Categories
Politics

Michigan’s Mallory McMorrow has shifted her stance on the war in Gaza

GRAND RAPIDS, Mich. — Mallory McMorrow, the Michigan Democrat running in a three-way primary to replace retiring Sen. Gary Peters, has shifted her stance on the war in Gaza and now believes it is a genocide.

Her latest evolution came during a chat with voters at a brewery in the West Michigan town of Allegan Sunday, just days ahead of the anniversary of Hamas’ Oct. 7 attack that led to the conflict. McMorrow’s team provided video of the exchange to POLITICO.

During the back-and-forth, an attendee asked McMorrow whether she would accept support from AIPAC — the politically influential pro-Israel lobby that’s backing rival Democratic candidate Haley Stevens, a member of congress.

“I’m not accepting AIPAC support,” McMorrow told the questioner. “I’m not seeking their endorsement. I’ve never accepted their support. And what we are seeing in the Middle East is a moral abomination.”

She went on to say she would’ve supported Sen. Bernie Sanders’ resolution to block offensive arm sales to Israel and called for a two-state solution.

“My view on this is we have completely lost the humanity of this issue,” McMorrow continued. “It is talked about as like a third rail litmus test without acknowledging these are human beings. They’re people. And our position should be that there is no individual life that is worth more than another individual life.”

A different voter interrupted her to asked whether the conflict was a genocide. McMorrow paused for several seconds, exhaled, and responded, “based on the definition, yes.”

“I don’t care what you call it,” she added, saying for some Jews the term “means something very different to them: that if you lost family members in the Holocaust it means the specific medical testing, gas chambers, being put on a train — I don’t want us to get lost in, ‘do you agree with this definition or not.’ I want to get to the solution.”

The issue is personal for McMorrow, whose husband is Jewish: She received a death threat on her daughter’s life after Oct. 7.

Her remarks demonstrate the fast-moving politics of the issue in a battleground state ahead of next year’s midterms. And they come as the Michigan Democratic candidates are looking for ways to contrast ahead of the election.

They also isolate Stevens as the only remaining Democratic candidate not to call the conflict a genocide. Stevens recently declined two interviews with POLITICO on the matter. Abdul El-Sayed, a former Michigan health official, has long said the war meets that criteria.

Asked 13 days ago by POLITICO about whether the conflict in Gaza is a genocide, McMorrow said “dehumanizing Palestinians, declaring collective guilt, blocking food and medicine and bombing Gaza to the point of uninhabitability is a moral catastrophe.” She declined to use the word “genocide.”

A spokesperson for McMorrow said she based her new stance on a United Nations Commission of Inquiry report from Sept.16 declaring that a genocide took place, as well as conversations with community leaders.

Asked for comment on McMorrow’s position change and its involvement in the race, an AIPAC spokesperson said in a statement: “Israel is fighting a just and moral war and is demonstrating a clear willingness to end the conflict. Rather than making false and malicious allegations against the Jewish state, the pressure should be applied on Hamas to release the hostages and give up power.”

On Saturday, the day before McMorrow called it a genocide, she told POLITICO she faces questions about the issue at nearly every event. She acknowledged it was “a probably small percentage of voters that are voting based on the issue, but it’s a lingering concern people have.”

El-Sayed, who is endorsed by Sanders, has warned that AIPAC backing Stevens and spending a lot of money in the race could help Republicans win the seat. He’s noted the state’s “uncommitted movement,” the national pro-Palestinian group, could fray the party’s coalition. Like McMorrow, he said he faces questions about the issue at every campaign stop.

“When I talk about the fact that our tax dollars are being misappropriated to weaponize food against children and to subsidize a genocide, rather than to invest in real people in their communities and their kids and their schools and their health care, it is the single biggest applause line in every speech,” El-Sayed told POLITICO in an interview before a party confab here. “People understand that this is not about what’s happening over there. This is about what’s happening with our tax dollars over here.”

Later in the evening Saturday, McMorrow, el-Sayed and Stevens gathered inside a room for Best of the West, a traditional Michigan Democratic fundraiser at a hotel in downtown Grand Rapids. There, they heard Lt. Gov. Garlin Gilchrist, who is running for governor, also say that the war in Gaza is a genocide.

