A photo from a collection of hacked emails from former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak shows him eating dinner, with his wife Nili Priel, at the mansion of financier and convicted sex criminal Jeffrey Epstein on September 26, 2015.

 (Photo from Drop Site News)

“It looked like Mossad was working for Epstein instead of Epstein working for Mossad,” said Drop Site News reporter Murtaza Hussain.

Stephen Prager

Nov 12, 2025 (CommonDreams.org)

As the US House of Representatives appears poised to vote for a resolution demanding the release of files relating to the late sex criminal and financier Jeffrey Epstein, a new series of investigations is digging into an area of the disgraced financier’s life that has largely evaded scrutiny: his extensive ties with Israeli intelligence.

Epstein’s relationship with the Israeli government has long been the subject of speculation and conspiracy theorizing. But the extent of the connections has long been difficult to prove. That is, until October 2024, when the Palestinian group Handala released a tranche of more than 100,000 hacked emails from former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, who led the country from 1999 to 2001.

RECOMMENDED…

‘Crisis of Elite Impunity’: New Emails Show Jeffrey Epstein Scandal About More Than Just Trump

JB Pritzker Warns Trump Would ‘Take Us to War With Venezuela’ to Distract From Epstein

The emails span the years 2013-16, beginning just before Barak concluded his nearly six-year tenure as Israel’s minister of defense. Barak is known to have been one of Epstein’s closest associates, with the Wall Street Journal reporting that he visited the financier’s estates in Florida and New York more than 30 times between 2013 and 2017, years after Epstein had been convicted for soliciting a minor for prostitution.

Virginia Giuffre, one of Epstein’s most prominent victims, who died earlier this year, alleged in her posthumous memoir that a figure, described only as “the Prime Minister,” but widely believed to be Barak, violently raped her on Epstein’s private Caribbean island when she was 18. In past court filings, Giuffre accused Barak of sexually assaulting her. Barak has categorically denied those allegations and said he was unaware of Epstein’s activities with minors during the time of their friendship.

Emails between Barak and Epstein have served as the basis for the ongoing investigative series published since late September by the independent outlet Drop Site News, which used them to unearth Epstein’s extensive role in brokering intelligence deals between Israel and other nations.

The emails reveal that between 2013 and 2016, the pair had “intimate, oftentimes daily correspondence,” during which they discussed “political and business strategy as Epstein coordinated meetings for Barak with other members of his elite circles.”

The investigation comes as President Donald Trump’s extensive ties to Epstein face renewed scrutiny in Congress. On Wednesday, just a day after Drop Site published the fourth part of its series, Democrats on the House Oversight Committee released a new trove of documents from Epstein’s private estate.

Among them were emails sent in 2011 from Epstein to his partner and co-conspirator Ghislane Maxwell, in which he said the then private-citizen Trump “spent hours at my house” with one of his sex trafficking victims, referring to Trump as a “dog that hasn’t barked.”

Murtaza Hussain, one of the Drop Site reporters who has dug into Epstein’s Israel connections, told Democracy Now! on Wednesday that the focus on Trump, while important, has diverted attention from other key tendrils of Epstein’s influence.

“There’s been a lot of justifiable focus on Epstein’s very grave crimes and facilitation of the crimes of others related to sex trafficking and sex abuse,” Hussain said. “But one critical aspect of the story that has not been covered is Epstein’s own relations to foreign governments, the US government, and particularly foreign intelligence agencies.”

The first report shows that Epstein was instrumental in helping Barak develop a formal security agreement between Israel and Mongolia, recruiting powerful friends like Larry Summers, who served as an economist to former Presidents Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, to serve on a Presidential Advisory Board for the Central Asian nation’s economy.

Epstein helped to facilitate an agreement for Mongolia to purchase Israeli military equipment and surveillance technology from companies with which the men had financial ties.

Another report shows how Epstein helped Israel to establish a covert backchannel with the Russian government at the height of the Syrian Civil War, during which they attempted to persuade the Kremlin to oust Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, a major national security priority for Israel, which had become substantially involved in the conflict.

This process was coordinated with Israeli intelligence and resulted in Barak securing a meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin. In one message, Barak explicitly thanked Epstein for “setting the whole thing together.”

Epstein also worked alongside Barak to sell Israeli surveillance tech, which had previously been used extensively in occupied Palestine, to the West African nation of Côte d’Ivoire.

