The pattern represents what critics say is the latest example of Big Tech’s outsized influence on the news Americans see — or don’t see. With Apple News reaching hundreds of millions of iPhone and iPad users, the platform’s editorial choices carry enormous weight in shaping political narratives during critical election cycles. The service comes pre-installed on every Apple device, making it one of the most widely distributed news platforms in the United States.

Not one story about the DNC’s financial meltdown appeared in Apple News’ top 20 from January 1 through September 28, just five weeks before the 2026 midterms. That’s nearly a year after the DNC first disclosed it was drowning in debt.

The timing of the suppression is particularly significant given the approaching midterm elections, where fundraising capacity and party organization typically play decisive roles. Campaign finance stories have historically influenced voter perceptions about party competence and viability. By contrast, during previous election cycles when Republicans faced financial challenges, those stories regularly appeared in Apple News’ featured sections and generated substantial traffic and public attention.

The suppression hit outlets Apple News normally promotes — USA Today, the Guardian, the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, and Politico. At least 14 stories from those mainstream sources were buried.

These publications represent the exact editorial tier Apple News typically elevates to premium placement. The fact that even prestige outlets with established credibility saw their DNC debt coverage systematically excluded suggests deliberate editorial intervention rather than algorithmic happenstance. Media analysts note that financial transparency stories from these same outlets about Republican committees have historically received prominent Apple News placement.

“Apple isn’t curating the news. It’s running a high-tech protection racket for the political left.” — MRC President David Bozell

Unlike Google News or Microsoft’s MSN, Apple News uses human editors to handpick stories. That means real people at Apple made the call to spike every single DNC debt story while promoting hit pieces on Republicans.

This editorial model distinguishes Apple News from algorithm-driven aggregators and places full responsibility for story selection on the company’s news team. The human curation approach was originally marketed as a quality control feature that would combat misinformation and elevate serious journalism. Critics now argue it has instead created an opaque system where partisan bias can operate without accountability or transparent editorial standards.

“Our study found Apple News suppressing coverage of the Democratic Party’s fundraising woes while eagerly serving up stories damaging to Republicans,” Bozell told the New York Post. Stories promoted by Apple News can generate 1 million to 20 million page views — a massive traffic advantage Democrats enjoyed by keeping their financial disaster out of sight.

The traffic disparity translates directly into political impact. Stories that never reach Apple News’ top sections effectively vanish for the platform’s massive user base, regardless of their newsworthiness or how prominently they’re featured on publishers’ own websites. This creates a two-tier information environment where Apple News users remain systematically uninformed about developments their fellow citizens following traditional news sources consider major stories.

The numbers are brutal. The DNC blamed its nearly $16 million debt on the failed 2024 Biden-Harris campaign. Kamala Harris’ presidential bid reportedly burned through $1.5 billion. By the end, the Democratic National Committee was left with $20.5 million in debt.

Then in October 2025, the DNC took out a $15 million loan for gubernatorial elections. The committee rang in 2026 with $17.5 million in debt, according to the New York Times.

The debt load represents an unprecedented financial crisis for a major party committee heading into a midterm election year. Campaign finance experts note that such debt levels constrain a party’s ability to support candidates, fund voter turnout operations, and respond to unexpected campaign developments. The financial struggles also raise questions about organizational management and strategic planning at the highest levels of Democratic Party infrastructure.

Meanwhile, the Republican National Committee has $230 million in the bank and no debt.

The stark financial contrast between the two parties represents a complete reversal from recent election cycles and would typically be considered a major political story worthy of extensive coverage and analysis. The disparity gives Republicans an enormous structural advantage in candidate recruitment, advertising capacity, and ground game operations heading into the midterms.

“For years, the media lectured Americans about ‘dirty money in politics’ whenever Republicans had the fundraising advantage,” Bozell said. “Now Democrats are facing a financial mess of their own making, and suddenly the story isn’t worth telling.”

As Breitbart News reported, the DNC’s financial crisis has sparked calls to oust DNC Chairman Ken Martin, who allegedly threw a phone at a junior aide’s desk in frustration. The chairman has found himself increasingly isolated as the debt piles up.