McMorrow’s comments came on a weekend in which candidates running in the contentious and longhaul primary—it’s not scheduled to take place until August, though state lawmakers have discussed moving it up—sharpened their knives against one another.

McMorrow and El-Sayed have also contrasted with Stevens over her receiving the tacit backing of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, whose leadership has become a flashpoint among a new generation of Democratic candidates.

Not long after El-Sayed recorded himself trying to eat a heaping, 12-stack cheeseburger to talk about rising costs and billionaires, POLITICO reported that Stevens was set to take a luxury California fundraising trip in Napa Valley this weekend amid the shutdown with members of the DSCC.

“The DSCC believes that Haley has the best chance to win in the general,” reads an email obtained by POLITICO from Stevens’ fundraising firm. “With a proven record of winning in tough elections, she starts this race with a clear lead. The Republicans are uniting in opposition to Haley Stevens in the primary, viewing her defeat as clearing a path to capturing a Michigan U.S. Senate seat for the first time in three decades.”

The email promotes a weekend fundraising swing though Los Angeles in addition to her Napa stop. “If the government hasn’t reopened, she won’t attend the events,” a spokesperson for Stevens said.

Still, in such a competitive race even the trip itself was fodder.

“I’ve never been to a wine cave,” El-Sayed, who doesn’t drink, told POLITICO in an interview. “I don’t really know what happens there, but I’ll tell you this, I’ve been all over my state, and I’ve never found one.”

CLARIFICATION: Due to a transcription error, a quote from El-Sayed has been clarified.

​Politics

Categories
Politics

CBS News names Bari Weiss as editor-in-chief

Bari Weiss, co-founder and CEO of The Free Press, has been appointed CBS News’ editor-in-chief, Paramount announced on Monday. The Free Press will now operate under the company as well.

It’s a major move from the company, which merged with Skydance Corp. in August under CEO David Ellison. Under Ellison, the company has made several strategic acquisitions and is reportedly exploring acquiring Warner Bros. Discovery.

“This move is part of Paramount’s bigger vision to modernize content and the way it connects – directly and passionately – to audiences around the world,” Ellison said in a statement. “We believe the majority of the country longs for news that is balanced and fact-based, and we want CBS to be their home.”

Though she will remain CEO and editor-in-chief of The Free Press, Weiss will report directly to Ellison. The Free Press will maintain its own independent brand and operations, the company said.

Weiss and her wife, Nellie Bowles, launched The Free Press in 2021 with Weiss’ sister Suzy. She was previously an opinion writer for The New York Times.

Partnering with Paramount, Weiss said, allows The Free Press to expand its audience of 1.5 million.

“The values that we’ve hammered out here over the years—journalism based in curiosity and honesty, a culture of healthy disagreement, our shared belief in America’s promise—now have the opportunity to go very, very big,” Weiss wrote in a blog post on The Free Press.

Earlier this year, CBS and Paramount settled a $16 million lawsuit with President Donald Trump over a “60 Minutes” interview with then-Vice President Kamala Harris. Paramount then hired an ombudsman to analyze bias in CBS reporting.

Weiss said she believes in Ellison and “the entire leadership team who took over Paramount this summer.” She added that they plan to make CBS “the most trusted news organization of the 21st Century.”

​Politics

Categories
Politics

Kevin O’Leary: US stake in Intel is ‘waste of taxpayer dollars’

Kevin O’Leary: US stake in Intel is ‘waste of taxpayer dollars’

lead image

​Politics

Categories
Politics

Pam Bondi’s effusive praise of Trump

Pam Bondi’s effusive praise of Trump

lead image

​Politics

Categories
Politics

Americans remain wary of electing a female president, new poll reveals

Voters under 50 are the least open to electing a female president, and four in 10 Americans personally know someone who would not elect a woman to the White House, a new poll finds.

The American University poll, shared first with POLITICO, reveals a complicated portrait of how voters view women in politics. A majority supports electing more women to office, yet female politicians face persistent headwinds over trust on key issues like national security. They also run up against double standards, with voters saying a female president must be both “tough” and “likable.”

Nonetheless, most voters support electing more women and believe the government gets more done with women in office, according to the national poll of 801 registered voters conducted last month. It was commissioned by the university’s Women and Politics Institute and had a 3.5-point margin of error.