In 2014, the pair architected a deal by which the nation’s government, led by President Alassane Ouattara, purchased technology used to listen in on phone calls and radio transmissions and monitor points of interest like cybercafes.

In the decade since, the report says, “Ouattara has tightened his grip on power, banning public demonstrations and arresting peaceful protestors,” while “his Israeli-backed police state has squashed civic organizations and silenced critics.”

On Tuesday, just before the House Oversight Committee dropped its latest batch of documents, the series’ latest report revealed that an Israeli spy, Yoni Koren, stayed at Epstein’s New York apartment for weeks at a time on three separate occasions between 2013 and 2015. Koren served as an intermediary between the American and Israeli governments, helping Barak organize meetings with top intelligence officials, including former CIA Director Leon Panetta.

Drop Site’sreporting has fueled speculation of the longstanding theory that Epstein may have worked as an agent of Mossad, Israel’s central intelligence agency. Hussain said that the evidence points to the idea that Epstein was not a formal Mossad agent, but was working as an asset to advance its most hawkish foreign policy goals.

He marveled at the fact that throughout each of these stories, “it’s not Epstein chasing Barak—it’s Barak chasing Epstein,” and that at times, “it looked like Mossad was working for Epstein instead of Epstein working for Mossad.”

In a foreword to their latest report, Hussain and co-author Ryan Grim expressed bewilderment at the lack of media attention paid to the publicly available files revealing Epstein’s role as a semi-official node in Israel’s intelligence apparatus.

While Epstein’s relationship with Trump has routinely been front-page news for many outlets, the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the Wall Street Journalhave not published a story focused on Epstein’s role in Israeli intelligence.

“We’re left wondering why the rest of the media, which has demonstrated no lack of excitement when it comes to the saga of Jeffrey Epstein, has all of a sudden lost its reporting capacity, in the face of reams of publicly available newsworthy documents,” the reporters asked. “A question for editors reading this newsletter: What are you doing?”

In the interview, Hussain said he and Grim “are going to continue drilling down on this and not shying away from the political implications of his activities.”

Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.

Stephen Prager

Stephen Prager is a staff writer for Common Dreams.

Full Bio >

The Guardsman1 week ago0 (theguardsman.com)

By The Guardsman Staff

Rumors of potential surges in federal agents last month prompted a response from City College leaders across all channels to keep the community informed. 

The concern began after President Trump threatened to send federal agents to San Francisco as part of his plan to “restore order” to Democratic-led cities such as Portland, Oregon and Chicago.

The administration called off the deployment on Oct. 23 after his surmised phone call with Mayor Daniel Lurie, but not before the news sparked anxiety across City College campuses.

“We are all grateful that the decision to deploy troops to our city had been halted, but that does not mean that there is not an aggressive ICE presence in our cities in our region; there were before, and there continues to be,” said Chancellor Kimberlee Messina during an October board meeting.

In accordance with Senate Bill 98, a new state law that went into effect in late September, City College has been informing all interested parties about its Rave Alert system for notifying the community about Immigration and Customs Enforcement. SB98 requires public schools, community colleges and universities to immediately notify students and employees if immigration enforcement agents arrive on campus. 

Check Your Inbox

On Oct. 21, Chancellor Kimberlee Messina sent an email to students and employees in response to reports that San Francisco would be next on the list of cities targeted by the Trump Administration.

“The President may be deploying National Guard and ICE agents to the City,” Messina wrote. “This has understandably caused great concern.”

The message directed the campus community to ccsf.edu/immigrant, which outlines the college’s sanctuary status, ICE response protocol and student rights under California law.

Students and staff were reminded to update their Rave Alert contact information, the system used to send emergency notifications by text or email in the event of immigration enforcement activity on or near campus.

Messina reminded everyone that City College remains a sanctuary campus and that the college’s policies prohibit cooperation with immigration enforcement.

Trustee’s Emergency Agenda

At the Oct. 23 Board of Trustees meeting, Trustee Aliya Chisti requested an emergency agenda item under Board Policy 1.09 to address the “potential federal presence in San Francisco and its impact on our college and community.”

The meeting followed Lurie’s announcement earlier that day that the planned National Guard deployment had been called off.

“We just want to name what everyone is experiencing right now and to acknowledge it, it’s not business as usual,” Chisti said.

Student Trustee Angelica Campos supported the move, referencing a new Associated Students resolution that also seeks to strengthen campus response procedures for ICE activity.

