Google is in the middle of a six-month, $45 million contract to amplify propaganda with Netanyahu’s office. The contract describes Google as a “key entity” supporting the prime minister’s messaging.

JACK POULSON

 AND 

LEE FANG

SEP 03, 2025 (dropsitenews.com)

We have a commitment to ensuring that our journalism is not locked behind a paywall. But the only way we can sustain this is through the voluntary support of our community of readers. If you are a free subscriber and you support our work, please consider upgrading to a paid subscription or gifting one to a friend or family member. You can also make a 501(c)(3) tax-deductible donation to support our work. If you do not have the means to support our work financially, you can do your part by sharing our work on social media and by forwarding this email to your network of contacts.Subscribe

On March 2, 2025, hours after the Israeli government announced the blockade of all food, medicine, fuel, and other humanitarian supplies from entering Gaza, lawmakers in Jerusalem demanded answers—not on the devastating human toll of such a decision, but on how Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s office was preparing to handle the public relations fallout.

“I began with the example of the cessation of humanitarian aid—did you prepare for this thing this morning?” asked Knesset member Moshe Tur-Paz, the chair of a subcommittee on Foreign Affairs in Israel’s parliament.

Avichai Edrei, a spokesperson for the Israel Defense Forces who was asked the same question later in the hearing, assured the legislators work was underway, stating, “We could also decide to launch a digital campaign in this context, to explain that there is no hunger and present the data.”Subscribe

Publicly available government contracts show that Israel’s advertising bureau, which reports to the prime minister’s office, has since embarked on a mass advertising and public messaging effort to conceal the hunger crisis. The push includes the use of American influencers widely reported on last month. It also includes a high-dollar spending spree on paid advertising, yielding tens of millions for Google, YouTube, X, Meta, and other tech platforms.

“There is food in Gaza. Any other claim is a lie,” asserted a propaganda video published by Israel’s foreign ministry to Google’s YouTube video sharing platform in late August and viewed more than 6 million times. Much of the video’s reach results from an ad placed during an ongoing and previously unreported $45 million (NIS 150 million) advertising campaign initiated between Google and Netanyahu’s office in late June. The contract—which is with both YouTube and Google’s advertising campaign management platform, Display & Video 360—explicitly characterizes the ad campaign as hasbara, a Hebrew word whose meaning is somewhere between public relations and propaganda.

Records show that the Israeli government similarly spent $3 million (NIS 10 million) for an advertising campaign with X. The French and Israeli advertising platform Outbrain/Teads is also set to receive roughly $2.1 million (NIS 7 million).

The ads have aired in response to increasing global outcry over the deteriorating situation in Gaza. In August, the UN formally declared a famine in Gaza governorate, which includes Gaza City. The Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC), the leading global authority on food security, projected the threshold for famine would be crossed in Deir al-Balah and Khan Younis in the coming weeks, stating “this Famine is entirely man-made, it can be halted and reversed.” The UN aid coordination office OCHA further warned on Friday of “a descent into a massive famine” in the Gaza Strip.

At least 367 Palestinians, including 131 children, have died as a result of hunger and malnutrition since the war began, according to the health ministry in Gaza.

The existence of an Israeli Google ads campaign to discredit the UN’s primary aid agency for Palestinian refugees, UNRWA, was similarly reported by WIRED last year. Hadas Maimon, head of public awareness for Israel’s diaspora ministry, stated during the March 2 Knesset hearing that, “For almost a year now, we have been leading a major campaign on the issue of UNRWA.”

Other Israeli government ads on Google’s platforms accused the United Nations of “deliberate sabotage” of aid delivery into Gaza and promoted the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, which is backed by Israel, the U.S., and unnamed European countries. One campaign promoted prosecution of the militant group Hamas, which governs the Gaza Strip, for debunked allegations of mass sexual violence as a result of a controversial report published by the Israeli advocacy group Dinah Project.

Despite the denial about the famine, prominent Israeli government voices have championed the effort to cut off food and water to Gazans as a strategy for inducing mass migration out of the territory. “In my opinion, you can besiege them,” said Bezalel Smotrich, the Israeli Finance Ministry and a coalition partner to Netantayu’s government, according to Channel 12. “No water, no electricity, they can die of hunger or surrender,” Smotrich said.

Amichay Eliyahu, the Knesset member who leads the Heritage Ministry in Netanyahu’s government, has similarly called for starving the Palestinian population of Gaza. “There is no nation that feeds its enemies,” Eliyahu said during a radio interview in July. In May, the minister argued the Palestinians “need to starve” and added, “If there are civilians who fear for their lives, they should go through the emigration plan.”

Another campaign has attempted to discredit the pro-Palestinian lawfare organization known as the Hind Rajab Foundation, which accumulates evidence of apparent Israeli war crimes and advocates for international prosecution. Several ads link to an Israeli government report entitled “Unmasking the Hind Rajab Foundation,” which characterizes the organization as having “deep connections to extremist ideologies and terrorist organisations, raising serious concerns about its true motives.”

In response to a June report from UN Special Rapporteur Francesca Albanese which concluded that Google had profited from the “genocide in Gaza,” the centibillionaire Google co-founder Sergey Brin reportedly described the UN as a “transparently antisemitic” organization on an internal company forum on July 5. Albanese’s criticism of Google centered around the company joining Amazon in 2021 on a major cloud computing contract with the Israeli government—including the military—known as Project Nimbus.

The Israeli Prime Minister’s Office ads referring to famine in Gaza as a “lie” were placed through the Israeli Government Advertising Agency, known by its Hebrew acronym, Lapam, which began waging its six-month hasbara campaign through Google and X ads in June, according to government disclosures. The contracts were initially centered around a propaganda surge attempting to persuade international audiences to support the Israeli military’s twelve days of air strikes against Iran, known as Operation Rising Lion. One bullet point in the published contract clarified that “the request is for campaigns following Operation ‘Rising Lion’ as well as for ongoing activities.”