Nearly one in five voters said they or someone they are close to would not elect a woman presidential candidate. That includes one-quarter of women under 50 and 20 percent of men under 50, who said they would not back a qualified female candidate for president, while 13 percent of men and women over 50 said they wouldn’t be open to supporting a woman for president.

“This survey reveals a powerful paradox,” said Viva de Vicq, the survey’s lead pollster. “Voters trust women on the issues that matter most and want to see more women in office. Yet when asked about the presidency, bias and narrow expectations resurface.”

The survey comes nearly one year after Kamala Harris lost the presidential race, raising questions about female electability in a country that has only chosen men for the White House.

Voters are divided over how the former vice president’s candidacy impacted future female contenders. More than 40 percent of independent voters believe Harris complicated others’ paths — pessimism that pervaded much of the upper echelons of Democratic politics after the election, when Harris lost to Trump by wider margins than Hillary Clinton did eight years prior.

Reflecting on the 2024 election, the poll found that only one-third of voters listen to “bro culture” podcasts. Of those who do, four in five believe those podcasts affected the election. Half of those surveyed said former President Joe Biden hurt the Democratic Party.

The poll said voters trust female politicians more than men to advance women’s equality, abortion and childcare. But more voters trust men than women to handle global conflicts. The “‘old boys club’ culture in politics” was cited as the biggest deterrent for women running for office, closely followed by negative media portrayal.

Of the 2025 landscape, women surveyed are generally more pessimistic about the economy than they were in 2024. Women under 50 are particularly feeling the pinch with a 15-point jump in negative views of the economy.

​Politics

Categories
Politics

Jesse Jackson Jr. to launch bid for his old seat

CHICAGO — Jesse Jackson Jr., once a rising Democratic star who saw his congressional career unravel in scandal, is returning to the political stage. He will announce his bid this week for the same Illinois congressional seat he vacated over a decade ago.

“Jesse has been meeting with residents whose concerns about the economy convinced him to run,” according to a person close to his campaign granted anonymity to speak freely. “He feels the district needs results fast and he is uniquely qualified to deliver.”

Jackson will spend the coming weeks unveiling his economic plan and policy platforms to address the cost of living, joblessness and health care access, according to the person.

It’s a dramatic twist for a man whose life once seemed destined for the national spotlight. The son of civil rights icon Rev. Jesse Jackson, he was first elected to Congress in 1995 and held his position for 17 years before it all came crashing down.

Jackson, whose brother is Illinois Rep. Jonathan Jackson, is now running for the seat currently held by Rep. Robin Kelly, who is stepping down to run for U.S. Senate in 2026. Kelly joins Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi in a competitive primary race to succeed Sen. Dick Durbin, who announced he will not seek reelection — setting off a wave of political jockeying across Illinois.

Illinois is undergoing a rare political transformation, marked by a generational shift in leadership. Alongside Durbin, longtime Reps. Jan Schakowsky and Danny Davis have announced they also won’t seek reelection — creating an extraordinary power vacuum in the state’s Democratic establishment. This moment of transition has opened the door for a new wave of ambitious contenders and a few familiar names, including former Rep. Melissa Bean and Jackson.

The Illinois Democrat is one of a long line of Illinois pols who’ve been caught up in corruption over the years. Former Gov. Rod Blagojevich went to prison before being pardoned by President Donald Trump. And former Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan is scheduled to report to prison next week on his corruption conviction.

Jackson also wouldn’t be the first high-profile politician to seek retribution. Following his 2021 resignation as governor amid sexual harassment and nursing home scandals, Andrew Cuomo is also pursuing a political comeback with a run for New York City mayor.

In 2012, Jackson abruptly exited his seat, citing health reasons. A federal investigation revealed a misuse of campaign funds. Jackson pled guilty to siphoning $750,000 for personal luxuries, from Rolex watches to Michael Jackson memorabilia, leading to a prison sentence and a fall from grace.

Jackson served his time and then retreated to Chicago’s South Side, where he embarked on a redemption journey that he often shared in commentaries on Black radio stations. It drew the attention of former Rep. Bobby Rush, the longtime South Side congressmember who retired in 2024. He urged Jackson to get back into politics.

Over the summer, Jackson embarked on a “listening tour,” connecting with constituents. He saw it as a way to introduce himself to new voters to the Chicago South Side and south suburban district that has been redrawn since he left Congress.