During the allotted time for the new item, Chancellor Messina reaffirmed the college’s commitment to supporting immigrant communities, and stated that the college was working to ensure accurate information and implement training for all faculty, staff and students.

Messina said the college had received a memo from the city attorney that reminds officials of the sanctuary city status, as well as the actions that can be taken on campus.

“Because we are a sanctuary city, we cannot be compelled to assist immigration in any way; we are not allowed to impede them, but we are not able to use any college or city resources to assist immigration officials,” Messina said.

The meeting was turned over to Lisa Wilkins, Vice Chancellor of Student Affairs, who shared the website that she and her team had put together with the help of Maria Rodriguez Ramirez at City Dream. The web page, available in many languages, is designed to host all relevant information on Rave Alerts and dealing with a potential ICE presence on campus.

Student Trustee Campos raised the concern over the Rave Alerts and how it’s open to all community members, including those without a campus email address. Messina clarified that Rave notifications would never direct anyone to a location and would only be used to notify people of ICE’s whereabouts.

Chancellor and Chief

On Wednesday, Oct. 29, Chancellor Messina and City College Police Chief Mario Vasquez released a video briefing to reiterate these procedures and remind everyone of their legal rights when dealing with immigration officers.

Vasquez instructed people to request identity verification from ICE officials if they were sighted and to notify the Chancellor or himself immediately. Only the Chancellor is authorized to receive warrants and other legal documents from federal agents.

Vasquez stated that district police would not assist ICE in detaining individuals or sharing personal information, and reminded everyone that they do not have to answer any of their questions. 

“[They] don’t have access to classrooms, offices or behind counters, but do not impede them. We do not want our employees involved with interfering with ICE,” Vasquez said.

Messina again mentioned compliance with SB98, but stated that due to federal law, everyone will ultimately have to stay out of the way of federal agents.

In the video’s comment section, Richard Baum, AFT member and Political Science instructor, wrote, “What will the campus police do if ICE breaks laws, or brutalizes or kidnaps people? And will ICE be told that they are not welcome on campus?”

Another user wrote, “You’re acting like these ICE ‘agents’ are reasonable people who will even wait for you or the chancellor or the dean to show up. We all know that’s not true. These Gestapo don’t care. They will just come in, wreak havoc, and disappear people. I appreciate the gesture but I feel like it’s not enough, based on what I’ve seen on social media. These guys are ruthless. Please stay safe everyone.”

Resources

CCSF Immigrant Resources: www.ccsf.edu/immigrant

CCSF Police: (415) 239-3200

Chancellor’s Office: (415) 239-3556

San Francisco Rapid Response Network: (415) 200-1548

The Democrats’ problem is not age. It’s corporate and centrist Democrats of all ages.

by Robert Kuttner November 11, 2025 (Prospect.org)

How many pieces and op-eds have you read decrying the Democrats’ “gerontocracy,” as if a new generation of Democrats would sweep out the cobwebs? We need more young leaders like Zohran Mamdani (34), Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (36), and Graham Platner (41), right?

Yes, we surely do. But how about Bernie Sanders (84) and Elizabeth Warren (76)? How about Nancy Pelosi, who has just announced her retirement and who was one of the most effective House Speakers ever, well into her seventies? What distinguishes Mamdani, AOC, and Platner is not just their youth but the fact that they are compelling progressive populists.

More from Robert Kuttner

Conversely, how about House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries, a spry 55, who is so in thrall to the party’s big donors that he took until the weekend before last Tuesday’s election to give Mamdani a tepid endorsement? For that matter, how about Chuck Schumer (74), who never managed to endorse Mamdani? Schumer, who was long known as the “senator from Wall Street,” was no different at age 54 than he is at 74.

Take two current cases of youth challenging age, each instructive in complementary ways: Seth Moulton vs. Ed Markey and Graham Platner vs. Janet Mills.

In Massachusetts, Markey, a great progressive senator, wants one more term. At 79, he is five years younger than our beloved Bernie, who did more to rally the enthusiasm of young people than any other Democrat, until AOC and Mamdani. But I digress.

Markey is being challenged by Rep. Moulton, who is 47. I’ve listened to both of them lately. Markey is at least as sharp as Moulton, and a lot more principled. If Moulton fails to defeat Markey in the Democratic primary, it will be because Moulton is widely perceived as opportunist.