Apple News didn’t just miss the story. They buried it — 78 times.

“She is a huge liability,” Democrat megadonor John Morgan told the Hill. He warned candidates who actually want to win to stay far away from her.

Morgan’s blunt assessment reflects a growing concern within the Democratic Party about Harris’s lingering impact following her defeat in the 2024 presidential election. The megadonor, known for his significant financial contributions to Democratic causes and his willingness to speak candidly about party strategy, represents a faction of establishment Democrats increasingly worried about down-ballot effects heading into what many consider a make-or-break midterm cycle.

The warning comes as multiple Democrat candidates have publicly rejected Harris campaign appearances heading into the 2026 midterms, even after winning her endorsement.

This phenomenon represents a particularly awkward dynamic for the party, as candidates find themselves in the uncomfortable position of accepting endorsements while simultaneously distancing themselves from the endorser. Political observers note this creates a messaging challenge, as candidates must balance gratitude for party support with the electoral realities in their respective states and districts.

Iowa state Rep. Josh Turek told reporters this week he didn’t want Harris campaigning for him as he pursues a Senate seat. Iowa gubernatorial candidate Rob Sand, the state’s auditor, shared the same sentiment about Harris and former President Biden.

The Iowa rejections are particularly telling given the state’s political trajectory in recent election cycles. Once considered a swing state that President Barack Obama won twice, Iowa has trended increasingly Republican, making any association with nationally unpopular Democratic figures potentially fatal for statewide candidates trying to appeal to moderate and independent voters who have drifted away from the party.

Former Rep. Mary Peltola’s Senate campaign in Alaska voiced frustration after Harris’s PAC issued a fundraising email for the red-state Democrat earlier this month — a move Republicans immediately used to tie Harris to the candidate.

The Alaska incident highlights the complications that can arise even when candidates don’t actively seek association with controversial figures. In deeply red states where Democrats must run significantly ahead of their party’s national brand to have any chance of victory, unsolicited support from polarizing figures can undermine carefully crafted campaign strategies designed to emphasize local issues and personal biography over partisan affiliation.

“She is a huge liability. Stay far away from her if you want to win.” — Democrat megadonor John Morgan

Morgan pointed to the Alaska situation as proof: “Look what happened in Alaska,” he said, noting how Republicans weaponized Harris’s involvement against Peltola.

The rejection spans swing states too. Democrats in Michigan — where the Senate race is heating up — believe Harris could hurt their chances in what’s shaping up to be a competitive battle.

Michigan represents a critical test case for Democratic strategy in the Rust Belt, a region that has become the party’s most important battleground. The state’s unique coalition of urban progressives, suburban moderates, and working-class voters requires careful calibration of messaging and surrogate appearances. Democratic strategists in the state are acutely aware that what plays well in Detroit or Ann Arbor may alienate voters in swing counties that determine statewide outcomes.

Harris has been privately contacting progressive Democrats, pro-Palestinian activists, former aides, and other party figures ahead of a possible 2028 presidential run, according to earlier Breitbart News reporting.

These behind-the-scenes activities suggest Harris remains focused on maintaining her political viability and building support within key Democratic constituencies, even as 2026 candidates publicly keep their distance. The outreach to progressive activists and pro-Palestinian groups indicates a potential strategy to shore up support on the party’s left flank, which could prove significant in a crowded 2028 primary field.

There’s been ongoing talk of her attempting to take the White House again in 2028 after losing to President Donald Trump in 2024. A June poll showed Vice President JD Vance and Harris dominating within their own parties among potential 2028 candidates.

The polling data underscores the tension between Harris’s standing among the party’s primary electorate and her broader appeal in competitive general election races. This disconnect creates the current predicament where she remains influential enough to command attention and resources, yet potentially damaging enough that candidates in tough races want to maintain distance.

Rep. Mark Harris (R-NC) told Breitbart News Saturday in April that the prospect of Harris running for president in 2028 may certainly “help” Republicans before the midterms “because it reminds the people of what they rejected in 2024.”