Last week, Jackson returned to Washington for a fundraiser in his honor with some members of the Congressional Black Caucus.

And a recent poll showed he has high name recognition in a crowded field.

Still, his path may not be smooth. Jackson’s opponents include notable Democrats in the state, including state Sen. Robert Peters, who’s been endorsed by Sen. Bernie Sanders and David Hogg’s political group. Also running are state Sen. Willie Preston, Cook County Commissioner Donna Miller, Water Reclamation Board Commissioner Yumeka Brown, management consultant Eric France, policy expert Adal Regis and community engagement expert Jeremy Young.

​Politics

Categories
Politics

Roy Cooper raises $14.5 million last quarter, shattering records

Roy Cooper raised $14.5 million during the first 65 days of his campaign — a record-breaking total for a Senate challenger in their first fundraising quarter in one of the most competitive races of 2026.

The fundraising haul, shared first with POLITICO, includes $10.8 million into the former North Carolina governor’s campaign account. Another $3.7 million was raised into joint fundraising committees with the party, which allows for bigger contributions. Of the donations, more than 90 percent were $100 or less, Cooper’s campaign said.

It’s more than double what was raised by former Republican National Committee Chair Michael Whatley, who brought in $5.8 million since launching his campaign in July.

Whatley, who’s been endorsed by President Donald Trump, and Cooper are expected to face off next fall.

Cooper and Whatley, a prodigious fundraiser with his own national network of donors, have turned this already marquee contest into what is expected to be the most expensive Senate race in history. Operatives in both parties estimate spending to reach $650 million to $800 million.

Cooper’s first-quarter total beat the record set by Amy McGrath, the former Marine fighter pilot who challenged Sen. Mitch McConnell in 2020 and raised $10.7 million.

Democrats, locked out of power at every level in Washington, see North Carolina as their top offensive target, particularly after Cooper entered the race following the announced retirement of Republican Sen. Thom Tillis. Even so, Democrats face longshot odds in flipping control of the Senate in 2026.

​Politics

Categories
Politics

Democrats rush to find a counterpunch to Trump’s midterms crime messaging

Democrats are pushing their candidates to go on the offense on crime ahead of the 2026 midterms, seeing upside in what’s been one of their weakest electoral issues.

A private polling memo that shows potential openings for the party to peel voters away from Republicans on one of their core issues is being distributed to House Democrats and their campaign committees, and was shared exclusively with POLITICO.

The battleground-district survey from Global Strategy Group — commissioned by gun-safety advocacy group Giffords and House Majority Forward, a nonprofit aligned with House Democratic leadership — offers a bleak assessment of Democrats’ starting point: 89 percent of the 1,200 likely voters surveyed want their Congress member to take steps to keep them safe, but only 38 percent trust Democrats over Republicans with that task.

Voters also reported preferring Republicans to Democrats with preventing and reducing crime and cracking down on violent crime — gaps that grew among swing voters.

But, in a hint of hope for the party looking to neutralize a weakness President Donald Trump will exploit next year, those voters swung toward Democrats in all four categories after hearing messaging acknowledging crime is a problem and showing steps the party has taken to increase safety. Specifically, pollsters cited cracking down on gun trafficking and strengthening firearm background checks. The persuasion effort included criticisms of GOP cuts to gun-violence prevention funding, the Trump administration’s attempts to roll back firearm regulations and Republicans’ ties to pro-gun groups.

The double-digit swings gave Democrats a 2-point advantage when respondents were asked about crime reduction, 4 points on keeping people safe and 6 points on crime prevention. The shifts were even more pronounced among swing voters.

Democrats also shrunk the GOP advantage on preventing violent crime to 1 point.

Giffords, House Majority Forward and Global Strategy Group pollsters are in the midst of briefing top House Democrats, frontline candidates and party committees about the poll, which was conducted in July. The groups are angling to revamp Democrats’ crime messaging, urging candidates to project toughness on crime and campaign against traditionally law-and-order-focused Republicans for making cities less safe by slashing federal funding.

And they want the party to shift quickly, lest they give Republicans a runway to ramp up their attacks in the upcoming midterms, when Democrats look to deny the GOP its slim advantage in the House.

“We do not want people to get shot or stabbed or carjacked. We want to hold people accountable when they break the law. None of that is revolutionary. But we do have to actually say that,” Emma Brown, Giffords’ executive director, said.