What distinguishes Mamdani, AOC, and Platner is not just their youth but the fact that they are compelling progressive populists.

Last year, Moulton, a former Marine, was looking to carve out some space in the cultural center, so he criticized trans athletes. In an interview with The New York Times shortly after Kamala Harris’s defeat, Moulton said, “Democrats spend way too much time trying not to offend anyone rather than being brutally honest about the challenges many Americans face. I have two little girls. I don’t want them getting run over on a playing field by a male or formerly male athlete, but as a Democrat, I’m supposed to be afraid to say that.”

If you think this was a spontaneous comment rather than a carefully considered jab at progressive Democrats, I have a bridge to sell you. The backlash was immediate. His campaign manager resigned. LGBT groups expressed outrage.

For a time, Moulton held his ground. He exchanged barbs with Massachusetts Gov. Maura Healey, who is a lesbian. In a follow-up interview a week later, Moulton said, “I’ve never had more people, parents and, by the way, a lot of L.G.B.T.Q. community members, reach out to me and say, ‘Thank you for saying this.’ Some of them are just speaking authentically as parents. Some of them believe the trans movement has gone too far. It is imperiling the progress we’ve made.”

In October, at the No Kings rally on Boston Common, where Markey had a trans flag draped across his shoulders, Moulton was booed. And once he decided to challenge Markey in a deep-blue state that supports trans rights, Moulton walked it all back. In a groveling apology last week, Moulton said, “I understand that some people were hurt by how I framed my comments in the past, and I take that seriously and have listened to their feedback … I’ve listened, I’ve learned, and I understand why those words hurt people. I take responsibility for that.” Moulton says he now supports the Transgender Bill of Rights.

In fact, the issue of trans athletes is a tricky one, with different sports bodies using different criteria. Had he stuck to his guns or fine-tuned his views, Moulton might have won some grudging support. But he lacked the courage of his shifting convictions. The trans community still doesn’t trust him. And others just see the opportunism.

There is also the case of Moulton’s expediently shifting views on Israel. One disgusted leader of Boston’s Jewish community told me, “Moulton was happy to take money from pro-Israel PACs until the issue of Israel became radioactive. Then he became a critic.”

In mid-October, just after he announced his challenge to Markey, Moulton put out a statement saying that he was returning all of his donations from AIPAC, the coordinating group for the Israel lobby. In 2023 and 2024, Moulton received a total of $42,850 from AIPAC, which was the top contributor to his campaign committee.

In a statement to The Harvard Crimson, Moulton said he has “serious concerns about [AIPAC’s] steadfast support for the Netanyahu government … I have always believed the people of Israel deserve safety and peace. That being said, I have disagreed publicly with AIPAC on a number of issues over the years.”

Markey has never taken money from AIPAC and has been a forceful critic of Israel’s actions in Gaza and the West Bank. Last July, Markey voted for both of Bernie Sanders’s resolutions to block arms sales to Israel.

And just yesterday, trying to run to Markey’s left, Moulton challenged Markey to vote to oust Chuck Schumer. Moulton said in a post on X, “If @ChuckSchumer were an effective leader, he would have united his caucus to vote ‘No’ tonight and hold the line on healthcare. Maybe now @EdMarkey will finally join me in pledging not to vote for Schumer?”

If a principled progressive half Markey’s age were challenging the veteran senator, it would be a tougher call. Given that the challenger is Seth Moulton, age could well beat beauty.

THE MAINE SENATE DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY CONTEST for the privilege of running against faux-moderate incumbent Republican Susan Collins raises different questions. The most important thing that distinguishes Graham Platner from the other leading Democratic contender, Gov. Janet Mills, is not his age but his ideology and base of support.

Platner, who combines a working-class cultural appeal with progressive-populist positions on key issues, has broad support and momentum. His youth helps, but his politics help a lot more. Mills is running as a competent moderate liberal, the sort of Democratic centrist loved by Chuck Schumer, who recruited her to run and promised her financial support from his leadership PAC.

But Platner seems primed to blow Mills away, and then to defeat Collins. He has won key labor endorsements including the UAW, the nurses, the professional and technical engineers, and the Machinists, who represent workers at the Bath Iron Works.

One labor leader who knows Maine well told me, “The Maine Democratic Party has two bases: Portland hipsters and blue-collar workers. Platner has both.”