The Republican congressman’s observation captures the strategic calculation on the other side of the aisle, where GOP operatives are eager to keep Harris in the public conversation as a way to energize their base and frame Democratic candidates as tied to an unpopular national figure.

Translation: Democrats know Harris is toxic — and they’re running from her as fast as they can.

Vast, one of several firms vying for the NASA contract to build America’s next orbital station before the ISS retires in 2030, partnered with satellite firm Addvalue Technologies in February 2024 to supply communications systems. The partnership, which was announced to provide crucial communications infrastructure for Vast’s proposed space station, places the company in direct business relationships with entities operating under Chinese government oversight. Addvalue operates inside China through a wholly owned Beijing subsidiary, Zhongxin Chuangzhi Technologies (Beijing) Ltd.

That subsidiary has supplied CCP-aligned companies with communications technology for years. It signed a lucrative contract to provide thousands of vessel-monitoring terminals to CTTC-Shanghai, a licensed satellite distributor. CTTC Shanghai’s parent company, the China Transport Telecommunication and Information Center, is an arm of the CCP’s Ministry of Transport. These connections raise concerns among national security experts about the potential for foreign influence or access to sensitive American space technology at a time when U.S.-China strategic competition extends increasingly into the space domain.

“The U.S. should not entrust taxpayer-funded, national security-sensitive space infrastructure to Vast while serious questions remain about the company’s ties to the Chinese Communist Party.”

A former Trump administration national security official told The Daily Wire that a commercial space station “is not just another procurement, it is a strategic asset with direct implications for American technological leadership and national security.”

“Washington must ensure that any company seeking federal contracts is independent of foreign influence, control, or leverage,” the official said. The official emphasized that the replacement for the International Space Station will serve as a critical platform for research, national defense applications, and maintaining American preeminence in low Earth orbit.

The concerns about Vast’s business relationships come as Congress and federal agencies have heightened scrutiny of Chinese involvement in sensitive American technology sectors. Similar concerns have led to restrictions on Chinese participation in telecommunications, semiconductor manufacturing, and other strategic industries.

Vast’s political posture raises additional red flags. Garret Reisman, a former NASA astronaut serving as Vast’s astronaut advisor, said in an Instagram video endorsing Kamala Harris that he would like to “punch Trump in the face.” The post drew likes from multiple Vast employees. Such public political statements by senior company representatives have drawn attention to the overall political alignment of the firm’s leadership team.

Vast founder and crypto billionaire Jed McCaleb — the company’s primary financial backer — gave $500,000 to We Deserve Better, a super PAC that backed Democrat presidential candidate Dean Phillips, according to Federal Election Commission filings. McCaleb made his fortune as a co-founder of Ripple and through early involvement in cryptocurrency ventures before pivoting to commercial space ventures.

Top Vast employees also aligned themselves with Eileen Gu, the American-born Olympic skier who abandoned Team USA to compete for China in the Winter Olympics. Drew Feustel, Vast’s lead astronaut and former NASA acting chief astronaut, and chief design and marketing officer Hillary Coe both liked an Instagram post from Gu — who has never publicly acknowledged or condemned the CCP’s human rights abuses, including its treatment of Uyghur Muslims. The social media activity, while seemingly trivial, has been interpreted by critics as indicative of the company culture’s stance toward China at a time when the Beijing government is America’s primary strategic competitor in space.

The aerospace company has fully embraced DEI and leftist language in official proceedings. In a 2024 filing with the Federal Communications Commission, Vast urged regulators to move away from gendered language like “manned spacecraft,” writing that such language is “misaligned with recent FCC proceedings that have sought approaches that promote diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility.” The filing represented one of the few instances where a commercial space company has made explicit DEI-related recommendations in federal regulatory filings.

Vast is seen as a serious contender for the contract. NASA is expected to finalize the Phase 2 contract in the coming months. The competition includes other major aerospace firms, but Vast has positioned itself as an innovative newcomer capable of delivering cost-effective solutions for maintaining continuous American presence in low Earth orbit.

