The Democratic mayors of America’s largest and third-largest cities were absent from their respective Columbus Day parades on Monday, October 12, as Italian-American communities gathered in New York and Chicago to celebrate their heritage and contributions to American society.

New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani skipped the city’s 82nd annual Columbus Day Parade along Fifth Avenue, while Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson did not participate in his city’s 74th annual celebration. Both absences came against a backdrop of earlier public opposition to Christopher Columbus, whose historical legacy has become a contentious issue in American politics.

According to ABC7 Chicago, Johnson’s office confirmed that he did not participate in the Chicago parade. In New York, CBS News confirmed Mamdani’s absence, which prompted criticism from Italian-American community leaders.

Share

Mamdani’s History of Opposition to Columbus

Mamdani’s absence from New York’s celebration followed years of outspoken criticism of the Italian explorer. In June 2020, Mamdani posted a photograph of himself raising his middle finger toward a Christopher Columbus statue in Queens, accompanied by the words, “Take it down.”

The photograph resurfaced ahead of Monday’s parade, drawing renewed scrutiny of the mayor’s position on a holiday that many Italian Americans regard as a celebration of their community’s history.

Among those criticizing Mamdani was Angelo Vivolo, president of the Columbus Heritage Coalition, who argued that the mayor’s absence demonstrated disrespect toward Italian Americans.

“We know he hates Columbus. But the parade celebrates Italian-American culture,” Vivolo told the New York Post, according to the Italian news agency ANSA.

The parade nevertheless drew prominent elected officials, including Democratic Gov. Kathy Hochul, New York Attorney General Letitia James, and City Council Speaker Julie Menin, alongside Republican gubernatorial candidate Bruce Blakeman.

The event’s theme, “Two Flags, One Home,” highlighted the relationship between Italian and American identity during the United States’ 250th anniversary year.

Rather than participate, Mamdani released a video celebrating Italian-American Heritage Month, highlighting the contributions of Italian immigrants and praising Vito Marcantonio, a former congressman from East Harlem associated with progressive labor politics.

His administration also indicated that it would hold a reception celebrating Italian-American heritage at Gracie Mansion.

The mayor’s absence renewed an earlier controversy involving a city-produced map of immigrant neighborhoods that omitted Manhattan’s Little Italy and the Bronx’s Arthur Avenue neighborhood. The omissions prompted criticism from Italian-American leaders before the map was corrected. The map project, however, originated under the previous administration.

Monday’s absence also followed Mamdani’s decision not to attend New York’s Israel Day Parade in May, another prominent Fifth Avenue event. The mayor has defended his position regarding Israel, while emphasizing his administration’s responsibility to protect Jewish New Yorkers.

Chicago’s Mayor Previously Sought to Replace Columbus Day

In Chicago, Johnson’s absence was notable given his own documented history of opposition to Columbus Day.

The city’s 74th annual parade, organized by the Joint Civic Committee of Italian Americans, proceeded through downtown Chicago on October 12, featuring Italian flags, marching bands, and cultural performances.

The celebration included actor Tony Danza, singer Lou Gramm, and actress Cristiana Dell’Anna as grand marshals, while Italy’s Campania region was recognized as the event’s region of honor.

Although Johnson did not participate, his opposition to honoring Columbus was publicly established years before he entered City Hall.

In October 2021, while serving as a Cook County commissioner, Johnson participated in an Indigenous Peoples’ Day gathering and described Columbus’s legacy in terms of racism, genocide, and sexual violence against Indigenous communities.

More significantly, official Cook County legislative records show that Johnson sponsored a resolution proposing to replace Columbus Day with Indigenous Peoples’ Day and Reconciliation Day. The proposed resolution recognized the historical suffering of Indigenous peoples under European colonization and called for the second Monday of October to be observed under the new designation.

The measure was deferred by the Cook County Board in October 2021.

Johnson’s absence also follows an earlier precedent in Chicago. In 2021, then-Mayor Lori Lightfoot skipped the city’s Columbus Day Parade amid controversy over Christopher Columbus monuments that had been removed from public spaces.

At the time, Italian-American organizers emphasized that the annual parade represented far more than the historical figure whose name it carried.

Ron Onesti, a representative of the Joint Civic Committee of Italian Americans, explained that the celebration recognized the role Italian Americans played in building the United States.

A Holiday Rooted in the Italian-American Experience

For generations, Columbus Day has served as an important celebration of Italian-American heritage, honoring the immigrants and their descendants who helped build some of America’s greatest cities despite facing widespread prejudice and discrimination.

Yet when Italian Americans gathered to celebrate that legacy, the mayors of New York and Chicago were conspicuously absent.

Their absences were particularly striking given their earlier public opposition to Columbus commemorations. Mamdani had openly called for a Columbus statue to be removed, while Johnson had supported legislation seeking to replace the holiday altogether.

The parades were about more than Christopher Columbus. They celebrated generations of Italian Americans whose contributions helped shape New York, Chicago, and the United States. Both mayors had an opportunity to join their constituents in recognizing that history, regardless of their personal views about Columbus.

In New York and Chicago, thousands gathered to celebrate their heritage and their place in American history. Their mayors were nowhere to be seen.

A senior Qatari education official with documented associations involving a university founded by an Islamic preacher banned from entering the UK and Australia for his views, including glorifying suicide bombings, and an academic center named after Muslim Brotherhood spiritual leader Yusuf al-Qaradawi is scheduled to join the presidents of two prominent American universities at an international policy forum this week.

Ibrahim bin Saleh Al-Naimi, Qatar’s undersecretary of education and higher education, will participate in an October 16 discussion alongside Baylor University President Linda Livingstone and Brigham Young University President Shane Reese. The session, titled “Faith and Higher Education,” is part of the G20 Interfaith Forum’s October 15–17 gathering in Salt Lake City, Utah.

His appearance comes amid mounting scrutiny of Qatar’s extensive financial relationships with American universities. According to a March 2026 Congressional Research Service report, Qatar accounted for approximately $8.8 billion in disclosed foreign gifts and contracts to U.S. higher education institutions as of February 23, the largest amount attributed to any foreign country.

Al-Naimi, however, is more than a visiting government representative. A former president of Qatar University, he has served as an undersecretary in Qatar’s Education Ministry since 2017 and chairs the Doha International Center for Interfaith Dialogue (DICID), an institution that maintains relationships with religious and academic organizations internationally. His background also includes connections to Islamic institutions whose leadership and ideological associations have attracted controversy.

Al-Naimi’s Controversial Institutional Associations

One particularly concerning association involves the International Open University (IOU), formerly known as Islamic Online University, founded by Jamaican-Canadian preacher Bilal Philips. The university’s official advisory committee lists Al-Naimi among its advisors, identifying him as a former president of Qatar University.

Philips has a history of controversies involving extremist rhetoric and government restrictions. In 2010, Britain’s then-Home Secretary Theresa May barred him from entering the country over his extremist views. Australia had previously refused him entry in 2007 over his support for extremist Islamic positions.

Among the statements that attracted scrutiny was a recorded lecture in which Philips distinguished suicide bombing from conventional suicide, portraying certain suicide attacks as legitimate military operations. He argued that such operations should not be considered suicide in the traditional religious sense. The remarks became particularly controversial after The Observer reported that a British mosque attended by the 2010 Stockholm suicide bomber had linked to his lecture.

The university does not specify when Al-Naimi joined its advisory committee or the extent of his involvement. Nevertheless, the listing establishes a formal institutional association between a senior Qatari education official and a university founded by a religious figure who has faced international controversy.

Another connection involves the late Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the spiritual leader of the Muslim Brotherhood until his death in 2022, who also publicly defended suicide attacks against civilians. According to Qaradawi’s official website, he explicitly identifies Al-Naimi, then president of Qatar University, as someone he could approach to distribute his writings.

In May 2010, Al-Naimi’s DICID participated in a symposium at Qatar University alongside its College of Shari’a and Islamic Studies and the Al Qaradawi Centre for Islamic Moderation and Renewal.

According to DICID’s own account, Al-Naimi and the directors of the other participating institutions headed the event, which addressed interfaith dialogue in culture and media.

These associations are particularly relevant given Al-Naimi’s senior role within Qatar’s education establishment and his growing participation in international academic and religious-policy networks.

BYU’s Longstanding Institutional Relationship With Qatar

BYU, whose president will appear alongside Al-Naimi, has its own history of cooperation with the Qatari government. According to an account published by BYU Studies, Qatar’s ambassador to the United Nations approached the university’s World Family Policy Center in 2003 about organizing an international conference on family policy.

The initiative developed into the 2004 Doha International Conference for the Family, organized under the patronage of Sheikha Moza bint Nasser, chairperson of Qatar Foundation. BYU’s center helped coordinate preparations for the gathering, which culminated in the Doha Declaration concerning family policy and international social norms.

The relationship subsequently extended beyond conference organizing. Richard G. Wilkins, then director of BYU’s World Family Policy Center, was appointed the initial managing director of the Doha International Institute for Family Studies and Development beginning in 2006. The institute was established in cooperation with Qatar Foundation.

Qatar’s Nearly $9 Billion Footprint in American Higher Education

Al-Naimi’s appearance comes against the backdrop of Qatar’s extraordinary financial involvement in American academia. The Congressional Research Service’s March report identified approximately 1,300 Qatar-attributed gifts and contracts totaling $8.8 billion in federal higher-education disclosures.

The figures combine philanthropic gifts with contractual payments, including arrangements supporting American university branch campuses operating in Qatar. They therefore should not be interpreted as $8.8 billion in unrestricted donations to universities on American soil.

From Interfaith Dialogue to International Policy

The broader significance of the conference lies in its stated ambitions beyond religious dialogue. Founded in 2014, the G20 Interfaith Forum seeks to incorporate religious perspectives into international policymaking. Its annual conferences convene religious leaders, academics, government representatives, and civil society organizations to develop recommendations relating to priorities considered by G20 governments.

Although IF20 operates independently of the G20’s formal decision-making institutions, its 2026 program explicitly seeks to connect religious networks with practical policy proposals.

The October gathering includes discussions on expanding religious-literacy programs for teachers and students, developing educational curricula on artificial intelligence, and improving faith-based organizations’ ability to influence international policy.

Those objectives provide the context for Al-Naimi’s appearance alongside the presidents of Baylor and BYU. As a senior official from the country responsible for the largest reported financial footprint in American higher education, Al-Naimi brings both government authority and an established network of religious and academic associations to a conference explicitly concerned with the future of education and public policy.

Al-Naimi’s documented institutional associations, his previous cooperation with IF20 leadership, and Qatar’s extensive relationships with American universities raise important questions about how foreign-government education officials gain access to influential academic and policy networks, and the transparency surrounding those relationships.

Texas pastor and media executive Joel Webbon publicly called for the execution of U.S. Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee, pairing the ambassador’s photograph with that of a convicted mass murderer and describing Huckabee as a traitor and religious heretic. Webbon subsequently qualified his remarks by insisting that any execution should follow a fair trial, but his media company later published a lengthy defense of executing Huckabee and his senior aide David Milstein.

“Publicly televised executions?” Webbon wrote in a post highlighted on X over the weekend. “Sure.”

“But let’s kill two birds with one stone,” he continued. Webbon accused Huckabee of concealing information concerning Christian churches in Israel and Americans allegedly killed by Israel, before describing him as “a traitor” and a “‘Judeo-Christian’ heretic.”