Mills, at 77, is only a year older than Elizabeth Warren. Platner is likely to beat her not because of the age issue but because his powerful themes resonate with voters and deprive Mills of her base.

In sum, the “youth challenging age” narrative is a part of the story, but it’s far from the most important part. The Democratic Party surely needs more younger leaders. What it really needs is more compelling progressives—like millennial Graham Platner and baby boomer Ed Markey.

Thanks to you, we hit our fall fundraising goal! Independent journalism takes resources, and your support makes it possible for us to keep exposing corporate power and defending democracy. We’re so grateful to everyone who chipped in.

If you missed the campaign, it’s never too late to sustain this work — your support matters year-round.

Donate to the Prospect

Robert Kuttner

rkuttner@prospect.org

Robert Kuttner is co-founder and co-editor of The American Prospect, and professor at Brandeis University’s Heller School. His latest book is Going Big: FDR’s Legacy, Biden’s New Deal, and the Struggle… More by Robert Kuttner

Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer is seen after a news conference in the US Capitol on the government shutdown on November 5, 2025.

 (Photo by Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images)

Despite outcry from progressives, no Democrats in the Senate have yet expressed support for replacing Schumer as leader.

Brad Reed

Nov 11, 2025 (CommonDreams.org)

With many Democratic base voters up in arms over Senate Democrats caving on the federal government shutdown fight, there have been calls for Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer to step down from his leadership role.

None of those calls, however, have come from senators currently serving in the Democratic Caucus, including progressive stalwarts such as Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.).

RECOMMENDED…

‘Next Step Is Primaries’: Calls for Schumer Ouster After Leading Shutdown Surrender

‘They Have to Go,’ Graham Platner Says of Democratic Leaders After Shutdown Cave

As reported by The American Prospect on Tuesday, no Democrats in the Senate have yet expressed support for replacing Schumer (D-NY) as leader, despite the fact that “every single one of them has the power to force a vote on Schumer’s continued control of the caucus” if they chose to do so.

According to the Prospect, any senator in the Democratic Caucus “could bring forward a motion to amend the Democratic Caucus Rules to say that he should lose his leadership position if a set number of members disapprove of him.” What’s more, the Prospect explained, “the motion would be ‘self-executing,’ resulting in Schumer’s removal at the same time that it’s approved.”

As noted in a Politico report, Senate Democrats who were opposed to the shutdown cave did not directly criticize Schumer for his handling of the issue, and some, like Warren, tried to direct voters’ anger toward Republicans.

“I want Republicans to actually grow a backbone and say, regardless of what [President] Donald Trump says, we’re actually going to restore these cuts on healthcare,” she said on Sunday. “But it looks like I’ve lost that fight, so I don’t want to post more pain on people who are hungry and on people who haven’t been paid.”

Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) was more directly critical of the deal that Democrats cut on reopening the government, but he nonetheless stopped short of calling for Schumer’s removal.

“This bill doesn’t do anything to arrest the healthcare catastrophe, nor does it constrain in any meaningful way President Trump’s illegality,” he said. “I think the voters were pretty clear on Tuesday night what they wanted Congress to do, and more specifically, what they wanted Democrats to do, and I am really saddened that we didn’t listen to them.”

The appetite for ditching Schumer appears much stronger among Democrats serving in the US House of Representatives, however.

Axios on Monday reported that House Democrats’ anger at their Senate counterparts erupted during a private phone call among members, as Rep. Melanie Stansbury (D-NM) told her colleagues that “people are fucking pissed” at seeing Democrats once again cave in a fight with Trump.

One anonymous Democrat also told Axios that almost “everyone [was] strongly against” the deal Senate Democrats cut to reopen the government without an agreement to extend enhanced tax credits for Americans who buy their health insurance through Affordable Care Act (ACA) exchanges.

Rep. Seth Moulton (D-Mass.), who is running a primary challenge against Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), called on Schumer to step down as minority leader, and challenged his opponent to do the same.

“If Chuck Schumer were an effective leader, he would have united his caucus to vote ‘No’ tonight and hold the line on healthcare,” Moulton wrote in a social media post earlier this week. “Maybe now Ed Markey will finally join me in pledging not to vote for Schumer?”

Progressive advocacy organization Indivisible on Monday started ramping up pressure on Democrats to push for Schumer to step down as minority leader, and the group explicitly said that it would “not back any Senate primary candidate unless they call for Schumer to step down as Minority Leader.”

Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.