The stakes for the contract are significant. If no American station is ready when the ISS retires, China’s Tiangong space station will be the only permanent station in orbit. Such an outcome would represent a major shift in the balance of power in space, potentially ceding American leadership in human spaceflight to Beijing for the first time in decades.

Vast did not respond to a request for comment.

Median Strategies — the firm behind both bogus polls — revealed it was running a “social experiment” to see how fabricated polling data spreads through political media. The revelation has sent shockwaves through an industry already struggling to maintain credibility with American voters who have grown increasingly skeptical of survey research following numerous high-profile polling failures in recent election cycles.

“Median Strategies has concluded its polling project and will not publish additional polls,” the company said in a statement. “All previously published polling releases have been withdrawn and should not be cited or treated as genuine polling data.”

“Median Strategies was created as a short-term social experiment examining how purported polling information could enter and spread through the political information ecosystem without independent verification.”

The statement raises serious questions about the verification processes employed by political news outlets and how easily false data can be injected into the media ecosystem. In an era when polling data frequently drives campaign narratives and influences fundraising, strategic decisions, and voter perceptions, the ease with which fabricated surveys gained traction highlights significant vulnerabilities in political reporting.

Hong, the far-left candidate in Wisconsin’s gubernatorial primary, was supposed to “shellac” David Crowley according to Median Strategies’ phony 23-point lead. The fictitious polling data was initially cited by multiple outlets without independent verification of the firm’s methodology or track record.

The firm also released fabricated data showing Bass leading challenger Nithya Raman by nearly 12 percentage points ahead of the November runoff. That poll was allegedly conducted between July 30 and August 5 among 560 Los Angeles voters with a 4.1 percent margin of error. The false survey included all the technical details that typically accompany legitimate polling releases, making it appear credible to journalists and political observers.

The Los Angeles Times later confirmed the Bass poll was also bogus.

The admission leaves Americans with even less reason to trust political polling — an industry already facing credibility collapse after years of high-profile misses. Public confidence in polling has steadily eroded as voters have witnessed repeated instances where survey data failed to accurately predict electoral outcomes, leading many to question whether the entire enterprise has become fundamentally broken.

In 2024, the final PBS/NPR/Marist election poll showed Vice President Kamala Harris leading by 4 percentage points outside the margin of error. The Washington Post reported days before Election Day that Harris had a “big early-vote lead” over Trump. Fortune ran a headline declaring Trump “just blew a huge lead” after his Madison Square Garden rally. These confident predictions, delivered with the authority of scientific measurement, proved dramatically off the mark when actual votes were counted.

Another pollster showed Harris leading Trump by 3 points in Iowa — before Trump won the state by double digits. The pollster later admitted it was a “big miss.” The Iowa result became emblematic of broader polling failures that characterized the 2024 cycle, raising questions about whether systematic biases or methodological flaws had rendered traditional survey techniques obsolete in the modern political environment.

It didn’t matter that the Biden administration and Harris had low approval ratings, or that the country faced a border invasion, high inflation, and unrest. The polls showed Harris winning, and media outlets ran with it. The disconnect between polling data and observable political conditions further fueled suspicions that surveys were reflecting the preferences of pollsters rather than the sentiments of actual voters.

Skeptics pointed back to 2016 when Americans were all but guaranteed President Hillary Clinton — with The New York Times giving her a 90 percent chance of beating Trump in mid-October. That failure marked a turning point in how many Americans viewed polling, transforming surveys from trusted indicators into objects of ridicule and suspicion.

Pollster John McLaughlin told The Federalist that some “media pollsters let their bias determine what they see in the polls, and it didn’t have to go that way.” His criticism reflects a broader debate within the industry about whether methodological challenges or ideological preferences better explain polling’s recent accuracy problems.

Now the revelation that Median Strategies’ polls were fabricated raises a harder question: how many other pollsters are running their own “social experiments”? The incident has exposed how little gatekeeping exists in political media when it comes to verifying the legitimacy of polling operations, potentially opening the door for bad actors to manipulate public perception through fake data.

