Feed aggregator

Rep. Rashida Tlaib easily defeated two challengers in Tuesday’s Democratic primary in Michigan’s 12th Congressional District, securing the nomination for another term in Congress and reinforcing her standing as one of the Democratic Party’s most prominent progressive voices.

With roughly 31.6% of the expected vote counted Tuesday night, Tlaib was projected the winner after capturing a commanding 67.9% of the vote.

According to the preliminary results, Tlaib received 31,062 votes, well ahead of challenger Shanelle Jackson, who garnered 10,940 votes, or 23.9%. Byron Nolen finished third with 3,730 votes, representing 8.2%.

Although an estimated 99,000 ballots remained to be counted, the margin was large enough for news organizations to project Tlaib’s victory.

Tlaib, who has represented the Detroit-area district since 2019, remains one of the most recognizable members of the progressive “Squad” in Congress. Throughout her tenure, she has championed left-wing priorities including Medicare for All, environmental initiatives, criminal justice reform, and expanded social welfare programs.

She has also become one of Congress’ most outspoken critics of Israel, particularly following the outbreak of the Israel-Hamas war. Her repeated calls for a ceasefire, accusations against Israel over its military campaign in Gaza, and criticism of U.S. military aid have made her a polarizing figure both within the Democratic Party and nationally.

Unlike several other progressive lawmakers who have faced well-funded primary challenges in recent election cycles, Tlaib entered this year’s race as the clear favorite and maintained a substantial lead throughout the campaign.

With the Democratic nomination now effectively secured, Tlaib will move on to the November general election. Given the heavily Democratic makeup of Michigan’s 12th Congressional District, she is widely favored to win another term in the House of Representatives.

{Matzav.com}

U.S. Rep. Wesley Bell secured victory Tuesday over former Rep. Cori Bush in Missouri’s Democratic primary for the 1st Congressional District, prevailing in the state’s most expensive primary race of the year. Bell’s win sets him up for a strong position heading into November in the heavily Democratic district.

The Associated Press projected Bell as the winner shortly after 8 p.m.

Bell will now advance to the general election, where he is expected to face the winner of the Republican contest between Paul Berry III and Andrew Jones—neither of whom has established a fundraising committee—as well as Libertarian candidate Tom Schmitz.

Both Bell and Bush rose to political prominence in the aftermath of the 2014 Ferguson protests, which became a defining moment in the national conversation on race and policing. In recent years, however, the two have found themselves on opposite sides of one of the nation’s most contentious issues: Bell has been a strong supporter of Israel, while Bush has become one of Congress’ most outspoken advocates for the Palestinian cause.

Bell’s pro-Israel positions attracted substantial financial backing from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and allied political action committees, allowing his re-election effort to far outspend Bush’s campaign.

Overall, candidates and outside organizations poured roughly $8.4 million into the race, making it Missouri’s costliest candidate primary this election cycle. Approximately $7.2 million of that total was spent in support of Bell.

Over the past two years, Bell’s campaign has spent nearly $3 million, including about $864,000 on television advertising leading up to Election Day. Bush’s campaign spent nearly $1.2 million overall, with only about $66,400 devoted to broadcast advertising.

AIPAC once again played a major financial role in Bell’s campaign, investing approximately $3.1 million on his behalf. That included roughly $1.5 million in television advertising through its affiliated political action committee, United Democracy Project. Another outside organization, New Democrat Majority, added approximately $1.1 million in support of Bell.

The latest spending follows AIPAC’s heavy investment in Bell during the 2024 election cycle, when the organization and allied groups spent more than $8 million backing his campaign as part of a broader effort to defeat some of Congress’ strongest critics of Israel, including members of the progressive “Squad,” of which Bush was a member.

Bell was one of AIPAC’s largest-supported candidates nationwide during the 2024 election cycle. The organization, founded in the 1950s, has drawn criticism from progressive Democrats and some Middle East scholars, who argue it consistently supports military escalation and prolonged Israeli control of disputed territories.

Bell rejected that characterization of the organization.

“What they focus on is a strong U.S.-Israeli relationship,” Bell told The Independent in June. “I’ll be honest, I’m not a fan of the current (Israeli) Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, not a fan at all, but what I know about that group is that no matter who’s in charge, they’re going to support a strong US-Israeli relationship.”