Brad Reed

Brad Reed is a staff writer for Common Dreams.

Full Bio >

US Speaker of the House Mike Johnson holds a press conference about the government shutdown at the US Capitol in Washington, DC, on October 6, 2025.

 (Photo by Saul Loeb/AFP via Getty Images)

The GOP “should evaluate whether Trump’s push to ignite a redistricting arms race may have made it easier for a blue wave to wipe out more Republicans than if they had left their maps alone,” wrote one analyst.

Brad Reed

Nov 11, 2025 (CommonDreams.org)

President Donald Trump’s push for mid-decade redistricting to prevent Republicans from losing control of the US House of Representatives appears to be on the verge of backfiring.

The latest blow to Trump’s nationwide redistricting efforts came in Utah, where District Court Judge Dianna Gibson shot down a proposed map drawn by Utah Republicans because it failed to abide by a 2018 ballot measure that restricted partisan gerrymandering in the state.

RECOMMENDED…

California Voters Pass Prop 50, Punching Back at Trump in Gerrymandering Fight

‘RIP to Free and Fair Elections,’ Say North Carolina Dems After GOP Approves New Voting Map

As reported by NBC News, Gibson instead approved a map that created “a solidly Democratic seat ahead of next year’s midterm elections,” thus giving Democrats a likely net gain of one seat in the US House.

Democratic National Committee Chairman Ken Martin hailed Gibson’s ruling and vowed that Democrats weren’t finished fighting Trump’s efforts to rig next year’s elections in his favor.

“Utah Republicans gerrymandered the maps because they knew they were losing power in the state,” he said. “Republicans doubled down when they chose to submit another gerrymandered map, but today, they were once again thwarted by impartial Courts. Democrats will continue to fight for fair maps in Utah, regardless of what Donald Trump and Utah Republicans try next. Every seat counts, and Democrats everywhere are fired up and ready to take back the House in the midterms in 2026.”

Dave Wasserman, a senior elections analyst at Cook Political Report, wrote in a post on X that the Democrats’ Utah victory, along with California voters’ approval of newly gerrymandered maps and reported plans to redraw maps in Virginia, have “pushed the mid-decade redistricting war closer to a draw.”

In a lengthy analysis published in Bloomberg on Tuesday, columnist Mary Ellen Klas argued that Republicans should take a deep breath before going all-in on Trump’s unprecedented mid-decade redistricting crusade, which began in Texas and subsequently spread to Missouri and North Carolina.

The issue, Klas explained, is that Republicans in those states have carved out more GOP-friendly districts based on assumptions that Republican gains among Latino voters and young men would hold in 2026. As last week’s sweeping Democratic victories showed, however, the GOP now appears to be hemorrhaging support among these two demographics.

“In New Jersey, 68% of Latino voters broke for Democrat Mikie Sherrill,” wrote Klas. “So did 56% of men under the age of 30. In Virginia, 67% of Latino voters went for Democrat Abigail Spanberger. So did 57% of men under 30. Many of these voters had voted for Trump last year. The exit polls show that both Sherrill and Spanberger won 7% of Trump’s 2024 voters, with Sherrill getting a whopping 18% of Trump’s Hispanic support in the state.”

If those trends hold over the next year, it could wipe out advantages the GOP had hoped to gain with its Texas gerrymander, which assumed that Latino voters who swung to Trump in the state would remain loyal partisan soldiers.

“Republicans are hardly going to admit it, but they should evaluate whether Trump’s push to ignite a redistricting arms race may have made it easier for a blue wave to wipe out more Republicans than if they had left their maps alone,” argued Klass.

In fact, some Republican strategists are already fretting about Trump’s gerrymandering plan, as one anonymous GOP insider told NBC News that if the endgame of the plan was “to net one seat across the country, then it will not have been worth it.”

A second anonymous GOP insider told NBC that there was “some concern” about whether Texas Republicans may have made themselves more vulnerable to a blue wave next year.

“In Texas, I do think there is some sense those seats will be ours, but nothing is guaranteed, so some concern there,” they said.

Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.

Brad Reed

Brad Reed is a staff writer for Common Dreams.

Full Bio >

• Click here to Denounce the 8 Dems Who Caved to the GOP on Healthcare Costs

The judge has yet to make a decision, but a ruling in S.F. attorneys’ favor would improve holding-cell conditions at the 630 Sansome St. immigration court.

by Sage Ríos Mace November 10, 2025 (MissionLocal.com)

San Francisco attorneys asked a federal judge on Monday to halt the practice of keeping immigrants detained for up to three days in holding cells across the country while they await transfer to long-term detention centers.