Doug Thornell, the CEO of consulting firm SKDK, who advised the polling project and works with Democrats including Maryland Gov. Wes Moore, called crime “personal and emotional to voters, and they expect their leaders to make it a serious priority.”

But Democrats face a difficult task in trying to figure out how to handle voters’ concerns over crime, with Trump fomenting those worries by sending the National Guard into blue cities across the country as part of a broader law-and-order crackdown.

Democrats are responding to the push with recent statistics that show violent crime falling from a pandemic-era spike and touting their investments in anti-violence initiatives. But they have struggled to change voters’ perceptions that they’re weak on crime — a belief that helped Trump’s 2024 victory.

Polls show voters largely trust Republicans more on crime; a Reuters/Ipsos survey last month found the GOP holds a 20-point advantage over Democrats on the issue. They see crime-fighting as a strength of the president, who maintains higher approval ratings on lawlessness than on the economy. Republicans are already hammering Democrats in key midterm races as “soft on crime” and anti-law enforcement.

And Democrats have spent years trying to distance themselves from the “defund the police” slogan that hurt them with their own constituents — touting support for law enforcement and tough-on-crime tactics in an acknowledgment they need to retool their approach to criminal justice.

“Anytime Republicans make an aggressive stance and the Democrats criticize it, it looks like the Democrats are defending the status quo. And no one believes the status quo is acceptable when it comes to crime,” GOP pollster Whit Ayres said.

The Democratic groups that commissioned the poll see political openings on crime and on gun violence. Mass shootings topped the list of crimes voters worry, and neighborhood shootings ranked third. Majorities of respondents said easy access to guns and illegal gun trafficking contribute heavily to crime.

Operatives point to Moore, as well as Mayors Justin Bibb of Cleveland and Michelle Wu of Boston, as Democrats who’ve prioritized public safety while parrying Trump’s National Guard push.

But Democrats are not unified.

Some battleground-district Democrats are imploring party leadership to do more to defend law enforcement funding, while others in the emerging slate of populist candidates hardly mention public safety as they position themselves to win back working-class voters on economic messaging.

Democratic-aligned think tanks and strategists disagree on the specifics of what more proactive messaging should look like.

A recent Vera Institute polling presentation to Democratic National Committee members suggested the party use “serious about safety” messaging instead of “tough on crime” talking points and was quickly panned by more centrist Democratic figures — even as other aspects of the progressive criminal justice group’s argument aligned with advice being doled out across the party.

“This is where we should be unifying,” Kim Foxx, a former state’s attorney in Cook County, Illinois, said. “It’s right there that we don’t have transparency on police killings anymore, that in [the Trump administration’s] effort to go after immigration, they’re cutting funding to strategies that work to reduce violence. … We just have to be bold and call it out with a consistent message.”

​Politics

Categories
Politics

Hamas has run out of options – survival now rests on accepting Trump’s plan and political reform

Smoke billows following an Israeli strike in Gaza City on Oct. 2, 2025. Omar al-Qattaa/AFP via Getty Images

Weakened militarily and facing declining Palestinian support, particularly among Gazans, Hamas was already a shadow of the militant group it once was. And then came President Donald Trump’s peace plan.

On Oct. 3, 2025, Hamas said that it accepted some aspects of the 20-point proposal, including handing over administration of the Gaza Strip to a body of independent Palestinian technocrats and releasing all remaining Israeli hostages.

Those hostage are the last of the 252 taken during the Oct. 7, 2023, attack – an event that two years on looks to represent a high point, so to speak, of Hamas’ power. As an expert on Palestinian political attitudes, I believe the group now has few options to survive.

Like former resistance groups in past peace processes, it could renounce arms and transform itself into a purely political party. But to do so, it needs to overcome a series of hurdles: confronting other parts of Trump’s plan, its unpopularity at home and its rigid ideology being the three most prominent.

Campaign of assassination

It is worth taking stock of just how degraded Hamas has become as the result of two years of onslaught by Israel’s vastly superior military.

According to many intelligence reports, Hamas has lost most of its senior command in the Al-Qassam Brigades, its military wing. Izz al-Din al-Haddad, its current commander, survives, having presumably taken over from Mohammed Sinwar – the brother of Yahya Sinwar, mastermind of Oct. 7 attack – who was killed in May 2025. But he presides over a dwindling army.