So this is pretty wild: A polling firm that came out of nowhere to show Francesca Hong with a 23-point lead over David Crowley in the Wisconsin primary has shut down and said its whole operation was bogus pic.twitter.com/QTmlXkvGPC

— Brett LoGiurato (@BrettLoGiurato) August 18, 2026

Appearing on NBC’s Meet the Press Sunday, Jeffries was asked point-blank by host Kristen Welker if he backs adding more justices to the high court. The New York Democrat had just spent days touting his support for “dramatic Supreme Court reform” — the same language former VP Kamala Harris used when she signaled support for court-packing.

Jeffries didn’t answer.

Instead, he pivoted to attacking Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito over manufactured ethics scandals pushed by corporate media. He complained the court needs “an ethical code of conduct so that they’re not able to simply conduct themselves in ways that are inconsistent with the notion in this country that no one is above the law.”

“No one is above the law” — unless you’re a Democrat pushing court-packing to overturn rulings you don’t like.

Jeffries then went after the Supreme Court’s Louisiana v. Callais decision, which blocked racial gerrymandering in redistricting. He claimed the ruling “unleashed Jim Crow-like tactics” by requiring colorblind redistricting — a position he says is “inconsistent with the law and with the Constitution” but predictably didn’t bother explaining how.

Then he gave the game away.

After finishing his anti-Callais screed, Jeffries pledged that Rep. Jamie Raskin and other leading Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee “are going to take the lead on what dramatic reform of the Supreme Court looks like.”

That sentence is the tell.

Raskin and Rep. Hank Johnson are two of the party’s biggest court-packing supporters. Both have sponsored legislation to increase the number of justices from nine to 13 — conveniently adding the four seats needed for leftists to acquire an ideological majority.

Both congressmen have run interference for court-packing during committee hearings and recently opposed a constitutional amendment to keep the court at nine justices.

If Jeffries doesn’t support Democrats’ court-packing efforts, why didn’t he say so when Welker asked him directly?

And if he opposes such a plan, why would he put two of the party’s most ardent court-packing supporters in charge of this “reform”?

The questions answer themselves.

What Jeffries is doing is no different than what Joe Biden did in 2020 or what Abigail Spanberger did last year — an attempt to deceive voters with a “moderate”-sounding position, with every intention of governing hard-left once given power.

The left has long viewed the Supreme Court as a mechanism of power meant to bypass the constitutional amendment process. Rather than convince Americans to support their policies, leftists used activist justices to enshrine their agenda into law via overreaching rulings.

With the current court largely working to overturn many of those bad precedents, that path is no longer available to the left.

As such, Democrats have taken to launching a full-out assault on the conservative justices — all in an effort to get the outcomes they want.

Jeffries may think he’s being coy enough with his language to obscure his party’s ultimate endgame.

His remarks are further proof of how destructive Democrats plan to be if given power this fall.

Since its launch six months ago, American Priorities has channeled millions—primarily from donors with Arab, Muslim, and Middle Eastern backgrounds—to far-left candidates running on democratic-socialist policies and united by one mission: antagonism toward Israel.

The super PAC just scored its biggest win yet: Dr. Abdul El-Sayed’s victory in Michigan’s U.S. Senate primary last Tuesday.

The Donors Behind the Movement

The money is coming from first-generation Muslim immigrants who made their fortunes in America. They include Hussein “Sam” Mahrouq, who was born in a Palestinian refugee camp in Jordan and built a conglomerate spanning 25 companies and 3 continents. Brothers Idris and Haroon Mokhtarzada fled Afghanistan as children before founding Truebill—later sold to Rocket Companies for $1.275 billion. Nazar Khan, born in India, is now co-founder of AI energy firm Tera Wulf, valued at around $9 billion.

These are highly successful immigrants—but the super PAC they’re bankrolling partners with groups advocating policies aimed at fundamentally transforming America: Justice Democrats, the Working Families Party, and the IMEU Policy Project.

Mahrouq told Jewish Insider he believes in “a U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East that respects the dignity of all people in the region” and that decisions should be made “independent of pressure from any foreign government.”