The post included side-by-side photographs of Huckabee and Nidal Malik Hasan, the former Army psychiatrist convicted of murdering 13 people at Fort Hood in 2009. The Pentagon recently announced plans to livestream Hasan’s scheduled execution, a proposal that has prompted criticism from religious leaders and elected officials. Writer Joel Berry publicized Webbon’s remarks, stating that the pastor had called for Huckabee’s public execution.

Subscribe now

A Subsequent Qualification, Not a Retraction

Following considerable pushback to his initial post, Webbon appeared to temper his remarks, adding: “Only after a fair trial, of course.”

However, Webbon did not withdraw his demand for Huckabee’s execution or retract his accusations against the ambassador. Later on Webbon’s media company NXR Studios published an article titled “Mike Huckabee, Treason, and the Necessity of Swift Justice.”

The publication argued that both Huckabee and Milstein should be investigated, prosecuted and executed if convicted. Neither man has been charged or even investigated for treason or any criminal offense in the context Webbon was discussing. The controversy followed an October 8 New York Times investigation alleging that Milstein had blocked or altered diplomatic reporting concerning Israeli government actions. Huckabee categorically rejected the newspaper’s allegations.

The initial demand prompted criticism from prominent conservatives. Texas Senator Ted Cruz responded, “This…is…sick.” Conservative broadcaster Mark Levin, Milstein’s step-father, accused Webbon of threatening Huckabee and Milstein and called for law enforcement action against those inciting deadly violence.

NXR’s subsequent article attacked Berry, Cruz and Levin for their criticism. It also repeatedly invoked Levin’s Jewish identity, described him as a “Chabad Jew,” and advanced sweeping accusations about Jews and Israel.

A Record of Controversial Statements

Webbon is the pastor of Covenant Bible Church in Georgetown, Texas, and a principal of NXR Studios, short for New Christian Right. The for-profit media operation has developed a substantial online audience.

A September Religion News Service investigation reported that NXR’s YouTube channel had approximately 187,000 subscribers and more than 20 million cumulative views. The publication documented the platform’s promotion of antisemitic and white nationalist ideas, although Webbon disputed its characterization of his content as promoting white supremacy.

The remarks about Huckabee are not Webbon’s first public endorsement of executions. In a 2024 sermon, Webbon suggested that publicly executing women found guilty of making false sexual assault accusations would quickly discourage such claims. “All you have to do is publicly execute a few women who have lied,” he declared.

Preparing a Controversial Texas Conference

The latest controversy comes as Webbon’s company prepares to host “Christ Is King: America After Trump,” a three-day conference scheduled for November 12–14 at the city-owned Irving Convention Center near Dallas.

A July Crosscurrents investigation documented the event’s controversial speaker lineup, including Dale Partridge, who has advocated repealing women’s voting rights, and pastors Brian Sauvé and Eric Conn, whose previous conference drew scrutiny after a vendor sold Nazi propaganda.

Since that investigation, NXR’s official lineup has expanded to include conspiracy theorist Alex Jones, scheduled to deliver the opening keynote, and Buckley Carlson, the brother of conservative commentator Tucker Carlson.

Another scheduled speaker, NXR host Harrison Smith, read aloud a social media commentator’s demand for Huckabee and Milstein to be prosecuted for treason and executed if convicted during an October 9 broadcast. The program also promoted NXR’s upcoming conference. The other speakers’ scheduled participation does not establish that they endorse Webbon’s execution demand.

The conference will open with an address by Webbon advertised as his “Manifesto,” followed by Jones’s keynote. The controversy surrounding Webbon’s remarks has therefore emerged just weeks before an event intended to bring together his media company’s speakers and supporters. His subsequent reference to a fair trial did not amount to a retraction, and NXR’s October 11 publication made clear that the demand for the execution of Huckabee and Milstein remained part of its public position.

A new activist project is seeking to connect several strands of the American left through a common defense framework. The NSPM-7 Defendants Union invites participants in Palestine solidarity campaigns, anti-ICE organizing, Tesla Takedown protests, opposition to data centers and land-defense movements to share legal strategies and turn criminal cases into opportunities for political organizing. Its stated ambition extends beyond helping individual defendants: it wants different movements to see themselves as participants in the same struggle.

The project takes its name from President Donald Trump’s September 25, 2025, national security memorandum, “Countering Domestic Terrorism and Organized Political Violence.” The directive orders federal agencies to investigate political violence and the networks that organize or finance it. It also directs scrutiny of potential foreign-influence and money-laundering violations connected to domestic terrorism. The union presents that policy as an attack on the political left and proposes a coordinated response.

Share

Different Causes, a Common Defense

The union’s website explicitly connects cases across movements. It argues that lessons from a Palestine-related prosecution could assist a future No Kings defendant, while defense strategies developed after Trump’s 2017 inauguration could help activists facing conspiracy charges today. Its organizers describe their own backgrounds in climate, abolitionist and socialist activism, including experience as defendants and supporting prisoners.

These movements have different immediate targets. Palestine solidarity campaigns focus on Israel and institutions associated with it. Anti-ICE organizing challenges immigration enforcement. Stop Cop City opposes Atlanta’s police and firefighter training center. Tesla Takedown targets Elon Musk’s company through protests, boycotts and divestment. Campaigns against data centers contest technology infrastructure. The union seeks to connect participants through their encounters with police, prosecutors and courts.

Its invitation also extends to people whose organizations were named in what the site calls the State Department’s “Cuba Report” and who expect they may be under surveillance. The invitation illustrates the project’s intended reach, but does not establish that those organizations participate.

That distinction matters throughout the article. The site does not publish a roster establishing that every movement or organization it mentions has formally joined. Its FAQ expressly says it has no official members. Instead, it organizes around a shared pledge and seeks to circulate resources across political campaigns.

Solidarity Without Denunciation

The project’s pledge contains a particularly consequential commitment: “I will not publicly denounce the tactical choices of anyone accused of actions I don’t personally agree with.”

The surrounding explanation treats disagreement over tactics as a potential source of division that benefits the government. Participants are also asked to refuse cooperation with investigators and prosecutors, publicize their cases, pursue collective defense and share information learned through discovery.

The non-denunciation provision does not specify an exception for violent acts. That does not establish that every participant endorses violence. It does raise a concrete question about the boundaries of the proposed framework: when tactics differ, how much public solidarity does the union expect?

The question is particularly relevant because the project prominently invokes the Prairieland defendants. The July 4, 2025, incident at the Texas immigration detention facility included a shooting that wounded a responding police officer. Benjamin Hanil Song was convicted of attempted murder and sentenced to 100 years in prison, according to the Justice Department’s June 23, 2026, announcement.

Defense attorneys disputed the prosecution’s broader characterization of the gathering as a planned terrorist attack. The union’s references to the case do not establish that Song personally participates in the project.

Turning Prosecutions Into Organizing

The union says its resources include media training, access to legal office hours through the People’s Law Collective, connections to journalists and instruction on building support committees. Its stated purpose is to make movements more resilient and circulate lessons from individual cases nationwide.

Its pledge goes further, encouraging defendants to use the attention surrounding their cases to promote their movement’s ideas. Under that approach, prosecution becomes both a legal problem and a platform for attracting political support.

The significance lies in the proposed exchange of knowledge and resources across campaigns with different goals. A defense strategy developed in an immigration-enforcement case could inform a campus activist’s response to prosecution. Publicity methods used by forest defenders could be adopted elsewhere. The project seeks to make those exchanges systematic.

Defendants retain the right to counsel and a fair trial. The public also has reason to examine a political framework that asks participants to withhold criticism of tactics they themselves oppose. How that principle operates in practice will help determine what this new organizing network becomes.

October 7, 2023 didn’t create America’s foreign influence problem. It exposed it. Within hours of the massacre that killed 1,200 Israelis, coordinated protests erupted across U.S. campuses, European capitals, and major cities worldwide — using identical talking points, pre-printed signs, and synchronized tactics.

Three years later, the infrastructure behind that instant mobilization tells an extremely disturbing story: decades of Muslim Brotherhood networks, billions in Qatari university funding, Russian and Chinese disinformation pipelines, Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) coalition-building, and a fracturing American right willing to parrot adversarial propaganda. October 7 was the spark. The tinder had been carefully stacked for years.

Share

The Coordination Exposed Institutional Capture

The Democratic Socialists of America issued its statement on October 7 itself, declaring the massacre “a direct result of Israel’s apartheid regime.” By October 9, campus groups had mobilized nationwide. Students for Justice in Palestine coordinated over 200 chapters within 48 hours. A May 2024 report found “over $3 million a year” in funding to National SJP linked to organizations with alleged Hamas ties, including WESPAC Foundation and American Muslims for Palestine. DSA has since regularly partnered with pro-Palestinian organizations in various kinds of protests.

Across the UK, 80 percent of major protests were orchestrated by NGOs—at least 11 with documented ties to Iranian intelligence, Hamas, Hezbollah, or the Muslim Brotherhood, according to an NGO Monitor report presented to the House of Lords. “In reality, they are organized by a globally connected and financed network aimed at promoting IRGC propaganda and Islamist narratives,” testified legal advisor Anne Herzberg.

How Qatar Bought American Academia

As of early 2026, Qatar has funneled $6.3 billion into U.S. higher education — the largest foreign funder of American universities. Much arrived with minimal disclosure, evading Department of Education transparency requirements. Universities that took the most Qatari money saw the most organized protests after October 7, yet faced no federal investigation into whether they had become platforms for foreign propaganda.

WESPAC Foundation has reported over $1.2 million in funding allocated to AMP and affiliated groups, which provide $500 to $2,000 grants per campus event. AMP Executive Director Osama Abuirshaid disputed widely documented October 7 atrocities in a December 2023 speech, claiming “Most of the civilians were killed by their own army... There were no rapes.” At AMP’s 2023 conference, he stated it “did not matter” whether Hamas was designated a terrorist organization. Yet Abuirshaid operates openly in Washington, meeting with members of Congress.

Russia and China Exploited the Chaos

In the first seven weeks after October 7, Russian state media posts surged 400 percent on Facebook, according to the Alliance for Securing Democracy. Russia’s Doppelganger operation created fake Israeli media sites promoted by thousands of bot accounts. In one night, over 2,000 accounts posted 3,000 links to fabricated stories that adapted in real-time to ongoing events.

China’s approach exploited social media vulnerabilities. TikTok became the primary platform for Gen Z radicalization, with lawmakers raising concerns that ByteDance’s algorithm favored anti-Western content. While TikTok removed 925,000 videos, critics argue the platform’s moderation serves Beijing’s geopolitical interests.

The American Right Fractures

October 7 exposed fissures within American conservatism. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene became the first congressional Republican to describe operations as “genocide” in July 2025, stating: “Oct 7th in Israel was horrific... but so is the genocide happening in Gaza.”

Tucker Carlson’s podcast promoted conspiracy theories that Jewish advocacy organizations characterized as aligned with adversarial propaganda. In September 2024, Carlson hosted Holocaust revisionist Darryl Cooper, praising him as potentially “the best and most honest popular historian in the United States.” By March 2026, Carlson claimed Israel had foreknowledge of 9/11—a narrative previously confined to adversarial state media.

Candace Owens, with 5.7 million YouTube subscribers, has seemingly promoted conspiracy theories linking Israel to the JFK assassination and 9/11 attacks—claims that overlap with propaganda from Iran and Russia.

Subscribe now

The Infrastructure Endures

Three years after October 7, the networks remain intact. Qatar’s billions still flow into American universities. Russian and Chinese disinformation operations have refined their tactics. Campus organizations with alleged ties to foreign influence networks operate under nonprofit protections.