According to an estimate from the U.S.-based nonprofit Human Rights Activists in Iran, at least 436 Iranian civilians were killed by the Israeli airstrikes.

“Since the opening of Operation ‘Rising Lion,’ Lapam has been working with all of its employees and suppliers in a full emergency format, in order to conduct a wide-ranging outreach activity for all government ministries and security bodies, including the Home Front Command, the Ministry of Defense, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the National Publicity Division, the Ministry of Diaspora, and more,” reads the underlying June contract.

“The suppliers with whom the contract is being sought are among the key entities with which Lapam works on an ongoing basis, both during routine periods and in times of emergency, and they possess the infrastructure and knowledge required to carry out the necessary information tasks,” continues the Israeli government document, in reference to the central role contracts with Google and X play in amplifying the spread of Netanyahu’s propaganda.

An editorial published in early August by the Arab fact-checking organization Misbar reported that information disclosed in Google and Meta’s ad transparency portals amounted to a “large-scale Israeli propaganda campaign” operating during Operation Rising Lion. Misbar characterized the Israeli government’s ad campaigns as having “used disinformation to justify the strikes, presenting them as essential for the security of Israel and Western countries.”

Google, Outbrain/Teads, and the Israeli Government Advertising Agency did not respond to requests for comment.

Leave a comment

Share

Correction: The English translation of the Hebrew acronym for the Israeli Government Advertising Agency was fixed in two quotes.

A guest post byJack PoulsonI am an independent journalist focused on the intersection of technology and national security; I also run techinquiry.org on a volunteer basis. Send me tips on Signal at @poulson.01.Subscribe to Jack

A guest post byLee FangInvestigative reporter

Rep. Deborah Ross became the latest Democrat to swear off AIPAC amid pressure to hold Israel accountable for its genocide in Gaza.

Jonah Valdez

August 29 2025 (TheIntercept.com)

Rep. Deborah Ross, D-N.C., at a news conference held by House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic Democrats in Washington, D.C. on June 3, 2024. Photo: Bill Clark/CQ Roll Call via AP Images

DEMOCRATIC REP. DEBORAH ROSS of North Carolina has pledged that she will not accept contributions from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee during the 2026 midterm election cycle — after receiving more than $100,000 from the conservative pro-Israel lobby group in past elections, Ross’s office confirmed to The Intercept. 

Ross, a moderate member of the House of Representatives, is the latest lawmaker to swear off the lobby amid sustained pressure and protest from voters who oppose Israel’s genocide of Palestinians in Gaza. Her pledge closely follows that of fellow North Carolina Democrat Rep. Valerie Foushee, who vowed not to take money from AIPAC. Foushee was among AIPAC’s biggest recipients, having taken more than $800,000 in direct giving from AIPAC and individual donations it bundled.

“Congresswoman Ross is not currently accepting AIPAC contributions,” said a spokesperson for Ross’s office in a statement to The Intercept. She further clarified that the pledge covers AIPAC contributions throughout the 2026 cycle.

Anti-genocide organizers viewed Ross and Foushee’s anti-AIPAC pledges as evidence of a sea change within the Democratic Party.

“It is always good to hear someone is willing to have the courage of their convictions and not support organizations that they believe do not fully represent the interests of the U.S.” said Dr. Paul McAllister, a reverend and chair of the Interfaith Caucus of the North Carolina Democratic Party who has been organizing to oppose Israel’s assault on Gaza. “AIPAC uses the muscle of their resources to oust anyone who disagrees with them regarding Israel, the conduct of Israel and the atrocities that may be committed by the government of Israel — so it is good that Deborah Ross is willing to recognize and acknowledge that.”

MOST READ

Trump Boasts of Strike on “Drug-Carrying Boat” From Venezuela

Nick Turse

Trump’s Chicago Occupation Could Cost Four Times More Than Housing City Homeless

Nick Turse

Ross was first elected to the House in 2020 and began taking AIPAC money in 2022. She received $41,900 from AIPAC in that cycle and an additional $97,876 for her 2024 campaign, according to campaign finance records. 

Her pledge comes at a time when Democratic politics in North Carolina have been divided around the issue of Israel and Palestine. 

In late June, the North Carolina Democratic Party passed a resolution calling for a complete arms embargo on all military aid to Israel until it ends its apartheid rule of Palestinians. The resolution won by a narrow margin — 161 to 151 — and withstood pushback from the state’s centrist Jewish Democrats who argued it would direct voters’ attention to the party’s foreign policy platform, while they wanted to focus on the economy.

McAllister and a broad coalition within the North Carolina Democratic Party — which includes the party’s Arab, African American, LGBTQ, interfaith, Muslim, and progressive caucuses; the Jewish Democrats; and the NC Association of Teen Democrats — supported the resolution. 

McAllister was among five members of the coalition who met with members of Ross’s office on August 19, when her staff confirmed her anti-AIPAC pledge, McAllister told The Intercept. The group also urged her office to co-sponsor the Block the Bombs to Israel Act, a bill working its way through the House of Representatives that aims to end some weapons shipments to Israel. 

Related

Even Former AIPAC Democrats Are Signing On to Block Arms Sales to Israel

The bill, which had drawn 40 co-sponsors as of Thursday, would prohibit the Trump administration from providing Israel with specific U.S.-made weapons that the Israeli military has used in documented war crimes against Palestinians.

Ross’s spokesperson declined to comment on whether she would support the legislation.