The attorneys, who represent four immigrants held in San Francisco holding cells, say conditions inside the cells are so poor that they violate immigrants’ constitutional rights.

The demand was the first major action in a hearing that kicked off Monday after the American Civil Liberties Union joined with other groups to sue Immigration and Customs Enforcement over conditions in its holding cells at 630 Sansome St., the city’s ICE headquarters. 

Want the latest on the Mission and San Francisco? Sign up for our free daily newsletter below.Sign up

Attorney Nisha Kashyap, who is with the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay Area, appeared before Judge Casey Pitts in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California in San Jose to ask for a pause to an ICE policy that allows the agency to hold immigrants for up to 72 hours in its holding cells.

ICE started that policy in June.

ICE uses holding cells in its facilities nationwide to detain immigrants before they are transferred to detention centers. Until June, ICE could only hold immigrants in those cells for 12 hours. ICE then issued a waiver that month to extend the cap to three days.

Mission Local subsequently documented an increase in immigrants being held at the San Francisco ICE holding cells for longer periods of time, including at least two who were held more than 72 hours.

The attorneys also asked the judge to order ICE to immediately improve conditions in its holding cells at 630 Sansome St., in San Francisco.

Immigrants who were detained by ICE there over the last six months say they were kept in small, cold spaces for up to six days without prescribed medication, access to restrooms, clean clothes, and other essentials. 

Plaintiffs allege that the Sansome Street facility was never meant for more than short stays, and that current practices violate immigrants’ constitutional rights.

In the lawsuit, those detained at Sansome provided firsthand testimony describing freezing temperatures, little or no privacy in single-room metal cells, lack of beds or blankets, and fluorescent lights left on continuously. 

In the hearing, attorney Marissa Hatton of the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights said the holding cells can cause “serious psychological harm.”

One plaintiff said he told ICE that he needed his blood pressure medications, but he received no medical attention. As a result, he suffered a medical crisis that may have caused permanent brain damage, according to the lawsuit.

If the judge makes a ruling in the plaintiffs’  favor, these conditions will have to be improved.

The plaintiffs’ attorneys also sought to expand their case to cover all immigrants who had been detained at 630 Sansome St., or may be detained there in the future, by seeking class-action certification. 

“The four individuals who brought this lawsuit seek to represent and advocate on behalf of all the folks affected by this policy,” Kashyap said, adding that the certification would ensure that “not every single individual detainee has to come into court with their own individual lawsuit.”

The government’s attorney argued against the class-action certification, saying the experiences of those detained at Sansome are too different to satisfy the legal standard. The attorney also sought to dismiss the ask for a stay of the 12-hour waiver.

While Judge Pitts did not issue a ruling Monday, he said a decision would come soon, given the sensitivity of the lawsuit at hand.

Kashyap left the hearing cautiously optimistic.

“The government had the opportunity to rebut and they failed,” Kashyap said. “That’s significant, because I think it shows what’s happening in San Francisco is unconstitutional, and it mirrors what we’re seeing happening in New York and Chicago.”

Chi Ossé, a New York City councilman, has told allies he is preparing to challenge Representative Hakeem Jeffries, the Democratic leader of the House.

By Benjamin Oreskes

Nov. 10, 2025 (NYTimes.com)

Chi Ossé, a far-left city councilman aligned with the policies of Zohran Mamdani, the mayor-elect of New York City, has told political allies that he is planning to challenge Representative Hakeem Jeffries, the top House Democrat, in next June’s primary.

Mr. Ossé, 27, hopes to follow Mr. Mamdani’s unlikely path, combining a vibrant social media presence, an insurgent campaign and on-the-ground support from left-leaning groups to lift him to victory.

But he may not have the mayor-elect’s support.

Mr. Ossé has spoken to various Democrats about his intentions, and is expected to announce his bid against Mr. Jeffries in the next few weeks, according to two people who have spoken to him in recent days.

When asked about his plans, Mr. Ossé did not confirm or deny them. He said in a statement that he had been “hearing a lot of concern about Democratic Party leadership. It’s a big part of why I worked so hard to get Zohran elected and defeat the establishment’s champion, Andrew Cuomo.”