The Trump administration designated Muslim Brotherhood branches in Egypt, Jordan, and Lebanon as terrorist organizations in November 2025—notably excluding Qatar and Turkey. State-level actions by governors triggered lawsuits but no comprehensive federal investigation into foreign funding networks.

October 7 revealed what had been built over decades: compromised universities accepting undisclosed foreign funding, and political movements amplifying foreign propaganda. The massacre exposed the infrastructure. Three years later, America has yet to dismantle it.

After meeting Qatar Foundation’s vice chair during his Qatar visit, Sen. Chris Murphy praised American universities there as a way to “promote U.S. values in the Middle East and create more lasting people-to-people connections.” A CrossCurrents investigation of federal filings found that the foundation retains Venable, whose lobbying practice is co-chaired by Joshua Raymond, Murphy’s House chief of staff from 2007 to 2009.

Venable’s filings under the Foreign Agents Registration Act identify Raymond as a Qatar Foundation representative and record outreach to Murphy’s Senate office in each year from 2021 through 2025 for Qatar’s embassy. The foundation’s separate lobbying agreement covers its educational work and relationships with American universities.

Share

A Qatar Visit With a Washington Connection

Murphy met Sheikha Hind Al Thani at Education City, according to his October 5 post. Hind is the foundation’s vice chairperson, and Education City houses American campuses, including Georgetown, Carnegie Mellon and Northwestern. Venable describes Qatar Foundation as a private nonprofit under Qatari law, partly supported by Qatar’s government.

However, it’s U.S. affiliate, Qatar Foundation International, has a separate corporate history. Delaware records date its LLC’s formation to June 9, 2011. The former QFI charity’s final return records a $506,935 transfer to Qatar Foundation; an attached certificate dates its dissolution to February 2, 2012.

The Connecticut Democrat also met Qatar’s emir at Lusail Palace on October 4 before continuing to Riyadh. His office described the congressional delegation’s purpose as examining war damage, consulting regional partners and assessing counterterrorism efforts. Murphy also said he raised concerns with the emir about Qatar’s luxury aircraft donation to the United States.

A Former Aide on Qatar Foundation’s Account

Raymond’s current Venable biography identifies him as co-chair of its Legislative and Government Affairs Group. His Qatar work is documented individually: a 2019 registration names Qatar’s embassy, while a March 2026 filing names Qatar Foundation.

The foundation’s March 26 engagement, issued under Raymond’s name, identifies Josh Finestone as its main contact, working closely with Raymond. The letter set a $25,000 monthly fee.

An amendment signed August 26 and filed the next day raised Venable’s monthly fee to $40,000, retroactive to July 1, a 60 percent increase. Signed by Qatar Foundation’s general counsel, Ali Al-Muhannadi, it expanded the existing federal outreach to include state and local officials. These fees are payable to Venable; the cited contracts do not provide for payments to Murphy personally.

The assignment concerns the foundation’s U.S. public profile and officials’ understanding of its educational support and work with American universities. Murphy’s praise concerned one of those subjects: American universities in Qatar. Murphy also sits on the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, which oversees higher education.

Repeated Contacts With Murphy’s Office

Earlier filings record Raymond’s approaches to Murphy’s Senate staff. Venable’s 2021 disclosure names Raymond emailing Murphy’s chief of staff, Allison Herwitt, and senior adviser Cole Bockenfeld about Qatar’s role in Afghanistan on September 24. On October 1, he emailed Herwitt about Qatar’s Shura Council elections. These were part of wider congressional outreach.

Later filings record additional outreach. On April 29, 2025, Venable recorded a phone call with Jessica Elledge, Murphy’s senior foreign policy adviser, about President Donald Trump’s upcoming visit to Qatar.

A subsequent filing records texts to Elledge on June 2, 4, 5 and 7, 2025, concerning the aircraft donation. Each entry identifies Qatar’s embassy as the client. Neither 2025 filing names the Venable employee responsible for these contacts with Murphy’s staff.

The November filing also reports three embassy payments totaling $120,000 for Venable’s services during the six months ending October 31, 2025. It does not allocate those payments to the contacts with Murphy’s office.

Other Qatar representatives also reported contacts with Murphy and his staff. On April 10, 2024, Murphy objected to immediate passage by unanimous consent of legislation threatening Qatar’s major non-NATO ally status. Murphy argued that downgrading the relationship would endanger hostage negotiations and U.S. military interests. BGR logged an Elledge call about Qatar legislation that day; Moran Global Strategies recorded a phone contact with Murphy labeled “Floor speech comment.” The records supply no times establishing the sequence.

Murphy also sought to block a $1.9 billion arms sale to Qatar in June 2025; the Senate rejected the move.

Venable Has Helped Arrange Doha Travel

Working for Qatar’s embassy, Venable also reported helping coordinate congressional staff travel. Its November 2024 disclosure describes a September 28–October 4 trip to Doha, including meetings with Qatar Foundation’s executive director and general counsel.

The same filing records a September 11 email to Emily Smith, then Murphy’s legislative director, concerning a “Trip to Doha.” Smith is not among the listed participants in the separately described trip. The records establish travel-related outreach to Murphy’s office and Venable’s experience arranging visits involving the foundation.

The foundation whose vice chair Murphy met has a disclosed paid relationship with his former chief’s firm. That firm has separately reported repeated outreach to his Senate office for Qatar’s embassy.

The reviewed records do not establish that Venable arranged Murphy’s October meeting, drafted his remarks or lobbied his office for Qatar Foundation. Venable’s June 12, 2026 activity report covers work through April 30, before this visit. Invitations and planning correspondence could clarify any role the firm played.

Murphy should release the invitations and planning correspondence for his Education City visit, including any exchanges with Venable. His constituents deserve to know whether the foundation’s paid representatives helped arrange the meeting he publicly promoted.

Microsoft’s 2026 Digital Defense Report warns China, Iran, Russia and North Korea are conducting cyber operations that threaten American businesses, research institutions, government agencies and critical infrastructure. Alongside these state-backed campaigns, criminal networks and increasingly capable artificial intelligence are making attacks faster and harder to contain.

Generally covering July 2025 through June 2026, the report describes adversaries exploiting the trusted connections between accounts, software, suppliers and cloud services. A compromised contractor or stolen employee account can open access to institutions far beyond the original victim.

For Americans, the stakes include stolen research, exposed government information, disrupted businesses and threats to the services communities depend on.

Subscribe now

America’s Adversaries Seek Lasting Access

Microsoft identifies a shared objective across the four principal state actors: securing access they can maintain and use repeatedly. Such access can support intelligence collection, revenue generation or preparations for disruption.

Chinese state-backed operators focus on long-term espionage. They increasingly exploit cloud systems and legitimate account permissions to conceal their presence. Microsoft links these operations to Beijing’s integration of political oversight, military capabilities and commercial industries into a party-led intelligence apparatus. The United States accounted for 27 percent of observed Chinese nation-state targeting in Microsoft’s notification data.

Iranian actors significantly increased targeting of the United States and American interests, including through operators that had not previously targeted America. Their campaigns increasingly integrate cyber, military and information activities. Microsoft also describes preparations inside targeted systems for long-term espionage and potential disruption, including destructive operations and attacks on industrial technology.

Russian state-backed operators are refining stealthier methods while maintaining their focus on government, research, defense and civil-society organizations. A December 2025 destructive attack against Poland’s energy sector demonstrated a willingness to strike critical infrastructure beyond Ukraine.

North Korean operatives pursue both intelligence and money. Remote IT workers exploit hiring practices to gain trusted access inside organizations, using AI to develop deceptive personas and support their operations. An employer can become a source of revenue and a foothold for a hostile regime.

AI Gives Attackers Greater Reach

Microsoft describes AI helping attackers find vulnerabilities, generate malicious software and coordinate parts of an intrusion. Early evidence of AI-orchestrated attacks shows the direction of travel, although observed volumes remain low.

AI assistants also introduce vulnerabilities of their own. Attackers can embed malicious instructions in content an assistant reads or poison its stored memory to influence later actions. Giving these systems access to sensitive information and authority to act raises the consequences of manipulation.

Defenders can use AI to detect suspicious behavior and respond faster. Organizations still need clear controls over what their automated systems can access and execute.

Criminal Networks Exploit Legitimate Systems

Cybercrime operates through a specialized marketplace of access brokers, credential thieves, malware suppliers and ransomware operators. These services let criminals assemble attacks without developing every capability themselves.

Stolen accounts and session credentials allow intruders to appear legitimate. Social engineering and ordinary administrative tools help them evade detection before stealing information, deploying ransomware or demanding payment.

Compromised downloads and software packages spread the danger through trusted suppliers. An organization’s security therefore depends partly on companies and developers outside its direct control.

Essential Services Need Stronger Defenses

Microsoft warns that attacks increasingly threaten the physical services supporting communities. Schools, local governments, utilities and research institutions cannot carry that burden alone.

Universities connect federally funded research, open collaboration and sprawling supplier networks, making them valuable targets and potential entry points into wider systems. Their exposure has consequences for taxpayers and national security.

Microsoft recommends stronger identity protection, faster security fixes, scrutiny of software dependencies, coordinated intelligence sharing and controlled use of AI defenses. It also urges preparation for post-quantum cryptography.

America’s adversaries are investing in persistent access to institutions that sustain its strength. Protecting those institutions requires sustained cooperation between government and industry, with leaders accountable for keeping essential systems secure and operational.

Sixty-five House Democrats are pressing Secretary of State Marco Rubio to confront Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan over a sweeping crackdown that has targeted LGBT advocacy groups, HIV organizations, journalists and protesters, placing Washington in the middle of a widening dispute over civil society, foreign funding and Erdoğan’s campaign to defend traditional family structures.

In an October 1 letter to Rubio, lawmakers led by Reps. Yassamin Ansari and Dina Titus accused Ankara of using criminal law and state institutions to suppress LGBT advocacy. The signatories include House Foreign Affairs Committee ranking member Gregory Meeks, Nancy Pelosi, Jamie Raskin, Pramila Jayapal, Josh Gottheimer, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Jared Moskowitz and Ritchie Torres.

The lawmakers demanded that the State Department raise the issue directly with Turkey, press for the release of people detained for what they described as legitimate human-rights activity, direct the U.S. Embassy in Ankara to monitor court proceedings and oppose efforts to dissolve LGBT organizations. According to Ansari’s office, the lawmakers gave Rubio until October 30 to respond.

But the confrontation is about more than LGBT policy. Turkish authorities are simultaneously examining foreign funding received by several organizations caught in the raids, including support linked to European governments, international institutions and private organizations.

Turkey Launches “My Family Is Safe”

The crackdown began in September under an operation the Turkish government calls “My Family Is Safe.” Justice Minister Akın Gürlek said authorities had taken judicial action against 162 suspects, nine associations and 13 businesses across investigations centered in five cities and spanning 15 provinces. According to the Turkish Justice Ministry, prosecutors are investigating allegations including obscenity, prostitution-related offenses, drug crimes and activities allegedly exposing children to obscene material.

Authorities said they used undercover investigators, surveillance, witness testimony and digital evidence before carrying out coordinated searches and seizures. The government has tied the operation to Erdoğan’s broader family-policy agenda and efforts it says are intended to protect children, families and public order.

Rights organizations sharply dispute that characterization. Human Rights Watch said coordinated raids between September 12 and 14 targeted seven LGBT organizations and two groups working with people living with HIV. According to HRW, at least 112 people were arrested, with 82 still detained under court orders when it published its September 18 report.