The Candidates They’re Backing

Nearly every candidate backed by American Priorities has called Israel an “apartheid” state committing “genocide” in Gaza, downplayed jihadist violence, and attacked opponents as being “bought and paid for” by the Jewish state.

El-Sayed, the Michigan Senate nominee, got $678,000 in super PAC support. An Egyptian-American, he signed a letter in 2012 backing Egyptian president and Muslim Brotherhood leader Mohamed Morsi. In 2022, he compared an Oklahoma ban on sharia law to “the Trail of Tears.” He refused to condemn Iran’s Supreme Leader’s assassination—because many “people in Dearborn who are sad.”

This past spring, El-Sayed suggested a jihadist attack on a Michigan synagogue made sense because the attacker’s family members—including a brother who was a terrorist commander—had been killed by Israeli strikes.

“AIPAC and Israel are not the same as Judaism and the Jewish people. I love Judaism and I love the Jewish people…And the single most dangerous thing that they’ve tried to tell us is that somehow they can extend the definition of anti-Semitism to include a foreign government and its leaders.”

El-Sayed’s father-in-law, Jukaku Tayeb—who contributed $200,000 to a super PAC backing his son-in-law—has reportedly served on the founding committee of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) since at least 2007. ISNA was identified as an unindicted co-conspirator in the largest terrorism financing case in U.S. history—the Holy Land Foundation case involving Hamas funding. The organization emerged from the Muslim Brotherhood, which helped birth Hamas.

Dr. Adam Hamawy, the New Jersey 12th District nominee, received $1.5 million in super PAC support—more than he raised from all other contributors combined. An Egyptian-American, he sat in on lectures of the “Blind Sheikh” Omar Abdel-Rahman and testified on his behalf during the terrorism trial linked to the first World Trade Center bombing. In 1994, he volunteered in Bosnia under an NGO later identified as an Al-Qaeda front group.

He served at Gaza’s European Hospital in 2024, calling it “a completely benign civilian hospital with no tunnels underneath it”—disproven when Israeli forces identified a military base underneath and eliminated senior Hamas leaders there, including October 7 mastermind Yahya Sinwar’s brother.

Daria Avila Chevalier, the New York 13th District nominee, got $1.3 million in super PAC support. She joined an anti-Israel protest in Times Square on Oct. 8, 2023—the day after the Hamas massacre—where participants openly celebrated the atrocities. As an undergraduate, she co-founded Columbia University’s Apartheid Divest group, which has endorsed the “total eradication of Western civilization.”

She converted to Islam, she says, as a byproduct of interning in Nablus and being surrounded by Muslim activists. The nominee tweeted that “Israel doesn’t exist” in a series of since-deleted posts.

The Muslim Brotherhood Network in America

A recent Senate Judiciary Committee hearing convened by Sen. Ted Cruz raised a chilling issue. The Texas Republican alleged—and witnesses concurred—that the Muslim Brotherhood has cultivated an “entrenched institutional network” in America of NGOs, advocacy groups, and political organizations to advance its recorded mission to “destroy … Western civilization from within.”

That network, terrorism expert Kyle Shideler testified, has actively partnered with the Democratic Socialists of America as part of a “Red-Green Alliance” that is “united around a revolutionary objective advocating for the overthrow of the U.S. Constitution.”

Democrats boycotted the hearing in protest, claiming Cruz was “scapegoating Muslims.”

Cruz and the witnesses identified ISNA, Muslim Students Associations, and CAIR—the Council on American-Islamic Relations—as part of the Muslim Brotherhood’s entrenched network. CAIR has been designated as a terrorist organization in several Arab countries, plus Florida and Texas. Fox News reported that 41 individuals linked to CAIR contributed over $115,000 to El-Sayed.

Democrats Fear Antisemitic Takeover

Some senior Democrats are sounding the alarm.

Pennsylvania Sen. John Fetterman warned: “I’m deeply alarmed by the way the Democratic Party is going after Israel and allowing just rank anti-Semitism to just flourish, you know, on the left and on the campuses too.”