IfNotNow, a Jewish-led progressive organization backing Block the Bombs and helping lead the Reject AIPAC coalition, praised Ross for rejecting the Israel lobby’s dollars and called on her to co-sponsor the bill.

“It’s great to see Rep. Ross join the growing number of Democrats who have previously welcomed AIPAC’s support and are now accepting the fact that aligning with right-wing billionaires only empowers fascists like Netanyahu and Trump,” said Lauren Maunus, the political director for IfNotNow. “Now, we look forward to her signing on to the Block the Bombs Act.”

WE’RE INDEPENDENT OF CORPORATE INTERESTS — AND POWERED BY MEMBERS. JOIN US.

BECOME A MEMBER

Foushee is co-sponsoring the bill, as are at least two other lawmakers who previously received AIPAC money: Rep. Veronica Escobar, D-Texas, who received $46,000 from AIPAC in 2022, and Rep. Jonathan Jackson, D-Ill., who took $15,000 in 2022 and 2024. 

At least three other representatives who are also AIPAC recipients have made statements in support of blocking arms to Israel in recent weeks, but have yet to sign on to the Block the Bombs bill. That list now includes Oregon Democrats Maxine Dexter and Suzanne Bonamici and, most recently, Rep. Adam Smith of Washington state, a leading moderate Democrat in Congress and ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee.

Related

“A Purely Manmade Famine”: How Israel Is Starving Gaza

On Tuesday, Smith said he supported blocking “the sale of some weapons now” to Israel to compel the country to enact a ceasefire, allow a flow of humanitarian aid into Gaza, and halt its expansion of illegal settlements in the occupied West Bank. 

Smith has received more than $700,000 in contributions from AIPAC since 2022, including $46,900 in 2025, finance records said.

After decades of lobbying on the Hill, AIPAC, which includes Republican billionaires within its donor stream, began directly funding congressional elections in 2021. It spent millions last cycle unseating Democrats who have been critical of Israel, most notably progressive former lawmakers Rep. Jamaal Bowman of New York and Rep. Cori Bush of Missouri. 

Correction: Aug. 29, 2025, 12:16 p.m. ET

This story has been updated to remove a reference to IfNotNow as an anti-Zionist organization after a spokesperson clarified that the group does not identify with the term.Share

CONTACT THE AUTHOR:

Jonah Valdezjonah.valdez@theintercept.com@jonahmv.05on Signal@jonahmvon X

Two affordable housing buildings plus infrastructure and roads are up first for the 1,100-unit project.

JOHN R. ADKINS

SEPTEMBER 03 2025 (inglesidelight.com)

The 1,100-unit Balboa Reservoir housing development is all but under construction.

As work crews deliver materials to the site in preparation for the groundbreaking in a few weeks, representatives from the development team’s design, architecture and general contracting firms held a public meeting to answer questions and share information.

About 50 community members stopped by Unity Plaza on Saturday, Aug. 30, to view the project’s latest drawings and voice concerns. Among them was Excelsior resident Theo Randolph, 41, who said he wanted assurance that construction would begin as planned rather than face more delays.

“We need a lot more affordable housing,” Randolph said. “My concern is if construction efficiency goes down, the cost per housing unit escalates higher and higher.”

Nibbi Brothers Construction Company began stockpiling aggregate and soil on-site in early August.

Currently, the team has funding commitments for buildings E and A, both of which are 100% affordable buildings, bringing approximately 280 units to the lot.

The plan for the reservoir is broken up into three phases. Phase one includes buildings E, A, and all necessary roads and infrastructure for the project.

“It begins with taking down the berm and building the hills that E will sit on, as well as creating the connection between Lee and Ocean Avenue,” BRIDGE Housing’s Ernie Theurer said.

Lee Avenue will be extended past the east side of Whole Foods Market to connect to the adjacent reservoir and will serve as the project’s main trucking entrance.

The development team meets with City College of San Francisco on a weekly basis to coordinate its construction with the upcoming Diego Rivera Theatre and the proposed parking facility.

The close proximity between the college and the reservoir on Lee Avenue necessitates an ongoing collaboration between the two parties, including the installation of all new utility infrastructure for the college along the shared street. New bike lanes are also being established as a part of the development.

The second phase of construction will include the reservoir’s two-acre, central Reservoir Park, as well as two lower buildings, C and D. Phase three will complete the development with G, F, B and around 100 townhomes.

Residents concerned with pollution can rest assured that the dust and noise mitigation plans are already in place, as dictated by the city. 

“In general, the winds travel from the ocean to the bay, so we’ve set up our dust monitor to capture both dust entering and exiting the site,” Theurer explained.

Watering will take place during the movement of materials to minimize any visible dust. If noise and dust monitors detect any unwanted disturbance, then the data can be coordinated with contractors to adjust their work as needed.

Also, the team is coordinating the shipment of materials in and out of the street that runs alongside Archbishop Riordan High School, soon to be called Diego Lane, to avoid conflict with the pickup and drop-off times.

The team believes that revenue from buildings E and A, once completed, will jump-start the development of the subsequent for-profit buildings to be led by AvalonBay Communities.

Published in: Housing & Development

Related Articles

Former Target Space Tenant Approved

Michael Lai’s District 11 Supervisor Campaign Criticized

Ocean Avenue Association Advances Renewal And Expansion

Geneva Off-Ramp Safety And Congestion Study Completed

Explore the Ingleside Light

Ingleside’s Whole Foods Market Site of Stabbing

Ocean Avenue Stabbing Unprovoked, Police Report

Purtea Serves Boba With Vibes On Ingleside’s Ocean Avenue

Ingleside Sewing Shop Serge A Lot Moves to Larger Storefront

Powered by

AUTHOR

John R. Adkins

John R. Adkins is a San Francisco-based journalist and storyteller living in Ingleside. He is editor-in-chief of City College’s student-run publication The Guardsman and reports on higher education, politics and the arts.