Reuters subsequently reported that at least 31 people had been jailed pending trial and 126 protesters detained in Ankara and Istanbul. The crackdown has also moved beyond arrests. On September 30, a Turkish court ordered access blocked to independent news outlet T24 after Turkish authorities identified 118 pieces of content they characterized as LGBT “propaganda.” Reuters reported that the order formed part of the wider campaign against LGBT-related content and organizations.

The Foreign Funding Question

One of the least examined dimensions of the operation is Ankara’s focus on foreign money. Gürlek said Turkish financial-intelligence authorities had identified substantial transfers from foreign public institutions and organizations to associations promoting LGBT causes. The Justice Ministry statement said investigators were examining both the origin of the money and whether it was connected to activities under investigation.

Records attributed to Istanbul provincial authorities subsequently provided a clearer picture. According to Turkish news agency DHA, six organizations under investigation recorded approximately 32.1 million Turkish lira in foreign assistance during 2025 alone.

SPoD reportedly received 11.2 million lira, HEVİ 7.4 million, Pozitif Yaşam 7.2 million, Pozitif İz 2.9 million, LİSTAG 2.6 million and Lambda İstanbul roughly 841,000 lira. The reported donor trail reaches deep into Western institutions.

DHA reported that LİSTAG received funding from the European Endowment for Democracy, the Dutch Foreign Ministry, the German Consulate General and the Swedish Consulate General in Istanbul. Pozitif Yaşam reportedly received money from the United Nations Population Fund, the European Commission, Gilead Sciences and a British-based charitable payment organization.

The same inspection reports cited alleged administrative irregularities at some organizations. According to DHA, inspectors reported that Pozitif İz failed to provide certain financial books and expense records, while Lambda İstanbul was cited over recordkeeping issues and an allegedly unauthorized venue operation.

Those findings are administrative allegations and do not establish the broader criminal accusations made against the groups. Human Rights Watch argues that the foreign-funding issue is being used as a pretext. The organization noted that receiving foreign funding is legal in Turkey so long as recipients comply with reporting requirements and said it had seen no evidence that the targeted associations violated those requirements.

That dispute now sits at the center of the case: Ankara portrays foreign financing as relevant to an investigation into organizations it accuses of undermining family policy, while rights groups say the government is criminalizing lawful civil-society activity.

Washington Enters the Fight

The congressional intervention adds another layer. The October 1 letter does not discuss the foreign-funding records. Instead, its authors characterize the operation as part of a long-running erosion of freedom of speech, assembly and association under Erdoğan.

They also turned Rubio’s own past language against him, quoting a previous statement that the United States should never tolerate human-rights violations based on political views, religious beliefs or sexual orientation.

According to Ansari’s office, the letter is backed by the Human Rights Campaign, Council for Global Equality and Planned Parenthood Federation of America.

That puts the Trump administration in an awkward position. Turkey remains a NATO ally and a central actor in regional security, Syria, Russia and the eastern Mediterranean. Yet Washington is now being asked by dozens of members of Congress to directly intervene in a domestic campaign Erdoğan’s government has explicitly tied to family policy, children and foreign-backed civil-society organizations.

There is also precedent for American concern. Previous State Department human-rights reporting criticized Turkey for restrictions affecting LGBT organizations and noted complaints that NGOs critical of the government faced heightened scrutiny, including over foreign funding.

What is different now is the scale. Turkey has moved from sporadic bans and investigations to coordinated raids, large-scale arrests, website blocks, organizational scrutiny and financial investigations across the country. Congress, in turn, has moved from criticism to a formal demand that the State Department engage Ankara.

For Washington, the emerging question is no longer simply whether it agrees with Erdoğan’s social policies. It is whether the United States will challenge a NATO ally over the methods being used to enforce them, while several organizations swept into the crackdown have also received documented funding from Western governments and international institutions.

An immigration judge has ruled that Salah Sarsour, president of Wisconsin’s largest mosque and a national board member of American Muslims for Palestine, can be deported from the United States, bringing renewed attention to decades-old allegations linking the Palestinian activist to Hamas fundraising and operatives.

Immigration Judge Jayme Salinardi ruled on September 30 that Sarsour is deportable, according to his legal team. The ruling relied in part on a determination by Secretary of State Marco Rubio that Sarsour’s presence in the United States could have potentially serious adverse foreign-policy consequences.

The ruling does not mean Sarsour will immediately be deported. His case will proceed to questions over whether he qualifies for relief from removal, while his lawyers are separately pursuing constitutional claims in federal court. The immigration judge also rejected government allegations that Sarsour lied on his green-card application and that he improperly registered to vote. But the decision places renewed scrutiny on a history extending well beyond Sarsour’s current role as president of the Islamic Society of Milwaukee.

Share

Israeli Convictions and Weapons Charge

Federal court records confirm that Sarsour was convicted twice by an Israeli military court before settling permanently in the United States. According to a June federal court order, the Ramallah Military Court convicted Sarsour in 1989 of throwing a Molotov cocktail and stones at Israeli soldiers. In 1995, the same court convicted him of attempting to possess weapons and ammunition.

The American government, however, had known about the Israeli cases for decades. The June federal court ruling noted that U.S. authorities considered information concerning the convictions during immigration or naturalization reviews in 2000, 2008, 2010 and 2019.

The FBI Memo and Hamas Fundraising Allegations

More serious allegations concerning Sarsour appear in FBI material prepared during the federal investigation of the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development. The Holy Land Foundation was later convicted in a major U.S. terrorism-financing prosecution involving millions of dollars prosecutors said were provided in support of Hamas.

A 2001 FBI memorandum discussed statements attributed to Sarsour’s brother, Jamil Sarsour, following his arrest by Israeli authorities in 1998. Congressional testimony quoting the FBI report said Jamil provided information regarding his own activities and those of Salah in support of Hamas.

According to the material, Jamil described Salah’s alleged involvement with Hamas and fundraising activities connected to the Holy Land Foundation. The testimony said Jamil told investigators that his brothers Salah and Imad were involved in raising money in the name of the Holy Land Foundation that was actually intended for Hamas.

The same record also described allegations involving a more direct financial channel. Jamil was arrested in Israel in October 1998 for allegedly providing financial and other assistance to Adel Awadallah, a Hamas military operative. At the time, according to the FBI material quoted in congressional testimony, he was carrying more than $66,000, two American passports and a telephone book.

The Senate HELP Committee later summarized the allegations by stating that Sarsour “raised funds for the HLF and reportedly sent funds to Adel Awadallah, a Hamas military leader.” Awadallah was a senior figure in Hamas’s military wing in the West Bank.

A Senior American Muslims for Palestine Figure

Sarsour later became a senior figure in American Muslims for Palestine (AMP), serving on its national board and playing a role in its conferences and fundraising. That position has attracted growing attention as AMP itself has faced congressional scrutiny.

In March 2025, Senate HELP Committee Chairman Bill Cassidy opened an investigation into AMP and Americans for Justice in Palestine Educational Foundation over their activities on college campuses and alleged historical connections to individuals associated with Hamas-linked organizations.

The committee singled out Sarsour by name, describing him as an AMP board member and AJP director who advertises and fundraises for AMP conferences. Its letter also cited the allegations that Sarsour raised money for the Holy Land Foundation and reportedly sent funds to Awadallah.

Sarsour’s leadership role in AMP also became relevant to the government’s immigration case. A June federal court order describes a memorandum from Rubio asserting that Sarsour’s presence in the United States would undermine U.S. foreign-policy efforts involving antisemitism and support for foreign terrorist organizations.

CAIR Honors Sarsour

Sarsour’s legal battle has simultaneously turned him into a celebrated figure within major American Muslim organizations. The Council on American-Islamic Relations repeatedly called for his release following his March arrest by immigration authorities. After a federal judge ordered him released in June, CAIR portrayed Sarsour as a political prisoner and continued rallying support around his case.

Then, at CAIR’s 2026 national gathering, the organization honored Sarsour with its “Courage Under Fire Award.” CAIR described him as a “freed political prisoner” and Wisconsin Muslim community leader.

The award came despite the publicly available record surrounding Sarsour: two Israeli military convictions, FBI material recounting allegations that Sarsour and members of his family raised funds for Hamas, allegations involving money sent to a Hamas military commander, and his continuing leadership role in an organization that has itself drawn federal scrutiny.

The Deportation Fight Continues

The September 30 ruling does not end Sarsour’s case. His attorneys have said they will appeal, and another immigration judge is expected to oversee proceedings concerning whether Sarsour qualifies for relief that could prevent his removal. The ruling is nevertheless significant.

Salinardi rejected some of the government’s allegations, including the accusation that Sarsour had lied to obtain his green card. But he ultimately concluded that Sarsour was removable under U.S. immigration law.

For a man who has spent more than three decades in the United States, risen to lead Wisconsin’s largest mosque, joined the national leadership of American Muslims for Palestine and recently received a national award from CAIR, the decision marks the most consequential development yet in a controversy that reaches back decades.

And it has brought the record surrounding Salah Sarsour back into focus: the Israeli convictions, the FBI material, the Holy Land Foundation allegations, the allegation that funds were sent to a Hamas military commander, and the organizations that continued to elevate him long after those allegations became public.

The Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) are recruiting tenant organizers for a national training program whose declared end goal is abolishing private ownership of land and shelter. Beginning October 24, its Housing Justice Commission will teach participants how to establish “militant tenant unions” operating across cities and regions.

The four-session course belongs to DSA’s Emergency Tenant Organizing Committee, known as ETOC. Its program website spells out the destination: eliminating private ownership of land and housing and replacing it with social housing. This is an organizing effort directed against the right to own property, using rental disputes to build a socialist movement.

Subscribe now

Training Organizers Against Landlords

The fall cohort meets online on October 24, October 31, November 7 and November 14. Each session lasts approximately two hours. Participants study the tenant movement, campaign development and how to grow an organizing committee into a mass organization.

The announcement encourages recruits to bring others with whom they intend to establish a tenant union. Its ambition is to produce organizations capable of coordinating campaigns across an entire city or region.

The Housing Justice Commission describes its work as building tenant militancy against landlords, developers and real-estate capitalists. Alongside organizing and policy work, it provides political education in socialist theory, history and methodology.

That language identifies owners and builders as class adversaries. The people who purchase properties, finance construction and assume the risks of providing rental housing become targets of a movement committed to ending their ownership.

An owner who fulfills every agreement and maintains every apartment would still stand on the wrong side of ETOC’s ultimate objective. The program opposes the ownership arrangement itself.

Building a National Socialist Base

DSA is developing this approach into a national organizing strategy. The Housing Justice Commission says a resolution passed at its 2025 national convention supported the project “Socialists: Organize Your Workplace, Organize Your Building!”.

The project seeks to deepen DSA’s connections with working-class communities through tenant organizing. It highlights chapters that have built neighborhood campaigns, partnered with independent tenant unions and established new unions.

Its immediate objective is an organizing cadre in every DSA chapter, with ETOC serving as the training mechanism.

The strategy gives DSA a way to turn dissatisfaction over housing into lasting political organization. An immediate dispute opens the door. Campaigns develop recruits and leaders. Tenant unions provide a continuing structure through which socialist organizers can exercise influence.

DSA is building institutions capable of carrying its politics into buildings and neighborhoods across the country.

Property Rights in the Crosshairs

The commission’s social-housing principles call for redistribution from landowners and challenge the private-property relationship underlying the housing market. They prioritize tenants’ collective decisions while expressly withholding equal standing from developers and investors. The principles envision shifting control toward tenants while denying developers and investors an equal role in governing social housing.