President Trump may not have been exaggerating when he indicated on Truth Social on Oct. 3 that Hamas had lost 25,000 fighters. Estimates regarding the group’s losses vary, but it could represent more than half of the fighting force it had at the beginning of the war.

Hamas has succeeded in recruiting new fighters during that time. But many of these new recruits lack the competence and the experience of the dead ones. And the only motivations the new recruits have are hate and anger toward Israel.

Hamas’ political leadership has also been decimated. Chief political leaders, including Ismail Haniyeh, Saleh al-Arouri and Yahya Sinwar, have all been killed.

people walk on street past large billboard depicting slain anti-israel leaders
Iranians walk past a billboard of the slain leaders of anti-Israeli groups, including former Hamas political chief Yahya Sinwar.
Mohammadali Najib/Middle East Images via AFP

And it could have been worse. Had the Israeli attack on Hamas’ political leadership in Doha, Qatar, succeeded in September 2025, it could have been a devastating loss for the movement. But the operation missed its primary targets there.

Falling support in Gaza

Palestinian public pressure on Hamas has risen as the miseries of war have mounted.

According to local heath officials, more than 67,000 have been killed, and more than 169,000 have been injured. Most of the Gaza Strip has been reduced to rubble, and more than 90% of the population has been displaced multiple times – with most Gazans now living in tents. International organizations have reported famine and starvation in some parts of the Gaza Strip.

Hamas has lost its power and influence over many areas now under Israeli control. Israeli military and intelligence have encouraged some members of the local Palestinian clans and militia to offer services in militia-controlled areas.

In such areas, Hamas fighters have often clashed with other Palestinian groups, resulting in many deaths and growing resentment toward Hamas.

Hamas’ execution and torture of Palestinians suspected of collaboration with Israel has only worsened the situation, leading to chaos and lawlessness in many parts of Gaza.

It is little wonder, then, that half of Gazans in the latest poll of attitudes – taken in May 2025 – say they supported anti-Hamas demonstrations. Indeed support for the group in both Gaza and the West Bank have continued to decline as the war has progressed.

The push for peace

The ongoing war and the inhumane daily conditions that local Palestinians in Gaza are dealing with have led to exhaustion and fatigue among the public.

On social media, many Palestinians are asking Hamas publicly to endorse the Trump plan and put an end to their misery.

In deciding whether to accept all of the plan’s 20-points, Hamas will, from its perspective, have to weigh whether agreeing to a very bad outcome is better than the alternative. Trump has warned that a failure to get on board will cause Hamas to face “all hell.”

Hamas has already agreed to release all of the remaining Israeli hostages and to relinquish power in Gaza to a technocratic Palestinian committee. If endorsed in full, this would put an end to the war and see the gradual Israeli withdrawal from Gaza, and no expulsion of the Palestinians out of Gaza.

Egypt, Qatar and Turkey have been facilitating Hamas’ response to the plan. And there is huge regional and international pressure to get the deal over the line.

However it would force Hamas to disarm itself and allow the entry of an international and regional force into Gaza to oversee the destruction of military infrastructure, including tunnels, weapon manufacturing and the remaining rockets – points of the latest plan that Hamas appears more unwilling to accept.

What happens to the remaining Hamas fighters is a sticking point that might lead to the collapse of the whole plan.

And any rejection of the plan that can be blamed on Hamas will no doubt be welcomed by members of the Israeli extreme right. Hardline factions of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s coalition have an alternative plan: to fully occupy Gaza, expel the Palestinians and reestablish Israeli settlements in Gaza.

Two men in suits stand with thumbs up gestures
President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu unveiled peace plan at the White House on Sept. 29, 2025.
Win McNamee/Getty Images

Where next for Hamas?

Perhaps the most viable option for Hamas is to transform itself into a political party. But to do so, the group will need to reform not only its structures but also its ideology.

Political momentum is swinging back to a two-state solution. France and Saudi Arabia recently spearheaded a fresh push to that end at the United Nations, and a host of Western nations recognized Palestinian statehood for the first time. Hamas may feel the pressure to finally accept a two-state solution, something it has long resisted. For its part, Trump’s plan only makes vague assertions noting the Palestinian “aspiration” for a state.