Swedish activist Greta Thunberg attends a solidarity with Palestine event on December 6, 2024 in Mannheim, Germany.

 (Photo by Thomas Lohnes/Getty Images)

“I am ashamed as a human being,” said the Swedish human rights and climate activist.

BRAD REED

Sep 04, 2025 (CommonDreams.org)

Activist Greta Thunberg on Wednesday expressed her contempt for the international community for its continued inaction on ending the mass suffering being inflicted on Gaza by the Israeli government.

Thunberg, who is a passenger on the Global Sumud Flotilla attempting to break through the Israeli blockade of Gaza, told Middle East Eye that her decision to join the voyage was “the bare minimum” she could do as Palestinians are facing mass starvation.

Thunberg then turned her ire to the rest of the world, which she accused of sitting on its hands while Gazans are suffering from a full-blown famine.

“I am absolutely disgusted by how there are so many people who are unable to say anything,” she said. “Who are unable to do the very bare minimum to acknowledge the genocide, to even go to a demonstration, to even attend a protest when people are fighting for their lives to survive and to sustain their families.”

The Swedish-born Thunberg went on to say that “I am ashamed as a human being, especially by my government, who are supposed to represent me,” and she cited a recent quote from Swedish Deputy Prime Minister Ebba Busch, who said last month that Israel was doing the world a “favor” with its military operations in Gaza.

“Our complicity is worsening every day, as this genocide is escalating, that we aren’t able to do more,” Thunberg said. “That politicians aren’t able to do the very bare minimum to uphold international law and prevent even the worst war crimes from happening. This is a textbook example of how our systems have failed.”

In an exclusive interview with MEE from aboard one of the Global Sumud Flotilla boats destined for Gaza, vocal Palestine activist Greta Thunberg described the initiative as "inspired by the words of Palestinians." pic.twitter.com/a7CGGJlJiG

— Middle East Eye (@MiddleEastEye) September 4, 2025

The flotilla, which departed from Spain earlier this week, aims to pass through an Israeli military blockade to deliver humanitarian aid to people in Gaza.

Thunberg was also a passenger on a previous flotilla mission that was intercepted by Israeli forces, who detained its passengers and then returned them to their home countries.

In addition to Thunberg, other prominent passengers on the current flotilla include American actress Susan Sarandon, Irish actor Liam Cunningham, Portuguese politician Mariana Mortágua, former Barcelona Mayor Ada Colau, and Mandla Mandela, the grandson of former South African President Nelson Mandela.

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 Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) speaks at a rally at St. Mary’s Park in the Bronx on June 22, 2024 in New York City.

 (Photo by Steven Ferdman/GC Images)

“We use our primaries to settle our differences, and once we have a nominee, we rally behind that nominee,” the New York Democrat said as the NYC mayoral election nears.

JESSICA CORBETT

Sep 04, 2025 (CommonDreams.org)

Progressive Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez suggested Thursday that the top congressional Democrats—and anyone else in the party refusing to support New York City mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani—are setting a troubling precedent.

Like Ocasio-Cortez, both US Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries are New York Democrats. Unlike the “Squad” member, who endorsed Mamdani—a democratic socialist currently serving in the state Assembly—before he beat former Gov. Andrew Cuomo in the party’s June primary, Schumer and Jeffries have continued to withhold support from their own party’s nominee.

“We have a Democratic nominee,” Ocasio-Cortez told reporters Thursday. “Are we a party that rallies behind our nominee or not?”

The congresswoman pointed to 2020, when she supported former President Joe Biden once he was the nominee, even though “he was not my preferred candidate in the primary,” and last year, when she supported Vice President Kamala Harris after Biden dropped out of the race against President Donald Trump. She explained that she did so “because I am a Democrat and what we do is that we use our primaries to settle our differences, and once we have a nominee, we rally behind that nominee.”

.@AOC, when asked abt Jeffries & Schumer not endorsing Mamdani:

"I am very concerned about the example that is being set by anybody in our party … if an individual doesn't want to support the party's nom now, it complicates their ability to ask voters to support any nom later" pic.twitter.com/d8bXPuGiKs

— Kevin Frey (@KevinFreyTV) September 4, 2025

“I am very concerned about the example that is being set by anybody in our party” who isn’t now supporting Mamdani, Ocasio-Cortez said. “I believe that we must set the example of supporting the party’s nominee.”

“If an individual doesn’t want to support the party’s nominee now, it complicates their ability to ask voters to support any nominee later, whether that is mayoral, presidential, what have you,” she said. “And so I think, for the good of the party, we must put our differences aside and support our party’s nominee.”

Asked if she’s specifically frustrated with Schumer and Jeffries, she responded: “This isn’t about personalities… I think that we’re in a moment of a Trump administration, the stakes are high, and I want, of course, to see our party come together and stick together, despite our differences.”

Ocasio-Cortez isn’t the only high-profile member of Congress vocally supporting Mamdani. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.)—who twice sought the Democratic presidential nomination—also endorsed him before his primary win and is now planning a town hall with him on Saturday. It is part of Sanders’ Fighting Oligarchy Tour, which has featured various progressive speakers, including Ocasio-Cortez.

While Schumer and Jeffries continue to withhold their support, they haven’t gone so far as some Democrats overtly speaking out against the New York City mayoral candidate—such as Congressman Tom Suozzi (D-NY), who said in a recent televised interview that “Zohran Mamdani and every other democratic socialist should create their own party because I don’t want that in my party.”