Since arriving in Congress, Bell has been appointed to both the House Armed Services Committee, which oversees the Department of Defense, and the House Foreign Affairs Committee, which handles issues involving U.S. foreign policy and national security.

Despite serving on committees with significant international responsibilities, Bell said his foremost priority remains the needs of his district.

“We have to focus on regional growth and development,” he said, “because I believe this region is a sleeping giant.”

{Matzav.com}

The Trump administration is preparing to extend a temporary waiver to the century-old Jones Act in an effort to ease gasoline prices for American drivers, according to sources familiar with the discussions. The move comes as President Donald Trump intensifies his criticism of oil giants Exxon Mobil and Chevron, accusing them of earning excessive profits while consumers continue paying high prices at the pump.

The Jones Act requires cargo transported between U.S. ports to travel on vessels that are built in the United States, owned by American companies, and staffed by U.S. crews.

By temporarily relaxing those requirements, the administration hopes to make it easier to transport fuel across the country, reducing shipping bottlenecks and increasing supply in regions facing higher prices.

Industry leaders had anticipated that the waiver would be renewed before the end of July. Instead, administration officials have continued negotiations with maritime industry representatives and members of Congress over possible revisions that would preserve flexibility for moving critical fuel supplies while narrowing the waiver’s scope, according to three people familiar with the talks who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the matter publicly.

The existing waiver is scheduled to expire on Aug. 16. If renewed, it would continue what has already become the longest suspension of Jones Act requirements since the waiver program was established.

Government figures show the exemption was invoked nearly 200 times during the four-and-a-half-month period ending in late July.

With the November midterm elections approaching, the administration is searching for additional ways to reduce gasoline prices, which remain above $4 per gallon on average nationwide.

In recent months, the White House has pursued several strategies to ease fuel costs, including boosting oil supplies and providing regulatory flexibility. Trump also publicly increased pressure on Exxon and Chevron this week, saying the companies should return more of their profits to consumers through lower prices at gas stations.

Neither Exxon Mobil nor Chevron responded to requests for comment.

Speaking with reporters Tuesday in Brownsville, Texas, Energy Secretary Chris Wright said the waiver has already helped bring down fuel prices in California and along the East Coast, adding that another extension appears likely.

Wright predicted gasoline prices would continue falling over the next several weeks.

“President Trump believes in markets and he believes in capitalism. But he’ll use every tool he has, including the bully pulpit, to try to encourage and put pressure to lower energy prices for Americans,” Wright said at a press conference when asked about Trump’s comments on Exxon and Chevron.

Bob McNally, president of Rapidan Energy Group, said the most powerful tool available to any U.S. president would ordinarily be encouraging Saudi Arabia to increase oil production. However, he noted that option is currently limited because exports remain constrained by disruptions around the Strait of Hormuz stemming from the conflict involving Iran.

McNally said other proposals—including a windfall profits tax, government-imposed gasoline price controls, or legal action against major oil companies—would either be politically difficult, economically risky, or unlikely to produce meaningful price reductions.

He added that while extending the Jones Act waiver would increase the number of tankers available to move fuel domestically, its overall impact on gasoline prices would likely amount to only a few cents per gallon.

Opponents of extending the waiver are urging the administration to impose tighter geographic restrictions and conduct closer reviews of each shipment permitted under the exemption.

Sources said White House trade adviser Peter Navarro, Office of Management and Budget Director Russell Vought, and members of the White House Energy Dominance Council have all participated in ongoing discussions about the future of the waiver.

No final decision has been reached, and officials cautioned that the details could still change before an announcement is made.

Several senior Republican lawmakers, including House Speaker Mike Johnson and House Majority Leader Steve Scalise, have urged the administration to limit the waiver’s reach, arguing that frequent exemptions could weaken the U.S. merchant fleet and undermine the national security objectives behind the Jones Act.

A White House official said the administration continues to evaluate how the waiver is being used and that discussions remain active. The official added that any decision will be announced directly by the president or the administration.