If transforming into a purely political party is to be the fate of Hamas, it will need to play its cards shrewdly and swiftly. The Palestine Liberation Organization went through this process after their departure from Beirut in 1982, eventually putting politics and diplomacy over armed resistance. And Qatar, Turkey and Egypt can help Hamas moderate its stances, too.

The rigid ideology of Hamas remains a hurdle. Since it was formed in 1987, Hamas has tethered itself to a hardline Islamist ideology that does not allow fundamental compromises on issues such as recognition of Israel and the development of Palestine as a secular state.

But there is the recent example of Syria, where following the ouster of long-term dictator Bashar al-Assad, the main Islamist fighting group pivoted to politics, and was lauded in the international community for doing so.

Whether Hamas can succeed in such a transformation – should it attempt to – remains to be seen. And there is one final snag: Even if Hamas does accept the latest peace proposal, other Palestinian militant groups in Gaza might not – and could attempt to sabotage the whole process.

The Conversation

Mkhaimar Abusada is affiliated with, Member of the Board of Commissioners of the Independent Commission for Human Rights, Palestine

​Politics + Society – The Conversation

Categories
Politics

History is repeating itself at the FBI as agents resist a director’s political agenda

FBI Director Kash Patel is sworn in to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Sept. 16, 2025, in Washington, D.C. Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

Three converging events in the 1970s – the Watergate scandal, the chaotic U.S. withdrawal from the Vietnam War and revelations that FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover had abused his power to persecute people and organizations he viewed as political enemies – destroyed what formerly had been near-automatic trust in the presidency and the FBI.

In response, Congress enacted reforms designed to ensure that legal actions by the Department of Justice and the FBI, the department’s main investigative arm, would be insulated from politics. These included stronger congressional oversight, a 10-year term limit for FBI directors and investigative guidelines issued by the attorney general.

Some of these measures, however, were tenuous. For example, Justice Department leaders could alter FBI investigative guidelines at any time.

Donald Trump’s first presidential term seriously tested DOJ and FBI independence – notably, when Trump fired FBI Director James Comey in May 2017. Trump claimed Comey mishandled a 2016 probe into Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton’s private email server, but Comey also refused to pledge loyalty to the president.

Now, in Trump’s second term, prior guardrails have vanished. The president has installed loyalists at the DOJ and FBI who are dedicated to implementing his political interests.

A lawsuit filed by three former FBI officials fired by the Trump administration asserts that the bureau is being politicized and is supporting Trump’s agenda.

As a historian of the FBI, I recognize the FBI has had only one other overtly political director in the past 50 years: L. Patrick Gray, who served for a year under President Richard Nixon. Gray was held accountable after he tried to help Nixon end the FBI’s Watergate investigation. Whether Trump’s current director, Kash Patel, has more staying power is unclear.

After Hoover

Ever since Hoover’s death in 1972, presidents have typically nominated independent candidates with bipartisan support and law enforcement roots
to run the FBI. Most nominees have been judges, senior prosecutors or former FBI or Justice Department officials.

While Hoover publicly proclaimed his FBI independent of politics, he sometimes did the bidding of presidents, including Nixon. Still, Nixon felt that Hoover had not been compliant enough, so in 1972 he selected Gray, a longtime friend and assistant attorney general, to be Hoover’s successor.

Gray took steps to move the bureau out of Hoover’s shadow. He relaxed strict dress codes for agents, recruited female agents and pointedly hired people from outside the agency – who were not indoctrinated in the Hoover culture – for administrative posts.

Gray asserted his authority with blunt force. FBI agents at field offices and at headquarters who resisted Gray’s power were censured, fired or transferred. Other senior officials opted to leave, including the bureau’s top fraud expert, cryptanalyst and skyjacking expert, and the head of its Crime Information Center.

Agents regarded these moves as a purge, and press reports claimed that bureau morale was at an all-time low, charges that Gray denied. According to FBI Associate Director Mark Felt, who became Gray’s second in command, 10 of 16 top FBI officials chose to retire, most of them notable Hoover men.

Gray surrounded himself with what journalist Jack Anderson called “sharp, but inexperienced, modish, young aides.” FBI insiders called these new hires the “Mod Squad,” a reference to the counterculture TV police series.