Jeffries has met with Mamdani twice and was asked about his lack of endorsement earlier this week. He simply said, “Stay tuned.”

https://x.com/prem_thakker/status/1963380421690814716?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1963380421690814716%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.commondreams.org%2Fnews%2Faoc-zohran-mamdani

Noting that Jeffries and Schumer have so far refused to endorse Mamdani, journalist Mehdi Hasan wrote in a Wednesday column for The Guardian, “If you want to understand why the Democrats are polling at their lowest point for more than three decades, look no further than these two uninspiring Democratic leaders in Congress.”

After cataloguing how the pair continues to “embarrass themselves, undermine their colleagues, and demoralize their voters,” Hasan said that “while younger Democrats like Mamdani and AOC offer energy and charisma, these two lackluster leaders in the House and Senate offer cringe chants and even cringier photo ops.”

“It is past time for both Jeffries and Schumer to step down and step aside,” he concluded. “This fascist moment, this age of Trump, demands outspoken, unrelenting, and fearless opposition. Whether you are a Democrat, or simply a democrat, we all deserve better.”

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

JESSICA CORBETT

Jessica Corbett is a senior editor and staff writer for Common Dreams.

Full Bio >

Nancy Pelosi endorses S.F. Supervisor Joel Engardio in his fight to defeat recall

By J.D. Morris,Staff Writer Sep 2, 2025 (SFChronicle.com)

Rep. Nancy Pelosi, pictured at a press conference in San Francisco in April, says she “strongly” opposed the recall of Supervisor Joel Engardio.Benjamin Fanjoy/For the S.F. Chronicle

San Francisco Supervisor Joel Engardio’s bid to defeat a recall campaign against him in two weeks just got a boost from the city’s most prominent politician: Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi. 

Pelosi endorsed Engardio in a statement released by his campaign Tuesday, saying she “strongly” opposed the recall and stands with the supervisor “as he continues his important work for the people of the Sunset and San Francisco.”

Engardio, who was elected to represent District 4 in 2022, is in a tough fight to keep his seat after his opponents gathered enough signatures to force a recall vote on Sept. 16. The push to remove Engardio was prompted by his support for Proposition K, a successful 2024 ballot measure that permanently closed a key stretch of the Great Highway to cars. Most of Engardio’s constituents in the Sunset opposed the measure. 

An endorsement from Pelosi, a popular politician in the city for decades, could benefit Engardio’s campaign. And it comes at an important moment for Engardio, less than a week after his campaign suffered a setback when the San Francisco Democratic Party deadlocked on the recall and declined to take a position on it.

“Supevisor Joel Engardio is delivering results for the Sunset and for all of San Francisco,” Pelosi said in the statement. “In our work together on health care, transportation, and other vital priorities, Joel has shown his commitment to strengthening our neighborhoods and enhancing our City’s natural resources.”

Engardio said in a statement that “no one stands for progress more than Nancy Pelosi” and he was “honored” to receive her endorsement in the recall. 

“From creating housing and public spaces, to supporting parents and families, to helping small businesses thrive — we believe in moving the city forward,” Engardio said. “Her support is a reminder that when we work together, we can build a more vibrant city for everyone.”

This is not the first time Pelosi has waded into a local supervisor race. Last year, she endorsed then-Supervisor Dean Preston as he ran for another term in District 5, which runs from the Tenderloin to Haight-Ashbury. Preston lost to Bilal Mahmood by about 1,600 votes.

Jamie Hughes, lead organizer for the campaign to recall Engardio, did not expect Pelosi to have much impact on the Sunset election.

“District 4 residents aren’t looking to Washington, D.C. to tell them how to vote,” Hughes said. “They know Engardio betrayed them.”

Sep 2, 2025

J.D. Morris

CITY HALL REPORTER

J.D. Morris covers San Francisco City Hall, focused on Mayor Daniel Lurie. He joined the Chronicle in 2018 to cover energy and spent three years writing mostly about PG&E and California wildfires.Before coming to the Chronicle, he reported on local government for the Santa Rosa Press Democrat, where he was among the journalists awarded a Pulitzer Prize for their coverage of the 2017 North Bay wildfires.He was previously the casino industry reporter for the Las Vegas Sun. Raised in Monterey County and Bakersfield, he has a bachelor’s degree in rhetoric from UC Berkeley.

Status Coup News Streamed live on Sep 3, 2025 Videojournalist Jon Farina is LIVE in Washington D.C. at the Capitol as 10 victims of disgraced billionaire Jeffrey Epstein’s predatory trafficking ring speak out about the heinous crimes and assault they endured and demand that President Trump and the Republican Congress release the full list of documents revealing other powerful figures who were involved in Epstein’s trafficking ring. We’ll cover the press conference and interview anybody we can after. SUPPORT our INDEPENDENT ON THE GROUND reporting for as low as $5 bucks a month. Corporate media isn’t gonna do it! https://statuscoup.com/join/ DONATE to help fund Status Coup’s reporting: https://statuscoup.com/donate/ JOIN our Substack for investigative reporting & news: https://statuscoup.substack.com

by Randy Shaw on September 2, 2025 (BeyondChron.org)

Signs by opponents of Lurie’s Plan

San Francisco Mayor Daniel Lurie has excelled at avoiding major political fights. But that may not be possible for his Family Zoning Plan. Opposition is building across political lines. The battle harkens back to the “Downtown vs Neighborhoods” framework that shaped San Francisco politics for decades.

Do development opponents still have the political base that propelled Art Agnos to victory in the 1987 mayor’s race? Or does Lurie’s election, following four prior pro-development mayors, signal that the times in San Francisco have changed?