Maritime organizations have intensified their campaign against another extension, with the American Maritime Partnership resuming television advertisements on CNBC and Fox News while also launching a digital advertising campaign alongside the American Waterways Operators.

AMP President Jennifer Carpenter argued that the waiver has primarily benefited foreign shipping companies and major energy firms rather than American consumers.

“The waiver has shifted routine domestic commerce to foreign operators, including entities linked to China and Russia, while undermining the U.S. maritime industrial base,” Carpenter said.

Sen. Rand Paul said Tuesday that the U.S. military campaign against Iran has ultimately left America in a weaker strategic position, arguing that diplomacy—not continued military action—is the only realistic way to prevent Tehran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. He also warned that the conflict is exposing growing divisions within the Republican Party ahead of the upcoming midterm elections.

During an appearance on MS Now’s Morning Joe, the Kentucky Republican described the conflict as unnecessary and said he never would have supported launching it.

“This is a war of choice, and it wouldn’t have been my choice,” Paul said.

Paul acknowledged that U.S. forces inflicted significant damage on Iran’s military but argued that the broader consequences have outweighed those battlefield successes.

“I think if you look at it objectively, one step forward, we decimated their military, but two steps backward in that they militarized the Strait (of Hormuz). The Strait has never been militarized. By any objective viewing, we are worse off than we were before the war.”

Asked by co-host Willie Geist what outcome would best serve U.S. interests, Paul answered that ending the conflict as quickly as possible should be the priority.

“The sooner the war ends, the better.”

Although Paul said eliminating Iran’s stockpile of enriched uranium would be “a noble goal,” he argued that military force alone cannot accomplish that objective.

“The only way you’ll do that is you have to negotiate,” he said.

Paul’s remarks highlight the growing debate within Republican ranks over the administration’s approach to Iran. While many GOP foreign policy hawks have supported military action, others within President Donald Trump’s political base have voiced deep reservations about the United States becoming entangled in another prolonged conflict in the Middle East.

That divide could create political challenges for Republicans as the midterm elections approach, with party leaders seeking to maintain support for the administration’s national security policies while addressing concerns among voters who favor a more restrained foreign policy.

Paul has become one of the leading Republican advocates for pursuing negotiations with Iran, maintaining that diplomacy offers the best chance of achieving a lasting agreement and preventing Tehran from developing nuclear weapons without extending the military conflict.

WATCH:

{Matzav.com}

British broadcaster Piers Morgan engaged in a heated confrontation with senior Hamas terror official Ghazi Hamad during a televised interview, forcefully condemning Hamas’s October 7, 2023, attack on Israel and rejecting the terrorist group’s attempts to defend its actions.

The exchange grew increasingly tense as Morgan accused Hamas of committing horrific atrocities against Israeli civilians during the assault, while Hamad repeatedly interrupted and disputed Morgan’s characterization of the events.

“Listen, I’m sorry, but you crossed every line of humanity and morality. On October the 7th, the actions of Hamas crossed every single moral, ethical and humanitarian line. Your people committed acts of utter barbarism against innocent Israelis. You did. We saw it with our own eyes,” Morgan said.

As Hamad continued insisting Morgan’s description was inaccurate, the journalist pushed back even harder.

“Your people, your Hamas terrorists…just to be clear: Your Hamas terrorists, your people, they deliberately posted themselves committing their atrocities in real time.”

Morgan went on to acknowledge Hamas’s stated rationale for its actions but firmly rejected it as a justification for the violence.

“I understand your position and I understand that you believe you’re fighting an occupation. You believe you’re there for ‘freedom fighters’…I understand Hamas’s position. However, I brand Hamas terrorists because the actions on October the 7th were the actions of a terrorist organization that committed a series of despicable crimes against the Israeli people. There is no justification.”

The terrorist responded by accusing Morgan of presenting an unfair account of the conflict, saying the interviewer was “not fair”.

Morgan then challenged Hamad with a direct question about one of the most shocking aspects of the October 7 attack.

“Let me ask you one simple question: Why would you take hostage a baby? What possible justification? Never mind all the other crimes that were committed that day. Why would you kidnap a baby?”

In response, Hamad denied that Hamas had intended to abduct civilians, claiming that its fighters “had no instruction to do that. We never planned to take civilians.”