New Jersey Rep. Josh Gottheimer wrote in the Free Press that “Abdul El-Sayed’s victory…is only the latest evidence that my party is being overrun by antisemitism.”

Joel Rubin, the Jewish outreach leader on Bernie Sanders’ 2020 campaign, said Sanders and his operation have “shoved into our system the most categorically anti-Israel, antisemitic candidates that we’ve seen in a generation—if ever, certainly within the Democratic Party.”

Outgoing New York Rep. Dan Goldman—a noted progressive who is Jewish—saw his primary contest defined by his pro-Israel positions. His opponent, American Priorities-endorsed Brad Lander, attacked him over AIPAC ties and won 66-34. Lander told worshippers at a Queens mosque in May that Israel is committing “genocide in Gaza” and vowed to cut military assistance and partner with anti-Israel Reps. Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar in Congress.

A Brooklyn coffee shop refused service to Goldman during the campaign, posting publicly: “We don’t serve genocide enablers.” The post added: “[W]e don’t need your money (it’s probably coming from AIPAC anyways).”

In his concession speech, Goldman lamented that “antisemitic tropes and stereotypes, some of which I heard personally on this campaign, will ultimately be the undoing of our democracy if we all don’t lean in and speak out—even if it’s not politically expedient.”

Michigan’s Democratic attorney general, Dana Nessel—the first Jewish American to hold that post—said she will not attend her party’s next convention. “I don’t feel safe going,” she said at an Anti-Defamation League event.

“I have profound fears about what is going to happen to this state, and what is going to happen to this country if we don’t have a significant change of course.”

Rep. Adam Smith, ranking Democrat on the House Ways and Means Committee, revealed he had his home “vandalized,” his driveway set on fire, and a staffer “physically assaulted” by far-left activists pressuring him to cut aid to Israel. Nearly half of House Democrats—more than 100—voted in favor of an amendment to cut military assistance to Israel.

Polling Shows Deep Hostility Toward Israel and Jews

Polls show Muslim-American voters are significantly more hostile toward Israel and Jews than the general public.

A Pew poll showed 44 percent of American Muslims support Hamas—in line with polling of Palestinian Arabs themselves. Ahmed Fouad Alkhatib, leader of the Atlantic Council’s Realign for Palestine project, says based on countless interactions since October 7, “this number is almost certainly an undercount.”

The same Pew poll showed Muslims have a more favorable view of Palestinian Arabs than any other religious group at 78 percent and a less favorable view of Israelis than any other group at just 26 percent. Nearly 58 percent of American Muslims surveyed found Hamas was at least somewhat justified in carrying out the October 7 massacre as “part of their struggle for a Palestinian state.”

A Heritage Foundation poll from September 2024 found American Muslims believe Jewish people have “too much power” by a rate of 57 percent—compared to the general public’s 17 percent.

ADL figures from 2017 show 34 percent of Muslim Americans held antisemitic views—more than twice the rate of non-Muslims.

The 2028 Presidential Race in Focus

The Muslim community’s influence comes on the heels of the so-called Uncommitted National Movement during the 2024 presidential election. Led by Lebanese-American Abbas Alawieh and Palestinian-American Layla Elabed, the protest group organized some 700,000 voters to oppose then-President Biden and Vice President Harris in the primary over policies perceived to be too pro-Israel.

Harris, expected to seek the Democratic presidential nomination in 2028, just endorsed El-Sayed.

CAIR launched a “Muslims.Vote” platform touting that “with more than 8 million Muslims in America and over 3 million registered voters, our community already has the power to shape elections, especially in key swing states.”

American Priorities made its ambitions clear in a press release following El-Sayed’s victory: “After a string of eight House victories this cycle, the Michigan primary marks [the] first direct statewide challenge to the Democratic establishment with national implications. El-Sayed’s win tonight will force a reckoning within the party over its backward-looking foreign policy and relationship to Israel—just as the contours of the 2028 presidential cycle come into focus.”

The charges remain allegations. The case has not been proven in court.