Private ownership comes with costs and responsibilities. Owners commit savings, take on debt, maintain buildings and bear financial losses. ETOC’s declared goal would eliminate that ownership rather than establish standards for responsible conduct within it.

The program states its abolition goal broadly, without explaining how small landlords, owner-occupied properties or individual homeowners would be treated. The opposition is to private ownership of land and shelter as a category.

Calling its replacement “social housing” does not make the loss of property rights less consequential. The proposed transformation reaches into Americans’ investments, livelihoods and control over what they own.

A Growing Organizing Network

ETOC reports 680 training attendees representing 74 DSA chapters, 34 mentorship cohorts and 15 new tenant unions since 2022. Those are the commission’s own figures.

The program also offers graduates the opportunity to apply for two months of mentorship, followed by continuing office hours connecting cohorts nationwide. The structure helps carry instruction into local campaigns and sustain organizing afterward.

Crosscurrents previously reported on the Marxist Unity Group, a separate DSA caucus demanding armed “people’s militias” to replace police. ETOC’s materials establish a different radical objective: eliminating private housing

Russian and Chinese foreign policy experts met in Russia on September 27, 2026, to discuss their countries’ roles in reshaping the international order. The conference, organized by Russia’s Valdai Discussion Club and the Centre for Russian Studies at East China Normal University, was part of a twice-yearly series held alternately in Russia and China.

Subscribe now

Valdai described the purpose as allowing experts to “synchronise their watches.” Its summary linked BRICS, the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, international AI governance and cooperation with developing countries to a multipolar order requiring sustained Russian-Chinese diplomatic coordination.

A Shared Agenda for Global Rules

Valdai’s participants included Wang Wen of Renmin University’s Chongyang Institute for Financial Studies, Sergei Karaganov and Anastasia Likhacheva of Russia’s Higher School of Economics, Valdai research director Fyodor Lukyanov, and Wen Jiang of the Xinhua Institute.

Valdai portrayed Russian-Chinese cooperation as helping developing countries escape “neo-colonial dependence” on Western states. Such language presents Moscow and Beijing’s ambitions as “liberation.”

Share

The September gathering followed an April 26–27 conference held by the same organizers in Shanghai. Valdai’s account described discussions of energy connections, financial clearing centers for infrastructure projects, a possible AI consortium and a proposed joint 5G/6G research laboratory.

The April account was explicit about the political objective. It said participants wanted Russia and China to help shape a future world order and “block the West’s destructive activity.”

An American Answer

The problem with the Russian-Chinese pitch is not that countries want more influence. It is that Moscow and Beijing present themselves as liberators from Western power while asking others to ignore how they use power themselves.

Russia invaded Ukraine and has built sanctions-resistant financial networks to sustain its war economy. China’s record includes political repression at home and the use of economic pressure abroad. That makes their language of “sovereignty,” “development” and “decolonization” harder to separate from a broader effort to weaken Western leverage while expanding their own.

The September Valdai conference made that strategy unusually clear. Participants discussed coordinating finance, technology, diplomacy and international institutions in pursuit of an order less shaped by the United States and its allies.

For Washington, the answer should not be apologetic retreat. The United States and its partners should defend the system they built while improving it: open commerce, alliances, transparent institutions and rules intended to constrain powerful states as well as weak ones.

Russia and China call their alternative “multipolar.” Their own discussions show that it is also a strategy for accumulating power and reducing Western influence.

An accredited Chicago college is building an academic partnership with a Texas seminary whose dean, Yasir Qadhi, publicly identified himself in 2025 as a member of an international scholars’ union that months earlier called jihad against the occupation an individual obligation and demanded weapons, expertise and intelligence for fighters.

American Islamic College (AIC) and The Islamic Seminary of America (TISA) will promote the project at an October 23, 2026, fundraising dinner in Willowbrook, Illinois. Yasir Qadhi, TISA’s dean of academic affairs, is the advertised keynote speaker. The lineup also includes former national leaders of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), a Muslim civil rights and civil liberties advocacy organization, and a former Holy Land Foundation (HLF) fundraiser.

The institutions say the partnership will prepare future Muslim scholars, chaplains, educators and community leaders. TISA president Abdullah al Mamun says the agreement is intended to make Islamic higher education more accessible and offer students additional academic, spiritual and professional opportunities.

Qadhi’s International Affiliation

In a June 2025 post discussing International Union of Muslim Scholars (IUMS) president Ali al-Qaradaghi’s support for Zohran Mamdani, Qadhi identified himself as a member, calling it “the most respectable and mainstream group of global scholars in the world.”

The Qatar-based organization was founded by Yusuf al-Qaradawi, whom George Washington University’s Program on Extremism describes as the Muslim Brotherhood’s longtime spiritual leader.

In a fatwa, or religious ruling, dated March 28, 2025, the IUMS Committee for Ijtihad and Fatwa demanded military intervention against Israel, citing its renewed Gaza offensive.

The ruling declared supplying fighters with “weapons, expertise, and intelligence” a binding duty. It called jihad against the occupation an individual obligation for every capable Muslim and required wealthy Muslims to finance fighters.

The English version was published April 1. Its signature block names committee secretary Fadl Abdullah Murad and chairman Ali Mohieddin al-Qaradaghi.

A Former Holy Land Foundation Fundraiser

Advertised speaker Kifah Mustapha worked for approximately five years through 2001 as HLF’s sole Illinois employee and raised funds for it, according to a 2013 federal court opinion.

HLF and five leaders were convicted in 2008 of providing material support to Hamas. The Justice Department said they provided approximately $12.4 million through Hamas-affiliated committees and organizations. Mustapha was not among those five defendants.

The opinion, concerning his challenge to losing an Illinois State Police chaplaincy, described a performance featuring Mustapha. It reproduced English subtitles including, “O, Hamas, teach us the rifle.”

Share

Mustapha testified that he was approximately 19 at the time, before his HLF employment. He characterized the song as cultural and told investigators he condemned Hamas and suicide bombings.

The Leadership Overlap

AIC’s interim president and chief academic officer, James Jones, simultaneously serves as TISA’s executive vice president. CAIR’s biography says he spent nine years on its national board, including service as treasurer and secretary.

Roula Allouch, an AIC trustee and advertised speaker, chaired CAIR’s national board for eight years and now co-chairs its Emeritus Board. CAIR identifies her as a TISA faculty member; the seminary also lists her on its advisory board.

The institutional overlap extends beyond CAIR. TISA trustee chair Iqbal Unus previously directed the Fairfax Institute at the International Institute of Islamic Thought. His biography identifies him as Muslim Students Association president in 1975 and Islamic Society of North America secretary general during the 1980s.

The October dinner seeks backing for a project intended to train future imams, chaplains and institutional leaders. The result is an accredited Chicago college building that pipeline with a seminary whose dean publicly identifies as an IUMS member and whose leadership includes the figures documented above. At the same time, the institutions’ public announcements do not specify how degrees would be awarded or who would exercise academic oversight over the proposed joint programs.

Argentinian President Javier Milei used the United Nations General Assembly on Wednesday to accuse the organization of failing at its founding mission while claiming authority over matters it was never meant to control.

He said the UN had become a “useless organization whose only purpose is to sustain a caste of fatally arrogant parasites masquerading as well-intentioned bureaucrats.” The insult landed from the General Assembly lectern, in a speech Milei had introduced as a constructive assessment of the institution.

The UN, he said, had failed to uphold international law, protect human rights and provide meaningful collective security. At the same time, it had grown eager to shape economic policy, public health measures and now the governance of artificial intelligence.

Subscribe now

The Mission Milei Says the UN Abandoned

Milei accused the UN of failing to protect human rights and collective security. He said it had accommodated dictatorships while allowing violence and terrorism to flourish, then questioned what its resolutions were worth when they had no effect beyond the General Assembly.

He made that complaint concrete through Argentina’s dispute with Britain over the Falkland Islands, known in Argentina as the Malvinas. Milei pointed to a 1976 UN resolution calling for renewed sovereignty negotiations and urging both governments to refrain from unilateral changes while the dispute remained unresolved. He cited the British licensed Sea Lion oil project, which Argentina opposes, as evidence that the UN’s words had failed to influence events.

Milei asked what use a resolution was if the other side could act against it for decades while it remained powerless in the UN’s archives.

Britain maintains its sovereignty claim and says the islanders have the right to determine their political future, including whether to develop the islands’ natural resources. The resolution does not settle the dispute or establish that the oil project is unlawful. Milei used the disagreement to question the UN’s authority when its resolutions fail to change what governments do.

A New Fight Over AI

Milei then turned from what the UN had failed to do to what he said it had taken upon itself to do. He accused the organization of building a “bureaucratic leviathan” concerned with how countries manage their economies, borders and citizens’ lives. He reserved some of his sharpest language for pandemic lockdowns, which he called a global exercise in social control.

Artificial intelligence was his forward-looking example. The UN has already established a dialogue on AI governance and an international scientific panel to assess the technology’s risks and opportunities. Those bodies do not themselves impose binding rules on countries. They do give the UN an organized role in a debate over how the technology should be governed.

Milei wants Argentina to take a different approach. He pledged against regulating AI preemptively and proposed tax benefits and limited liability for companies operating AI agents. He portrayed the technology as an opportunity to raise productivity, attract investment and give Argentina a place in a rapidly changing global economy.

That position raises questions of its own. AI agents can act with limited human supervision, and the UN’s scientific panel has examined the risk of systems behaving contrary to their operators’ intentions. Milei’s speech did not resolve how Argentina would handle such risks under the framework he proposed. He framed the immediate danger as governments restricting innovation before its benefits could emerge.

Milei said Argentina would continue to participate in international forums where cooperation served a purpose. His challenge was to an institution he believes has inverted its priorities: unable to enforce its most basic promises, yet ready to help write the rules for the next technological era.

Milei said Argentina would continue participating in international forums, but would not confuse cooperation with subordination. His speech raised a broader question about the UN’s priorities: whether an institution he sees as ineffective in its original mission should gain a larger voice in governing the next technological era.

An association representing the sector of more than 500 American regional public colleges, universities and systems is preparing to bring university leaders to China for meetings explicitly designed to build new partnerships, weeks after the Pentagon ordered U.S. schools to review ties with foreign institutions it says pose national-security risks.

The American Association of State Colleges and Universities, or AASCU, will hold its 2026 China Partnerships and Education Expo from October 28 to 31 in Beijing. The program is aimed at presidents, provosts, deans and senior international officials and includes a U.S. Embassy policy briefing, a China-U.S. university presidents forum and an afternoon devoted to “B2B partnership building and networking with Chinese universities.”

After the Beijing conference, AASCU members can travel to Harbin in Heilongjiang Province for invitation-only one-on-one meetings intended to “build partnerships and explore collaboration opportunities” with additional Chinese universities. AASCU has not publicly identified the Chinese institutions taking part.

Share

Washington Tightens Scrutiny

The trip comes amid a sharper federal focus on university relationships with Chinese institutions. On August 17, the Pentagon ordered 30 U.S. universities to audit academic, financial and research collaborations involving foreign entities identified under Section 1286 of the 2019 National Defense Authorization Act, as well as organizations associated with rebranded Confucius Institutes.

Section 1286 is a research-security mechanism aimed at protecting Pentagon-funded research from unwanted foreign influence and technology transfer. The department says the list identifies foreign entities and talent programs confirmed to be engaging in activities that threaten U.S. national-security interests. Beginning in fiscal 2026, Pentagon funds cannot be used for fundamental research involving collaboration with an entity on the most recent list.

The restrictions do not amount to a blanket ban on student exchanges or every form of academic contact. They do, however, restrict Pentagon-funded fundamental research with listed institutions and require researchers to disclose relevant affiliations.