A man in a suit answers questions at a microphone.
Attorney L. Patrick Gray meets with reporters at the White House after his selection by President Richard Nixon as FBI acting director on May 3, 1972.
Bettman via Getty Images

Gray helps Nixon

In contrast to Hoover, who had rarely left FBI headquarters and publicly avoided politics, Gray openly stumped for Nixon in the 1972 campaign. He was so rarely spotted at FBI headquarters that bureau insiders dubbed him “Two-Day Gray.” At the request of Nixon aide John Ehrlichman, Gray told field offices to help Nixon campaign surrogates by providing local crime information.

Gray cooperated with Nixon to stymie the FBI’s investigation of the 1972 Watergate break-in and the ensuing cover-up. He provided raw FBI investigative documents to the White House and burned documents from Watergate conspirator E. Howard Hunt’s White House safe.

When Nixon had CIA Deputy Director Vernon Walters ask Gray, in the name of national security, to halt the FBI’s investigation, Felt and other agency insiders demanded that Gray get this order in writing. The White House backed down, but Nixon’s directive had been recorded. That tape became the so-called “smoking gun” evidence of a Watergate cover-up.

Felt, in classic Hoover fashion, then leaked information to discredit Gray, hoping to replace him. Gray resigned in disgrace.

While Felt never got the top job, he is now remembered as the prized anonymous source “Deep Throat,” who helped Washington Post reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein in their Pulitzer Prize-winning Watergate investigation. But it was internal FBI resistance, from Felt and agents at lower levels, that led to Gray’s departure.

After Democratic National Committee headquarters at Washington, D.C.’s Watergate Hotel was burgled in June 1972, the FBI was charged with investigating the break-in – as Director L. Patrick Gray tried to subvert his own agency’s investigation.

Political from the start

Campaigning in 2024, Donald Trump vowed to “root out” his political opponents from government. Realizing he was a target because of his investigation of the attack on the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, FBI director Christopher Wray, whom Trump had nominated in 2017, resigned in December 2024 before Trump could fire him.

In Wray’s place Trump nominated loyalist Kash Patel, a lawyer who worked as a low-level federal prosecutor from 2013 to 2016 and then as a deputy national security appointee during Trump’s first term.

Patel publicly supported Trump’s vow to purge enemies and claimed the FBI was part of a “deep state” that was resistant to Trump. Patel promised to help dismantle this disloyal core and to “rebuild public trust” in the FBI.

Even before Patel was confirmed on Feb. 20, 2025, in an historically close 51-49 vote, the Justice Department began transferring thousands of agents away from national security matters to immigration duty, which was not a traditional FBI focus.

Hours after taking office, Patel shifted 1,500 agents and staff from FBI headquarters to field offices, claiming that he was streamlining operations.

Patel installed outsider Dan Bongino as deputy director. Bongino, another Trump loyalist, was a former New York City policeman and Secret Service agent who had become a full-time political commentator. He embraced a conspiracy theory positing the FBI was “irredeemably corrupt” and advocated “an absolute housecleaning.”

In February, New York City Special Agent in Charge James Dennehy told FBI staff “to dig in” and oppose expected and unprecedented political intrusions. He was forced out by March.

Patel then used lie-detector tests and carried out a string of high-profile firings of agents who had investigated either Trump or the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection. Some agents who were fired had been photographed kneeling during a 2020 racial justice protest in Washington, D.C. – an action they said they took to defuse tensions with protesters.

In response, three fired agents are suing Patel for what they call a political retribution campaign. Ex-NFL football player Charles Tillman, who became an FBI agent in 2017, resigned in September 2025 in protest of Trump policies. Once again, there are assertions of a purge.

Will Patel be held accountable?

Patel’s actions as director so far illustrate that he is willing to use his position to implement the president’s political designs. When Gray tried to do this in the 1970s, accountability still held force, and Gray left office in disgrace. Gray participated in a cover-up of illegal behavior that became the subject of an impeachment proceeding. What Patel has done to date, at least what we know about, is not the equivalent – so far.

Today, Patel’s tenure rests solely upon pleasing the president. If formal accountability – a key element of a democracy – is to survive, it will have to come from Congress, whose Republican majority has so far not exercised its power to hold Trump or his administration accountable. Short of that, perhaps internal resistance within the administration or pressure from the public and the media might serve the oversight function that Congress, over the past eight months, has abrogated.

The Conversation

Douglas M. Charles does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

​Politics + Society – The Conversation