Let’s break down what’s happening.

What Divides San Francisco

Since San Francisco began gentrifying in the  late 1970’s, development issues have divided city politics. In the 1970’s and 80’s the fight was over downtown development. In the 90’s it was over the conversion of vacant industrial spaces to live-work lofts. The dot-com boom of the late 90’s framed the development fight around tech; that continued through Mayor Ed Lee’s tenure.

London Breed ran for mayor in 2018 as a pro-development moderate. Yet Breed’s most destructive policies and the ones most complained about by moderates and conservatives—the SIP Hotels, the Linkage Center, her backing Harm Reduction policies that attracted drug tourists—were wrongly blamed on progressives.

Despite Breed’s history as a progressive-bashing moderate, Daniel Lurie’s election still gets wrongly framed as a victory over a progressive City Hall. This despite Breed also holding a moderate Board majority.

Development concerns were not an issue in the 2024 mayor’s race. The historic cleavage that divided San Francisco was off the table.

Until now.

The New Development Fight

The mayor’s Family Zoning Plan has returned development politics to center stage. The Plan increases heights and density—a process known as upzoning– to support more housing, particularly near public transit. What’s drives opponents is that the Plan covers neighborhoods that have avoided upzoning for decades.

The mayor and housing advocates see the Plan as essential for attracting a new generation of working and middle-class residents. People long priced-out of San Francisco. They also argue that San Francisco cannot meet its state-mandated housing construction requirements without building more units in various neighborhoods.

Opponents see the situation very differently. You can read their critique of Lurie’s plan on the website of Neighborhoods United SF —which shows photos of what they see as the impact of the upzoning on several neighborhoods—or the website of Alliance for Affordable Neighborhoods.

A recent SF Examiner op-ed states :

“This isn’t about building new homes for cops, teachers, nurses, or city workers. It’s about opening up real estate in west-side neighborhoods, many of them built by and for middle-class San Franciscans, to speculative redevelopment. The proposed zoning incentivizes property owners and developers to raze existing buildings and perfectly functional homes in search of the greater profits larger developments might hold….This isn’t a theoretical risk — it’s already happened in the Mission and SoMa. Now, it’s coming for Parkside, West Portal, Ingleside and the Outer Sunset.

Mayor Lurie’s plan …undermines the very communities that have kept this city functioning through decades of instability. These are neighborhoods where families have put down roots, bought homes, invested in public schools and built community infrastructure. They deserve thoughtful planning, not a one-size-fits-all upzoning decree.”

The Alliance is asking small businesses to post signs in their windows. They say, “Protect Small Businesses from Extreme Upzoning. Skyrocketing Rents, Displaced Shops, Vacant Storefronts.” “There’s a Better Way. Support Affordable Neighborhoods.”

Opponents claim that it’s not upzoning they oppose but rather Lurie’s “Extreme Upzoning” and “developer-led zoning.” They demand “a real community plan.” They also point to the 70,000 units that are already entitled, arguing that if they got built no upzoning is needed to meet state requirements.

This misleading claim citing entitled units has become the most repeated argument against city efforts to encourage taller and denser buildings. Here’s the problem.

The fact that someone got the right to build years ago is irrelevant to whether that project is likely to be built today. Or next year. Or in five years. We have individual projects comprising thousands of units on the entitled list (e.g. Parkmerced) that were entitled many years prior to COVID. If these projects weren’t built before 2020, don’t count on them being constructed in time to meet the city’s state housing requirements.

Mayor Lurie certainly can’t count on their construction. If he could, my sense is he would be happy not to get in a major fight with neighborhoods that backed him last November.

Further, if the push for a “community plan” sounds familiar, it’s a common request by opponents of zoning reforms. I describe in Generation Priced Out how a community planning process for the Eastern Neighborhoods Plan blocked new housing in the area for seven years (2001-8)! Reliance on “community plans” is a major reason why many cities have a housing shortage.

The Politics of the Fight

Opponents of Lurie’s family zoning plan could potentially get Supervisors Chan, Fielder, Walton and Chen. It’s hard to find six votes.

But that wouldn’t stop opponents from going to the ballot in June or November 2026. Connecting an Affordable Neighborhoods ballot measure to supervisor races in November 2026 makes a lot of political sense. After all, the effort to recall Supervisor Engardio showed a candidate’s beliefs that are popular citywide may not be favored in their district.

There could be an Affordable Neighborhoods slate of candidates that could ride an anti-development district supervisor wave. Districts 4, 8 and 10 seem like obvious targets, along potentially with District 2. D6 has already seen large housing developments. I can’t see a candidate threatening Supervisor Matt Dorsey on that issue.

Lurie’s Base

Should a measure challenging the Family Zoning Plan go to the ballot, Lurie will have to lead the opposition. That means battling a lot of Westside homeowners who he would like to remain on good terms.

Some interpret fierce Chinese-American opposition to Prop K, the park measure that led to the recall election of Supervisor Engardio, as reflecting an anti-development, anti-change stance. I’m not sure about that.

In 2017 Sunset District Supervisor Katy Tang led the citywide fight for Home-SF, which created an affordable housing density bonus program. I describe in Generation Priced Out how Tang faced a “tsunami of anger” primarily among older white homeowners but persisted and prevailed. Tang easily would have won re-election had she not decided to leave politics.

Westside Chinese-American voters went big for Mayors Brown, Lee and Breed in 2018, and Lurie did well with this constituency in 2024. Engardio was definitely more pro-development than Gordan Mar in the 2022 D4 supervisor’s race.

If the mayor plays this right, what will be a divisive fight about development citywide may not divide Lurie’s constituency.

Does the Zoning Plan Really Matter?