AASCU’s existing China network already intersects with that list.

The association jointly administers the Sino-U.S. CHEPD 1+2+1 Program with the China Center for International Educational Exchanges. AASCU says the network includes 43 American institutions and 160 Chinese partners, has enrolled 7,500 students and has generated approximately $450 million in tuition, fees, room and board for U.S. campuses. It also advertises “teaching and research opportunities for faculty members” and requires participating American institutions to be able to host Chinese visiting scholars.

One Chinese participant is Chongqing University, which remains on the Pentagon’s current Section 1286 list. On March 17, Chongqing University opened applications for its 2026 1+2+1 dual-degree and related exchange programs and told students that all participating American universities were available to applicants.

The timeline is significant. Chongqing was actively recruiting students into the AASCU-linked program in March. The Pentagon published its updated Section 1286 list in July with Chongqing still included. The following month, it ordered 30 American universities to review collaborations involving listed foreign entities and assess exposure involving sensitive or export-controlled research.

Undisclosed Meetings in Harbin

The Harbin leg raises a separate question.

AASCU has not disclosed which Heilongjiang universities its delegation will meet. Harbin, however, is home to two universities on the current Section 1286 list: Harbin Institute of Technology and Harbin Engineering University.

Both are also on the Commerce Department’s Entity List, a separate export-control regime that imposes licensing requirements on transactions involving covered U.S.-origin goods, software and technology. The current Commerce listing subjects exports of items covered by the Export Administration Regulations to both universities to a license requirement and a presumption of denial.

Commerce added the universities in 2020 for much more specific reasons. It said Harbin Engineering University had acquired or attempted to acquire U.S.-origin items in support of People’s Liberation Army programs. Harbin Institute of Technology, Commerce said, had done the same and had sought to use U.S. technology for Chinese missile programs.

There is no public evidence that either university is participating in AASCU’s November meetings. But AASCU already has an established partnership-building footprint in Harbin.

In June 2025, a delegation including AASCU representatives and leaders from Millersville University, the University of Wisconsin-Stout, the University of North Carolina at Pembroke and Salem State University visited Northeast Agricultural University in Harbin. According to the Chinese university, discussions included expanding cooperation into faculty and student exchanges, joint research projects and jointly established laboratories and research centers.

A Larger Debate Over University Partnerships

The trip follows broader congressional scrutiny of U.S.-China academic ties. A September 2025 report from the House Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party and House Education and Workforce Committee said their investigation uncovered dozens of previously unreported academic collaborations they considered national-security risks, particularly joint institutes and other arrangements linking American universities with Chinese institutions. Those conclusions were made by the committees and have been disputed more broadly by higher-education groups that argue legitimate academic exchange should not automatically be treated as a security threat.

AASCU’s October itinerary puts the competing priorities side by side. American university officials will receive a U.S. Embassy policy update in Beijing and then move directly into meetings intended to create and sustain new educational partnerships in China. Less than a week later, some will be in Harbin for a second round of university matchmaking whose Chinese participants have not been publicly identified.

The unanswered question is how AASCU is applying Washington’s new research-security restrictions as it works to expand those relationships.

A religious conference scheduled for October 4–6 in Istanbul is bringing together professors from several American universities, senior Turkish officials and leaders of the International Union of Muslim Scholars, the Muslim Brotherhood’s transnational scholarly authority. The symposium lists Georgia State University as an academic partner.

Organized by the Istanbul Foundation for Science and Culture, the 13th International Bediüzzaman Symposium is titled “Qur’anic Solutions to Global Crises.” Its advertised opening speakers include Vice President Cevdet Yılmaz, Turkey’s religious affairs chief Safi Arpaguş and President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s son Bilal Erdoğan. Turkish government agencies are among the listed supporters, while state broadcaster TRT and Anadolu Agency are named as official media sponsors.

Share

Georgia State and American Speakers

Georgia State University appears under “Academic Partners” on the conference’s supporters page and in the organizer’s list of supporting universities. The speaker roster separately identifies Serdar Aydın with Georgia State; the university’s own site identifies a Serdar Aydin as a clinical assistant professor in its Institute of Health Administration. The conference does not explain what Georgia State’s partnership involves, whether it includes funding, or who at the university approved it.

The live roster contains 16 speakers from the United States. They include Duke professors Mustafa Tuna and Mona Hassan, Stanford School of Medicine professor Rania Awaad, Georgetown professor Salih Sayılgan, a Brown University doctoral candidate and a scholar listed with CUNY and Istanbul’s Ibn Haldun University. Duke confirms Tuna’s appointment; its profile identifies Hassan as an associate professor. Stanford likewise identifies Awaad as a clinical professor.

Those faculty affiliations establish the participation of individual scholars. Georgia State’s appearance under Academic Partners is a separate claim made by the organizer. Neither listing shows that Duke, Stanford, Georgetown or the other universities endorse the views of fellow speakers.

Turkish State Support

The conference’s supporters page names Turkey’s Ministry of Culture and Tourism, the Turkish Cooperation and Coordination Agency, known as TİKA, and the Presidency for Turks Abroad and Related Communities, known as YTB, as supporting organizations. It lists Turkish Airlines as its transportation sponsor and TRT and Anadolu Agency as its “official communication sponsors.”

The Turkish government has a substantial presence on the conference program and supporter list for a “private” event. Diyanet, Turkey’s government religious authority, is represented by its president among the advertised opening speakers. Bilal Erdoğan chairs the board of trustees of the İlim Yayma Foundation, according to Turkey’s Education Ministry. The roster also includes Syria’s religious endowments minister and a former Sudanese foreign minister.

Muslim Brotherhood’s Transnational Scholarly Authority

Three advertised participants hold leadership positions in the Muslim Brotherhood’s IUMS: Libyan scholar Ali al-Sallabi, Sudanese cleric Issam al-Bashir and Tunisian scholar Abdelmajid al-Najjar. The union’s own account of a 2024 leadership meeting identifies al-Sallabi as secretary-general and the other two as vice presidents.

IUMS was founded by Yusuf al-Qaradawi, long regarded as a spiritual leader of the Muslim Brotherhood. A George Washington University Program on Extremism study describes the union as giving religious legitimacy to Hamas’s actions after October 7, 2023, and issuing calls for jihad. IUMS describes itself as an independent organization bringing together scholars from different schools and orientations. The U.S. State Department has described it as widely viewed in the press and academia as affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood.

The speaker roster also lists Prof. Dr. İbrahim Salim, the Mufti of Australia. An Arabic interview gives his full name as Ibrahim Salem Abu Mohammed. The IUMS’s original Arabic document names Ibrahim Abu Mohammed among the members participating in its March 2025 fatwa.

The ruling signed by Salim declares jihad against Israel an individual religious obligation for every capable Muslim. It calls for military intervention, supplying fighters with weapons, military expertise and intelligence, and financial contributions from capable Muslims and/or Muslim countries. It says wealthy Muslims should use their own money to equip fighters and urges support for the “resistance.”

One U.S.-listed speaker, Zaid Barzinji, provides another link to IUMS. The conference identifies him with the Maqasid Institute; the institute’s biography calls him its president and an IUMS foundaing and board member. A family memorial volume identifies him as the son of Jamal Barzinji, one of three Iraqi Kurds whom a George Washington University study identifies as builders of early Muslim Brotherhood-linked organizations in the United States. The symposium lists the Maqasid Institute as an academic partner and another of its researchers, Ildus Rafikov, as a U.S.-labeled speaker.

Additional Speakers With Terror Links

The roster includes British journalist Lauren Booth, who reportedly received a Palestinian diplomatic passport from Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh during a 2008 visit to Gaza and received diplomatic status from Hamas. In an interview with Turkish media later reported in Britain, Booth called October 7 a “legendary day in the Ummah’s history.”

Turkish speaker İhsan Şenocak reported attending a 2024 scholars’ gathering in Doha where Haniyeh addressed participants. The conference also lists former Moroccan prime minister Saad Dine El Othmani, whose political party said it invited Haniyeh and a Hamas delegation to Morocco in 2021.

Al-Sallabi has a different, historical connection. Testimony submitted to a U.S. House committee in 2018 described him as a political party leader alongside Abdelhakim Belhaj, a former leader of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group. The United States revoked the LIFG’s Foreign Terrorist Organization designation in 2015.

The conference brings these figures into the same advertised program as U.S. academics and Turkish officials. Its published materials document the speakers, partner labels and state support. They leave the terms of Georgia State’s partnership and the extent of each supporter’s contribution unstated.

A Texas Christian nationalist pastor ignited a firestorm this week by posting a video titled “The Right Must Embrace Socialism To Win” on X, explicitly calling for conservatives to adopt socialist economic policies to compete with what he describes as the Left’s vote-buying strategy.

The statement from Joel Webbon—senior pastor of Covenant Bible Church in Georgetown, Texas—drew immediate condemnation from mainstream conservatives who pointed to what they say is a damning detail: Webbon has spent the past year praising Nazi Germany as a “Christian nation” America should have supported, lamenting the U.S. alliance with Communist Russia in World War II, and interviewing Holocaust deniers.

Critics quickly identified what they say is the “particular flavor” of socialism Webbon appears to advocate: National Socialism—the economic system of the Third Reich, whose ruling party was formally known as the National Socialist German Workers’ Party (Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei, or NSDAP).

Immediate Backlash From Conservatives

“Yesterday Joel Webbon was threatening lawsuits to everyone who called him a National Socialist lol,” posted Joel Berry, former managing editor of the Babylon Bee and current producer for Jeremy Boreing’s show.

Even James Lindsay, the atheist anti-woke commentator who built his reputation battling critical race theory, quote-tweeted Webbon’s post with a terse “How about that.”

Twitter user John William Sherrod made the connection explicit: “Reminder that when Joel Webbon says the right needs to embrace socialism, there’s a particular flavor of socialism he’s on record as endorsing…”

In a follow-up post, Webbon clarified his position: “The Left is happy to provide handouts to its voters. The GOP sends the children of its voters - White Christians - to die in the sand in endless wars. I don’t like socialism either. But I blame democracy tied to universal suffrage… not ‘socialism’.”

Based on these public statements, Webbon’s core argument appears to be that democracy itself—specifically, letting everyone vote—is the problem. His proposed solution appears to involve a welfare state that serves “White Christians” while excluding others.

“We Should Have Sided With the Christian Nation”

Webbon’s call for right-wing socialism didn’t emerge in a vacuum. In February 2026, the pastor lamented that the United States allied with Communist Russia instead of what he characterized as “Christian” Nazi Germany during World War II.

“Part of the reason that the battle has gotten as difficult as it is today, that communism has been winning, the Bolsheviks have been winning, is because, you know, some of the most powerful Christian nations in the world teamed up with the Bolsheviks,” Webbon said on his Right Response Ministries podcast. “We said, ‘You know what? Give us Barabbas. Give us the Communist... We’ll side with the Communist. A Christian nation, we got to kill those guys. Lutheran Christian monarchy... we should have stayed out of it.’”

The clip, documented by Right Wing Watch, shows Webbon explicitly characterizing Nazi Germany as a “Christian nation” and “Lutheran Christian monarchy” while condemning Allied actions against the Third Reich.

Earlier in 2026, Webbon sat for a 10-part interview series with Holocaust denier Nick Fuentes, including an episode titled “The Inner Workings of ‘World Jewry,’” according to the Global Project Against Hate and Extremism.

