting to “abuse power in previously unthinkable ways” to interfere in elections.

She said it “strains credulity” to think the U.S. Postal Service could set up a workable system for pre-screening individual voters to determine whether they would be allowed to vote by mail, adding that it would be “a shocking violation of American constitutional rights.”

The Postal Service did not immediately respond Thursday to requests for comment.

Trump’s second election executive order faces multiple legal challenges

The lawsuit seeking summary judgment was filed by Democratic attorneys general representing 22 states and the District of Columbia. Also signing on were attorneys representing Democratic Gov. Josh Shapiro of Pennsylvania, which has a Republican attorney general.

The states also told the court that the move imposes a costly burden on election officials to comply and would spread fear about the possibility of prosecution. Stephen Pezzi, a lawyer for the Trump administration, had argued that no one would be prosecuted for violating the order.

The other lawsuit filed in Talwani’s court was by the League of Women Voters and other voting rights groups, which have sought a preliminary injunction against the executive order.

In yet another lawsuit filed against the executive order, a federal judge in Washington, D.C., in May agreed with the Trump administration that it was too early to block the order because it had yet to be implemented. That lawsuit was brought by Democratic and civil rights groups, which have appealed.

Since his 2020 presidential election loss to Democrat Joe BidenTrump has groundlessly claimed mail voting is rife with fraud and has launched a federal investigation into that year’s vote, even though repeated audits and investigationsincluding ones run by Republicansfound it was free of widespread fraud. Trump also has said he wants to “take over” election administration in Democratic areas.

___

Barrow reported from Atlanta and Hanna from Topeka, Kansas.

Politics

The drone war over World Cup skies

Published

2 hours ago

June 26, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

The federal government wants credit for mounting the World Cup’s best defense.

The Transportation Security Administration this week said its federal air marshals have seized more than 300 drones that broke through Federal Aviation Administration airspace restrictions imposed over World Cup stadiums or at nearby fan events in what the Department of Homeland Security called “the most comprehensive airspace security and drone mitigation effort in U.S. history.”

As part of that effort, local Federal Bureau of Investigation offices across Atlanta, Miami, New York, Dallas and elsewhere have released rolling social-media updates on their counter-drone enforcement activities, including the interception of dozens of unauthorized drones, along with warnings to recreational drone operators to keep their aircraft grounded.

“These incidents reflect the reality that drones are becoming part of the security environment surrounding major public events,” Michael Robbins, president of the Association for Uncrewed Vehicle Systems International, told Blue Light News.

“The encouraging news is that authorities successfully detected and mitigated these incursions, demonstrating both the professionalism of the teams on the ground and the value of investing in effective counter-unmanned aircraft systems capabilities,” said Robbins, whose group represents drone manufacturers and suppliers.

Beyond countermeasures kits that include portable or wearable detection or jamming tools, law enforcement officials and security personnel are also utilizing enhanced training measures at the FBI’s drone training center in Alabama, which opened last year. FBI director Kash Patel boasted to Congress that “every single agency across the country wants their police officers there.”

As enforcement ramps up, a more fundamental question persists: whether many of the operators behind these incursions are knowingly breaking the rules or simply unaware they are flying where they shouldn’t be.

A former drone industry executive, granted anonymity to candidly discuss how drone policy has evolved in the last few years, said some drone manufacturers have simply put more responsibility on operators to figure out restrictions instead of baking it into the technology.

“Stepped up enforcement has some deterrent effect, but ultimately technology solutions will be most effective at preventing or mitigating incursions,” the executive said.

For now, as large-scale events continue across the U.S. — including the upcoming Olympic games — the next phase of thwarting drones must include “continuing to modernize our counter-UAS framework, expanding the deployment of proven detection and mitigation capabilities, and ensuring federal, state, and local partners have the clear authorities and tools they need to protect the public while preserving the tremendous economic and public safety benefits that drones provide every day,” added Robbins.