Opponents see this as a fight for the soul of San Francisco. With AI raising the specter of another tech boom, they see their campaign as essential to save the city’s “working-class.” But the “working-class” neighborhoods they seek to protect have long priced out the new working-class.

The fact that existing homeowners bought their houses on working-class salaries says nothing about the present—or future.  Only by building more housing in these former working-class neighborhoods can ownership opportunities be created for the non-wealthy.

For all the doom and gloom predicted by opponents, the Family Zoning Plan is unlikely to radically increase height and density in neighborhoods. And should SB 79 pass—opposition to which mimics opposition to Lurie’s Family Zoning Plan– the local measure becomes even less relevant.

State law already allows demolitions of rent-controlled housing as of right. We haven’t seen many such demolitions in San Francisco because they rarely make economic sense.

State law sought to deter such demolitions by mandating steep relocation costs and giving tenants  the right to return to the new housing at their former rent. That latter provision makes funding such projects economically infeasible. San Francisco builders have enough trouble getting financing for entitled projects on vacant land. They don’t want to ask lenders to support projects whose viability depends on existing tenants not returning post-construction.

Builders I talk to aren’t interested in building five-story buildings in the Westside.  Nor do they want to get into fights with tenant groups over evicting longterm residents and demolishing rent controlled housing. They’d rather build fifty plus units in the parts of the city that already allow such projects.

Ultimately, these development battles are really about people’s vision for San Francisco’s future. If stopping market rate housing were effective in keeping neighborhoods affordable, San Francisco would be an affordability oasis. But our city’s history shows that the driving force behind gentrification is not building housing.

San Francisco voters have increasingly understood that the path to greater affordability requires increasing, heights, density and encouraging housing construction. We’ll see how this plays out in the Family Zoning battle.

Randy Shaw

<I>Randy Shaw is the Editor of Beyond Chron and the Director of San Francisco’s Tenderloin Housing Clinic, which publishes Beyond Chron. Shaw’s new book is the revised and updated, The Tenderloin: Sex, Crime and Resistance in the Heart of San Francisco. His prior books include Generation Priced Out: Who Gets to Live in the New Urban America. The Activist’s Handbook: Winning Social Change in the 21st Century, and Beyond the Fields: Cesar Chavez, the UFW and the Struggle for Justice in the 21st Century. </I>

More Posts

by Randy Shaw on September 2, 2025 (BeyondChron.org)

California Governor Gavin Newsom has stepped up to lead the national battle to save democracy. Newsom has provided a desperately needed vehicle for anti-Trump activists: a statewide campaign in November for Californians to reject the wanna be dictator’s agenda. By redrawing congressional districts, Prop 50 directly responds to Trump’s plans to rig elections in 2026 in Texas and other red states.

There’s a reason Prop 50 is called the Election Rigging Response Act. Because Trump’s demand that red states redraw district lines after five years rather than the standard ten is a direct attempt to rig the 2026 elections.

Newsom’s rapid response to Trump’s plans changed the game. It’s even got other blue state governors like Wes Moore of Maryland and New York’s Kathy Hochul considering their own redistricting measures.

Field, Field, Field

If Prop 50 were on the November 2026 ballot it would win easily. But California voters aren’t used to casting ballots in November of odd numbered years. Getting people to vote on November 4, 2025 requires a massive off-year statewide field campaign.

I normally would think that such an odd-year field campaign could not recruit the numbers needed to prevail. But these aren’t normal times. Prop 50 is really a campaign against an authoritarian regime that will do whatever it takes to thwart democracy.

Trump isn’t content to rig the 2026 elections by redrawing legislative lines five years early. He also recently called to end mail ballots. He has previously criticized how California and other states count mailed in ballots that arrive after Election Day.

Trump’s only chance to defeat Prop 50 is to weaken turnout. And the only way Prop 50 gets the turnout needed to stop Trump is through a massive field campaign that everyone concerned about the nation’s future can join.

A Referendum on Trump

Prop 50 is a referendum on Donald Trump’s presidency. If, like me, you are constantly hearing from people upset about the latest Trump action, Gavin Newsom has created a vehicle for Californians to fight back.

It’s a vital opportunity.

Some people are not big fans of Newsom. I find people bring up one stand he took that they disagree with as reason not to like him. But Gavin Newsom has completely changed the way other politicians now talk about Donald Trump’s agenda. He has spoken with a bluntness that reflects how his constituents talk about Trump among themselves.

Newsom has mocked Donald Trump in a way that nobody previously did. And he’s clearly got under the skin of the FOX News crowd.

But regardless of whether you like Newsom, opponents of Trump must get on board for the Prop 50 campaign. There’s too much at stake to stay on the sidelines.

Americans have always taken it for granted that national elections in the United States will be held every two years. But Americans also never thought the National Guard would be used for harassing political opponents. Or that in 21^st century America people of color could be taken into custody on the street without any cause.

Trump and his followers have changed the rules.

Trump will use Prop 50’s defeat to justify cancelling future elections. Consider his comments last week: “They say, ‘We don’t need him. Freedom. Freedom. He’s a dictator. He’s a dictator.’ A lot of people are saying, ‘Maybe we’d like a dictator.’”

Trump’s claim that people support dictators is consistent with his efforts to run for a third term in 2028. The only way to stop him is through resistance.

A Prop 50 victory in November will build this resistance.