A Pattern of Extremism

Webbon’s recent posts fit what critics describe as a documented pattern of increasingly extreme rhetoric:

In April 2026, he argued America needs “more racism,” stating: “It’s so clear that America does not have a racist problem. White people in America are, if anything, I think, too trusting, too gullible, toxic empathy. So not only is racism non-existent, if anything, we could probably use a little bit more racism in America.”

In September 2025, he told white Christian parents they owed their children “The Talk”—warning them that “if they’re Black strangers, there is 30 times more danger. Them’s the facts.”

In March 2025, he stated that America “belongs to Christians” and “it’s not for Hindus. It’s not for Muslims. And it’s not for Jews.”

He has called for “a Christian Nationalist Caesar” who would protect America from what he termed “war Jews” and “gay Jews,” saying the leader should rule “Constitution be damned, just rules with an iron fist.” He also said women should be removed from all leadership roles in the government.

The Welfare State—For Christians Only

Webbon’s economic vision emerged more clearly in a separate podcast where he addressed what should happen if America’s welfare state collapses. Speaking about a hypothetical 65-year-old childless woman with “blue or purple hair” who had used birth control and antidepressants, Webbon declared: “The church needs to be able to look at her and say, ‘You starve. You starve. Glory be to God. You starve.’”

The statement—analyzed on the Data Over Dogma podcast—appears to reveal Webbon’s vision: government assistance should flow to “our people” (white Christians) while those outside that circle should be left to die.

Critics argue this aligns with the National Socialist economic model, which provided extensive social welfare programs—healthcare, pensions, labor protections, subsidized housing—but only for those deemed part of the Volksgemeinschaft (people’s community). Jews, Roma, political dissidents, and others were systematically excluded from state benefits before being targeted for extermination.

The Nazi regime pioneered what historians call “racial socialism”—generous welfare for Aryans funded partly by the expropriation of Jewish wealth and businesses. It’s a model that rejects both free-market capitalism and Marxist internationalism in favor of ethnic solidarity backed by state power.

The Tell

Webbon’s follow-up post contained what critics describe as a telling detail. He wrote that he blames “democracy tied to universal suffrage” for creating the dynamic where the Left provides handouts to win votes.

Universal suffrage—the right of all citizens to vote—is what Webbon opposes. He has repeatedly stated that women should not be allowed to vote, that their suffrage “stole half his vote,” and that only Christians should hold public office.

Based on his documented public statements, what he appears to be advocating for isn’t simply adopting some left-wing economic policies. Critics argue he’s rejecting democracy itself in favor of a Christian ethnostate that provides for its own while condemning outsiders to death.

Critics contend the parallel to National Socialism is unmistakable. The Nazi regime rejected both liberal democracy and Marxist class warfare in favor of an ethnically defined welfare state. Hitler’s speeches frequently attacked “Jewish capitalism” and “Jewish Bolshevism” while promising German workers security—as long as they were racially acceptable.

Observers note Webbon’s formula appears nearly identical: reject democracy (universal suffrage), embrace socialism (for our people), exclude the undesirables (non-Christians, feminists, those who “hate the patriarchy”), and let them starve while proclaiming “Glory be to God.”

The Lawsuit Threat

When critics connected those dots and called it National Socialism, Webbon’s response wasn’t to clarify or correct the record. According to Berry, someone affiliated with Webbon—identified only as “Charles”—threatened lawsuits against those making the connection.

The Christian nationalist pastor who has publicly stated he wants to protect “White Christians” from endless wars, who has praised what he characterized as the “Christian nation” of Nazi Germany that he suggested America should have supported, who has interviewed Holocaust deniers, who has called for more racism in America, and who now explicitly advocates “socialism” for the right while saying non-Christians should starve has discovered that some labels — once earned — are hard to shake. Even when you threaten to sue over them.

A federal civil rights lawsuit filed against Dearborn, Michigan, exposes a pattern of constitutional defiance that has cost the city hundreds of thousands of dollars in settlements—and shows no signs of stopping. The American Freedom Law Center filed the complaint September 17, 2026, on behalf of journalist Margot Cleveland, alleging the city spent thousands in public funds promoting Islam while systematically ignoring Christianity and Judaism.

The lawsuit documents what attorneys call an escalating campaign of discrimination: taxpayer-funded Ramadan banners and crescent moon displays, police department shirts promoting Islamic holidays, mayoral Iftar invitations sent on government email, and aggressive retaliation against residents who complained. When Cleveland requested equal recognition for Easter and Passover, city officials froze her out—then installed more Islamic displays. The case is the latest in a string of First Amendment losses for Dearborn, which has been ordered by federal courts three times since 2010 to stop discriminating against Christians. This time, the city didn’t just violate the Constitution—it did so defiantly, in response to complaints.

The Money Trail

Cleveland discovered the displays in April 2025 while picking up pizza downtown. “Ramadan Kareem” banners hung from city property. A large lighted crescent moon—the symbol of Islam—illuminated Peace Park on public land. Easter was two weeks away. Passover was days out. Neither received acknowledgment.

A Freedom of Information Act request revealed the costs: $1,500 for the Ramadan banners, $5,000 for the crescent moon display. The city’s police department sold Ramadan-themed shirts bearing the official department emblem. Mayor Abdullah Hammoud used his government email to invite select residents to an Iftar event, with the city spending $360 on signage for the Islamic religious observance.

Cleveland, a Dearborn resident since 2007 and Senior Legal Correspondent for The Federalist, sent an email to the city attorney on April 6, 2025. She asked whether Easter and Passover would receive similar recognition. No one responded. She raised the issue at city council meetings, requesting that Dearborn allocate funds for Christian and Jewish holiday banners. The requests were ignored.

“You Are Not Welcome Here”

The mayor’s hostility toward non-Muslim residents became explicit at a September 9, 2025, city council meeting. Christian pastor Ted Barham rose to object to the city’s decision to rename a street after Osama Siblani, publisher of the Arab American News. Siblani has publicly praised Hezbollah and Hamas as “freedom fighters.” He was inducted into the Michigan Journalism Hall of Fame in 2013.

Barham, who had lived in Lebanon, Israel, and the West Bank, told the council the street renaming was “quite inappropriate,” comparing it to naming a street “Hezbollah Street or Hamas Street.” He quoted Christian scripture, saying he wished “to encourage peace” and that Jesus was “called the prince of peace.”

Hammoud’s response, captured on video and detailed in the lawsuit, was unambiguous: “You are a bigot and you are a racist and you are an Islamophobe. And although you live here, I want you to know as mayor, you are not welcome here. And the day you move out of the city will be the day that I launch a parade celebrating the fact that you moved out of the city.”

The mayor never apologized.

Retaliation and Escalation

On September 25, 2025, Cleveland’s attorneys at the American Freedom Law Center sent a formal letter to Hammoud and the city attorney. The letter described how “the City of Dearborn has become a hostile place for Christians and Jews” and requested that the city “display at the appropriate time banners similar in size and content to the Ramadan banners that recognize the holy days of Christians and Jews, such as Christmas, Easter, Rosh Hashanah, and Yom Kippur.” The attorneys offered to work with the city on design and content.

No one responded. Instead, the city commissioned crescent-moon-and-star light displays on municipal street lights for Ramadan 2026, billing it as “the first of its kind in Dearborn.” Hammoud was quoted saying of the city-sponsored display: “This initiative reflects who we are as a city.”

The lawsuit alleges Hammoud directed the city attorney to instruct council members not to communicate with Cleveland. She was barred from attending an April 2026 “Community Update” meeting as a journalist, told she could only attend as a resident, and was never invited to subsequent meetings.

A Pattern of Constitutional Violations

The complaint notes that Dearborn “has been down this road before.” In 2011, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the city violated a pastor’s First Amendment rights by restricting his distribution of Christian literature at the Arab International Festival. In 2013, the city paid $300,000 to settle a lawsuit after police unlawfully arrested members of Acts 17 Apologetics for evangelizing at the same festival. In 2015, the Sixth Circuit ruled en banc that law enforcement violated Christians’ constitutional rights when they ordered the Bible Believers group to leave the festival after a crowd pelted them with rocks and bottles. Wayne County paid the legal fees in that case.

The $300,000 settlement represents taxpayer funds spent because the city refused to respect constitutional rights.

“Despite these legal defeats, nothing has changed in the City,” the complaint states.

Legacy media coverage of the lawsuit has been sparse. Cleveland observed that multiple outlets reported on Dearborn’s denial but failed to cover the lawsuit’s documented allegations—the specific taxpayer expenditures on Islamic displays, the mayor’s statement telling a Christian resident “you are not welcome here,” or the city’s history of losing similar cases.

America’s First Arab-Majority City

Dearborn became the first Arab-majority city in the United States in 2023, with 54.5 percent of its 109,976 residents claiming Middle Eastern or North African ancestry. Ford Motor Company moved its headquarters to Dearborn in the 1920s, hiring many Middle Eastern Christians who settled as refugees. Chain migration policies passed in the 1960s, combined with U.S. wars in the Middle East, shifted the demographic from Arab Christians to Muslims.

Hammoud became Dearborn’s first Arab-American and Muslim mayor in 2022 and was reelected in 2025. All seven current city council members have Democratic Party affiliations. Three council members and the mayor are publicly declared Muslims.

The city responded to the lawsuit with a statement blaming “attacks” on its “welcoming nature and the diversity of the people who proudly call Dearborn home.” The statement made no mention of the taxpayer-funded Islamic displays or the mayor’s comments to Pastor Barham.

What Cleveland Seeks

The lawsuit asks a federal judge to declare that Dearborn violated Cleveland’s constitutional rights, enjoin the city’s practices that favor Muslims and discriminate against Christians and Jews, award nominal damages, and order the city to pay attorneys’ fees.

David Yerushalmi, co-founder of the American Freedom Law Center, said in a statement: “Dearborn has been down this road before, and it has lost every time. What makes this case especially troubling is that City officials, up to and including the Mayor, responded to a citizen’s respectful request for equal treatment with silence, stonewalling, and outright hostility.”

Robert J. Muise, the other AFLC co-founder representing Cleveland, stated: “The clearest command of the Establishment Clause is that the government may not prefer one religion over another. The City of Dearborn spent taxpayer money to light up its streets and parks for Ramadan while stonewalling a resident who simply asked that Easter, Passover, and other Christian and Jewish holy days be treated the same way.”

The case is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.

Turkey’s growing presence in Africa is usually discussed in terms of drones, military partnerships and President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s effort to expand Ankara’s geopolitical reach. A new study suggests another force is driving that expansion: Turkey’s defense industry increasingly needs foreign customers simply to sustain itself.

Published September 14 by the German Institute for International and Security Affairs, or SWP, the report finds that Turkey’s rapid defense buildup has created an industrial ecosystem that domestic military procurement alone can no longer absorb. Africa has consequently become an important market for keeping production lines active, expanding major defense companies and opening export channels for smaller manufacturers.

For the United States, the findings offer a window into how a NATO ally with an increasingly independent foreign policy is building military relationships in countries where Washington also competes for influence.

Share

From Import Dependence to Export Dependence

Turkey spent decades trying to reduce its reliance on foreign weapons. The effort accelerated under Erdoğan’s Justice and Development Party. According to SWP, the number of Turkish defense companies rose from just 56 in 2002 to roughly 1,500 by 2020. By 2026, the industry included nearly 4,500 small and medium-sized enterprises, while the number of defense projects had climbed from 62 in 2002 to more than 1,000 by 2024.

That expansion reduced Turkey’s reliance on foreign suppliers but created another problem. The country’s military could not absorb all the competing platforms and production capacity.