“Right now, I’m focused on serving my constituents and guaranteeing the success of Zohran’s agenda at City Hall,” he added.

Mr. Mamdani has privately tried to discourage his ideological ally from running. The mayor-elect and his team fear that another high-profile challenge from the left might compromise his own bid to push the Democratic establishment to support his affordability agenda.

Mr. Mamdani also may want to avoid the optics of having Mr. Ossé challenge the House Democratic leader, who endorsed Mr. Mamdani in October after months of negotiation.

The disagreement caused Mr. Ossé to be disinvited from Mr. Mamdani’s election night watch party, according to two people familiar with the matter, even though he has been a frequent presence at Mr. Mamdani’s campaign events. Instead, Mr. Ossé said he spent the night “with my constituents at D.S.A. events celebrating Zohran’s incredible win.”

Mr. Mamdani on Monday sidestepped questions about Mr. Ossé, saying he was solely focused on preparing for his inauguration and would keep his “opinions just to the work of the transition.” Mr. Ossé’s plans to challenge Mr. Jeffries were first reported by The New York Post.

For Mr. Jeffries, any primary challenge will be a distraction from his main priority of trying to lead House Democrats into the majority. He has not run in a competitive primary since 2012, when he first won office in a Brooklyn district that encompasses gentrifying communities as well as working-class Black neighborhoods that tend to be more moderate, like East New York and Canarsie.

Justin Chermol, a spokesman for Mr. Jeffries, said he “is focused on addressing the crushing Republican health care crisis, combating Donald Trump’s scheme to gerrymander congressional maps and leading the effort to take back the House of Representatives in 2026.”

Democratic leaders have historically tried to discourage insurgent candidates, especially from the left, from challenging incumbents. That has not stopped several primary challenges to state lawmakers, including one whose district overlaps with Mr. Jeffries.

Any challenger ideologically aligned with Mr. Mamdani may hope that the mayor-elect, now a national figure who can raise large sums of cash for allies, would support their campaigns.

But Mr. Mamdani and his aides have stressed that he would not simply follow the endorsements of the local D.S.A. chapter, and would look to back candidates who can help him deliver on his agenda. It appears that Mr. Ossé may not meet Mr. Mamdani’s requirement.

Mr. Ossé, who was first elected at the age of 23 to the City Council in 2021, did not unconditionally support Mr. Mamdani for mayor until late May. He initially donated to the mayoral campaign of Brad Lander, the city comptroller, and to State Senator Zellnor Myrie; he could not donate to Mr. Mamdani because his campaign had already maxed out on contributions. He later told supporters to rank Mr. Mamdani No. 1 on their primary ballots, one of the earliest councilmembers to do so.

He has gained prominence for his accessible distillations of progressive policies on TikTok and Instagram. Last year, he introduced legislation, which passed and took effect in June, that forces many landlords to cover broker fees, instead of renters.

Like Mr. Mamdani, Mr. Ossé will seek support from the local chapter of the Democratic Socialists of America, an influential organizing engine that has helped local progressives like Mr. Mamdani win recent elections. But unlike Mr. Mamdani, whose membership in the group dates back to 2017, Mr. Ossé’s roots are not as deep.

He said last month that he had recently joined the group, but as recently as 2023, he was telling followers that he is “not a D.S.A. member nor was I endorsed by D.S.A.” If the chapter signals that it may not endorse him, it could affect his plans to run, two people who have spoken to him about the race said.

Mr. Ossé is expected to appear later this month before the D.S.A.’s electoral working group, which handles congressional endorsements.

Nicholas Fandos contributed reporting.

Benjamin Oreskes is a reporter covering New York State politics and government for The Times.

See more on: Hakeem Jeffries, Zohran Mamdani, U.S. House of Representatives, U.S. Politics

• © 2025 The New York Times Company

“The trouble with socialism is that it takes up too many evenings.”

― Oscar Wilde

Oscar Fingal O’Fflahertie Wills Wilde (October 16, 1854 = November 30, 1900) was an Irish poet, playwright, novelist, and critic known for his wit, flamboyance, and epigrams. He’s best remembered for his novel The Picture of Dorian Gray and plays like The Importance of Being Earnest. Wilde was a leader of the aesthetic movement, which believed art should exist for its own beauty. Born in Dublin, Wilde was a brilliant student of Latin and Greek at Trinity College, Dublin and Magdalen College, Oxford.  Wikipedia.org