Randy Shaw

<I>Randy Shaw is the Editor of Beyond Chron and the Director of San Francisco’s Tenderloin Housing Clinic, which publishes Beyond Chron. Shaw’s new book is the revised and updated, The Tenderloin: Sex, Crime and Resistance in the Heart of San Francisco. His prior books include Generation Priced Out: Who Gets to Live in the New Urban America. The Activist’s Handbook: Winning Social Change in the 21st Century, and Beyond the Fields: Cesar Chavez, the UFW and the Struggle for Justice in the 21st Century. </I>

More Posts

“The first rule of any investigation is to follow the money,” Rep. Thomas Massie told Status Coup when asked if Trump is trying to hide potential evidence that JPMorgan Chase enabled Epstein’s crimes

JORDAN CHARITON SEP 3, 2025

As victims of Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell’s criminal underage sex trafficking ring bravely spoke out at a Capitol Hill press conference on Wednesday organized by Reps. Ro Khanna and Thomas Massie—and most journalists asked feeble horse race questions about possible retaliation by President Trump—Status Coup asked Massie about the big, corrupt elephant in the room (clip below).

SUPPORT OUR ON THE GROUND REPORTING

The type of corrupt rhino that might be the real reason Trump, and his Republican sycophants in Congress, are so hell-bent on preventing the Epstein files from seeing the light of day.

JPMorgan Chase has held firm for years that the big bank was unaware of Epstein’s heinous crimes—and kept him as one of its most profitable clients—even after:

• He was arrested in 2006 on prostitution charges and pled guilty two years later
• The bank ignored internal warnings from bank employees to stop doing business with Epstein
• It red-flagged as much as $1 billion in suspicious transactions from Epstein over his 16 years as a client—but only notified the government after his supposed suicide in prison.

But could the release of the full Epstein files reveal JPMorgan knew more about Epstein—and some of its other wealthy clients potentially involved in his trafficking ring—but simply looked the other way?

“Absolutely, the first rule of any investigation is to follow the money,” Rep. Thomas Massie answered Status Coup’s Jon Farina at the press conference in response to Farina asking if the full release of the Epstein files might reveal that JPMorgan potentially knew more about Epstein’s crimes—yet in order to keep his mega bucks rolling in, ignored his crimes.

Massie went further telling Status Coup:

“We gotta follow the bank records, and that is one thing the Oversight Committee is doing that I applaud; let’s hope that they get it out of there, they can’t just hold that information in their committee. Follow the money: which accounts did it come from, which accounts did it go to, and that’s the quickest way to figure out who was doing what.”

Of course, it’s important to know if any other high-profile politicians, financiers, celebrities, athletes, or other public figures were involved in sexually assaulting and trafficking minors—hence why the full Epstein files should be released to the public (and should have been under President Biden before Trump 2.0).

But as Massie suggests, and I have followed my entire journalism career, you should always follow the money first, second, and third. Using common sense, do you really think Trump and his spineless, frightened Republican leeches in Congress, would be fervently trying to keep the files from going public all to protect fairly replaceable big donors?

Status Coup is the ONLY INDEPENDENT OUTLET consistently ON THE GROUND with the people. It is expensive and we have no corporate funding. Support us so we can continue!

Upgrade to paid

Do you think Trump, obsessed with attention, adoration, and being viewed as a strongman, would turn down the opportunity to be viewed as a hero for exposing an actual deep state apparatus—all to protect donors and other politicians he no longer has political use for given that he can’t run for president again?

***Of course, given Trump’s growing fascism, that pesky constitution doesn’t mean he won’t run again in 2028 or try to cancel the election***

Given my nearly decade of on-the-ground reporting around the country—often on corruption that is directly connected to Wall Street—I find it downright impossibly that a megalomaniac, textbook narcissist like Trump would work this hard to bury a sprawling criminals sex trafficking ring to simply help out a few donors and pals.

Share

Especially given that loyalty with Trump is a one-way street; he has routinely thrown those loyal to him under a mega bus when it benefited him.

But, it definitely is plausible that Trump would care, A LOT, to keep hidden any potentially incriminating information about JPMorgan, given he has direct financial ties to the Wall Street behemoth (as does the entire Republican Party).

Share Status Coup News

Here’s just one example: a San Francisco skyscraper that Trump co-owns with mega corporate realtor Vornado is available for sale…and guess who refinanced the building’s debt in 2021 through a $1.2 billion loan?

JPMorgan Chase.

At the time, JPMorgan’s move helped Trump’s struggling business—who had been shunned and rejected by other banks after Trump helped spark the attempted coup of the U.S. government on January 6th.

Then there’s Trump’s rekindling of his political romance with JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon—who said he is “so sad” that the Wall Street bank had any relationship with Epstein.

I’m guessing his $39 million compensation last year—and get-out-of-jail-free-card for his role in the fraud that helped tank the global economy in 2008—helps alleviate his sadness.

The two met several times over the last few months in the White House as Trump apparently sought Dimon’s advise on the economy (translated: how to accelerate stealing from the poor to build taller castles for themselves).

And, of course, Trump is already planning for his post-presidency—if he agrees to leave office after his second term—and selfishly doesn’t want to get on Wall Street’s bad side if and when he needs help from big banks again…

Either for further business loans or a mountain of cash to defend against future criminal cases against him.

And, for those who’ve followed my reporting for awhile, never forget: government officials poisoned Flint, Michigan and, as my book “We the Poisoned: Exposing the Flint Water Crisis Cover Up and the Poisoning of 100,000 Americans” meticulously exposed, those same government officials—from both political parties—helped to cover it up and sweep it under the rug.

***In large part to protect the involvement of Wall Street mega banks, JPMorgan and Wells Fargo, in orchestrating a privatization scheme that poisoned Flint residents***

So…if the federal, state, city, and county government worked together to protect JPMorgan—who was sued on behalf of 2,600 Flint kids—from accountability for poisoning Americans, you think they wouldn’t stop at its potential role in enabling a sex trafficking ring of underage girls?