Exports increasingly became necessary to sustain production lines, recover research and development costs and generate foreign currency, according to the report. In 2025, exports accounted for 97 percent of armored-vehicle manufacturer Otokar’s defense revenue, while foreign sales generated 90 percent of Baykar’s revenue in 2024.

Overall Turkish defense exports jumped from $7.15 billion in 2024 to $10.05 billion in 2025, while newly signed contracts increased from $10 billion to $17.8 billion during the same period.

Why Africa Matters

Africa represents a relatively small share of global military spending, but SWP finds that it performs several important functions for Turkish manufacturers.

Armored-vehicle companies gain customers for production capacity that Turkey’s military cannot absorb. Aerospace and electronics companies gain additional markets for their expanding product lines. Smaller suppliers can sell ammunition, communications equipment, components and other systems without relying entirely on Turkey’s largest contractors.

The result has been a rapid increase in Ankara’s market share. According to SIPRI data cited by the report, Turkey increased its share of major-arms transfers to sub-Saharan Africa from 6.3 percent in 2019-2023 to 11 percent in 2021-2025, overtaking France to become the region’s third-largest supplier behind China and Russia.

Otokar vehicles are now in service in at least 14 African countries. Approximately 18 African states have reportedly received Turkish drones or related systems, including Ethiopia, Libya, Mali, Morocco, Niger, Nigeria, Somalia and Sudan. Those sales often extend beyond the aircraft themselves to ground stations, communications equipment, precision munitions, software, training and maintenance.

That expansion has implications for Washington. A dataset from the Center for a New American Security found that between 2018 and September 2023, Turkey accounted for 65 percent of the 69 armed-drone sales made collectively by Turkey, China and the United States. CNAS concluded that competition from Turkey and China has limited Washington’s ability to shape drone proliferation and use drone exports as a source of diplomatic influence.

Turkish Weapons in Sudan’s Civil War

The risks described by SWP are especially visible in Sudan, which the report calls the “most sensitive case” for Turkey’s problems with end-use control.

Sudan has been engulfed in civil war since April 2023 between the Sudanese Armed Forces, or SAF, and the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces, or RSF. The war has displaced roughly 14 million people, while nearly 20 million face hunger.

Turkish weapons are being used in the conflict.

Amnesty documented numerous recently manufactured Turkish weapons in Sudan and found that Sarsılmaz, one of Turkey’s largest firearms manufacturers, supplied small arms to the SAF.

Some documented transfers occurred shortly before the current war. Sarsılmaz told Amnesty that its exports were intended for Sudanese state security agencies before the conflict began. Amnesty nevertheless documented the company’s rifles with the security personnel of SAF commander Abdel Fattah al-Burhan during the war.

Other Turkish-made weapons have also appeared in RSF hands. Amnesty documented an RSF fighter carrying a Turkish BRG 55 rifle in Darfur in 2024 and found Turkish hunting rifles and shotguns circulating among multiple parties to the conflict. The evidence illustrates the difficulty exporters can face controlling weapons after they enter a fragmented war zone.

More Than a Weapons Sale

The larger finding of the SWP study is that Turkish arms exports are becoming structurally important to the industry itself. Africa gives Turkish manufacturers customers, keeps factories operating and allows companies to spread into markets that domestic procurement alone cannot sustain. Those exports can also create longer-term relationships through training, maintenance, ammunition, electronics and technical support.

Turkey has signed more than 25 defense-industry cooperation agreements with African countries, helping transform the continent from what SWP describes as an opportunistic export destination into a more stable market for its defense industry.

For Washington, that makes Turkey’s expansion more significant than another country simply selling weapons abroad.

Ankara has built a defense industry whose continued growth increasingly depends on foreign demand. As Turkish weapons spread across Africa, they increasingly bring training, maintenance, electronics and other long-term defense relationships with them. The competition is therefore not only about who sells the next drone. It is also about who builds the military relationships that remain after the sale.

Rep. Keith Self (R-Texas) has asked Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent for an IRS investigation into the Islamic Society of North America. The request follows reports that Abdul El-Sayed’s Senate campaign solicited donations and recruited volunteers at ISNA’s Detroit convention. Self announced the move on September 16, seeking a full review of the nonprofit’s tax-exempt status.

The request adds a new dimension to a gathering Crosscurrents previously examined for its controversial speakers and institutional history. The immediate question is whether ISNA’s September 4–7 convention crossed the line between hosting a candidate and helping elect him in a way which is illegal for an organization with non-profit status.

“These circumstances warrant a thorough examination of whether ISNA participated or intervened in a political campaign,” Self wrote in excerpts published by Blaze News.

A Campaign Operation at the Convention

A September 9 eyewitness report by Focus on Western Islamism, a Middle East Forum publication, described an El-Sayed campaign booth inside Huntington Place, before ISNA’s registration desk. Photographs showed campaign banners, donation and volunteer QR codes, and a free T-shirt offer tied to a $50 contribution. Fundraiser invitations were also displayed.

The report described campaign workers distributing literature, placing flyers on seats and waving posters around El-Sayed’s appearance. ISNA CEO Azhar Azeez introduced him as Michigan’s Democratic Senate nominee and praised his concern for ordinary residents over wealthy corporate interests.

The political messaging extended beyond El-Sayed’s appearance. In a separate September 15 report, FWI documented a civic-engagement panel featuring leaders from Emgage USA, the Muslim Public Affairs Council and CAIR’s Los Angeles chapter. Speakers invoked El-Sayed and New York’s Zohran Mamdani as examples of growing Muslim electoral influence. Emgage’s Mohamed Gula credited El-Sayed’s unsuccessful 2018 gubernatorial campaign with inspiring later candidates and campaign workers.

From Speaker Scrutiny to Tax Scrutiny

Crosscurrents’ August preview documented the records of several advertised speakers, including Pakistani cleric Tariq Masood, who admitted forcing his 13-year-old niece into marriage.

ISNA subsequently removed Masood from the program before the convention. El-Sayed’s campaign said his participation did not constitute an endorsement of other speakers and described his planned remarks as focusing on unity and public service.

Self’s letter also invoked ISNA’s inclusion as an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation terrorism-financing case. A 2009 court order found evidence of associations involving ISNA, the foundation and Hamas. The same order discussed Muslim Brotherhood documents listing ISNA among its organizations or friendly groups.

The Rules Behind the Request

Federal tax rules prohibit 501(c)(3) charities from intervening for or against candidates. They do not categorically prohibit candidate appearances.

IRS guidance permits an organization to invite someone as a candidate when it provides equal opportunity to others seeking the same office, avoids indicating support or opposition, including in introductions, and ensures no political fundraising occurs.

That makes ISNA’s reported invitation to El-Sayed’s opponent relevant, but not conclusive. An invitation alone would not resolve separate questions about fundraising or an introduction favoring one candidate. Nor would a non-endorsement disclaimer, by itself, answer those questions.

The booth’s arrangements also matter. IRS guidance on commercial dealings with candidates considers equal access, customary prices, public availability and whether the activity is part of the organization’s regular business. A campaign’s presence at a venue is not, by itself, proof that the nonprofit supplied an unlawful benefit.

A meaningful review would therefore need the booth agreement, payment records, the terms offered to competing candidates, and communications showing who authorized fundraising and literature distribution. These would help distinguish an ordinary commercial arrangement from organizational support for a campaign.

Blaze News reported that neither ISNA nor El-Sayed’s campaign answered its requests for comment before publication. Self’s letter seeks an investigation; it is not an IRS finding. The question now is whether ISNA merely hosted political discussion or used its tax-exempt resources to advance one Senate campaign.

On Tuesday, U.S. prosecutors charged five men in an alleged Russian intelligence network accused of recruiting people for surveillance, sabotage and murder plots across Europe and the United States.

The defendants include two Russians, two Cubans and a Venezuelan.

Among them is Oemis Romagoza Durruthy, a Cuban national living in Russia whom prosecutors identified as a high-ranking member of the Russian intelligence network who coordinated operations abroad. One day before the charges were announced, a separate six-month European investigation identified Durruthy as the man behind “Dios,” an alleged recruiter of largely Spanish-speaking “disposable agents” used in sabotage operations across Europe.

Together, the investigations show how a Russian recruitment model already documented in Europe appears to have extended into the United States.

Subscribe now

A Recruiter in Russia

Born in Cuba, Durruthy had lived in Russia for at least seven years and taught salsa, bachata and kizomba at a Latin dance studio in Petrozavodsk. According to the Deutsche Welle investigation, accounts linked to Durruthy were also searching Facebook and Telegram groups for potential recruits.

One advertisement sought people with experience in “monitoring, intelligence, logistics and tactical maneuvers,” offering $1,500 plus bonuses. Another appeared in a group used by Cuban expatriates. Durruthy allegedly approached Latin Americans looking for work in Europe as well as people seeking to join Ukraine’s military.

The resulting network included at least a dozen recruits and was linked by authorities to attacks or attempted attacks in Poland, Czechia, Romania and Lithuania. Targets included a Prague bus depot, construction businesses and equipment intended for Ukraine’s military.

Many of those recruited were neither Russians nor trained intelligence officers. They were foreigners approached online, remotely assigned tasks and offered relatively modest payments.

European security officials have described such recruits as “disposable agents.”

From Europe to Brooklyn

The new American charges indicate that the same model extended beyond Europe.

According to the Justice Department, Durruthy belonged to the same alleged Russian intelligence network as former intelligence colonel Yuri Khrameev and his son Kirill, an officer in Russia’s Federal Security Service.

Two other members, Cuban national Yaidel Delgado Suarez and Venezuelan national Angel Eduardo Castro, allegedly recruited a Venezuelan citizen living in Brooklyn to surveil a prominent Russian dissident believed to be living in Washington, D.C.

The recruit was given two locations and promised between $1,000 and $1,500 for surveillance. After he returned photographs and videos, prosecutors say Suarez and Castro offered him $40,000 to “eliminate” or “disappear” the target.

He refused.

According to prosecutors, Suarez then asked whether he knew someone else who could carry out the job and claimed to have “people in Mexico” who could do it but had been delayed.

The allegations describe a network stretching from Russia through Latin American intermediaries to New York and Washington, with one alleged member also claiming access to people in Mexico.

A Low-Cost Sabotage Model

The operation also appears to rely on relatively small payments.

Prosecutors say a separate U.S. citizen was offered $200 to photograph a target in Lithuania. That assignment later escalated into a $25,000 murder offer. When the individual refused, Yuri Khrameev proposed other assignments, including burning warehouses or attacking electrical substations.

The pattern reflects what Western researchers have documented in Europe. The Royal United Services Institute has identified financial incentives as a key factor in Russia’s recruitment of disposable agents. A CSIS study found that Russian sabotage and subversion attacks in Europe nearly tripled between 2023 and 2024.

The model reduces the need to send Russian intelligence officers directly into Western countries. Recruits can instead be found online, given limited tasks and paid through intermediaries, making the operation cheaper and more difficult to trace back to its organizers.

After Western countries expelled hundreds of Russian intelligence officers operating under diplomatic cover following the invasion of Ukraine, researchers say Moscow increasingly turned to remote recruitment and disposable local agents.

The result is a model built around online recruitment, encrypted communications, relatively small payments and local intermediaries.

The September indictment suggests that this model is no longer only a European concern.

According to prosecutors, a network associated with Russian intelligence was able to recruit a resident of Brooklyn for surveillance inside the United States and then offer him $40,000 to kill a dissident.

The defendants remain at large, and the charges are allegations. But the case provides a rare look at how a recruitment system previously documented across Europe reached American soil.