This article was originally published by RealClearInvestigations and made available via RealClearWire.

EXCLUSIVE

Muslim Michigan Democrat US Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed signed a pledge in support of Mohamed Morsi, the leader of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. This branch of the Muslim Brotherhood has been designated by the Trump administration and US government as an… https://t.co/bOHqjFw8RW pic.twitter.com/sOeiIBAuQW

— Laura Loomer (@LauraLoomer) April 10, 2026

Hasan Piker: Mao Zedong is one of the great leaders of this world pic.twitter.com/b1DGAXQgKJ

— DSA Watch (@DSA_Watch) July 20, 2026

From destroying the Electoral College to weaponizing the FBI, from abolishing the SAT to erasing the border — the pattern is unmistakable. If the system won’t give them power, they’ll dismantle the system.

What unites today’s Democrats and Democratic Socialists isn’t just policy — it’s a shared belief that America’s institutions are obstacles to be destroyed. The Mar-a-Lago raid, lawfare against Trump, calls to pack the Supreme Court, end the filibuster, add two blue states — all stem from the same impulse.

When they lost the White House, Congress, and the Supreme Court, the Left didn’t ask why voters rejected them. Instead, they doubled down: weaponize federal agencies, censor social media, spy on Congress, flood the country with illegal immigrants.

By 2021, the southern border was effectively erased — 10 million illegal immigrants entered without health checks, English proficiency, or means of self-support.

Had Kamala Harris won in 2024, another four years would have brought another five million. America’s foreign-born population would have surged from 50 million to 60 million — roughly 18 percent of the country.

California is the blueprint. Today, 28 percent of California’s population is foreign-born. When second-generation immigrants are included, the two groups together make up roughly 45 percent of the state’s residents. Half of all births in California are now paid for by Medi-Cal, serving 40 percent of the population.

This demographic transformation — one of the most profound in American history — happened as traditional civic education stressing assimilation, integration, and knowledge of American history vanished from public schools.

The goal? Import a new voter base. Representatives like Rashida Tlaib, Ilhan Omar, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani, and Michigan Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed represent a new kind of immigrant politician: arrivals or children of arrivals who see only America’s sins, never the catastrophes of their homelands that drove them here.

They arrived uninvited — then immediately demanded their host change to suit them.

It’s the same story across every institution the Left touches.

The SAT? When minorities statistically underperformed, the Left didn’t push for better K-12 education, tougher math and reading standards, or SAT prep in the inner city. They abolished the test entirely — erasing a merit-based system designed in the 1920s to overcome old-boy networks and regional prejudice.

Without the SAT, admissions officers lost the ability to predict whether students could handle college coursework. Professors soon noticed: many newly admitted students lacked basic skills. But maintaining standards risked being called racist.

The solution? Grade inflation, remedial courses, reduced requirements — and a new rule that plagiarism isn’t actionable if the culprit claims victim status.

Employers noticed graduates from prestigious schools now lacked reading, writing, and analytical skills. Alumni complained their degrees were losing value. Parents watched their own qualified children get rejected solely on the basis of race.

The military? The Left pushed to lower physical standards for ground-combat units so women could join elite brigades — ignoring a century of combat experience proving that unit morale, discipline, and success rest on every soldier meeting a common threshold of strength and endurance.

Defunding the police. Open borders. Mass amnesties. Subsidizing unreliable energy while killing fossil fuels. Racial quotas in hiring and admissions. None of these policies have ever won majority support — polling consistently shows 30 to 40 percent backing at best.

The Left’s response? Don’t ask why voters reject the agenda. Change the system that denied them power.

When equality of opportunity was largely achieved, they demanded equality of outcome. When class warfare lost appeal, they pivoted to racial grievance. When victimized minorities weren’t numerous enough to form a majority, they redefined “victim” to include anyone who wasn’t a white heterosexual male — regardless of income or privilege.

And when Americans finally tired of totalitarian social engineering, the Left moved to change how Americans vote, how government functions, and the very demography of the nation.

The common thread? Human nature rejects forced statism, coerced redistribution, and government-mandated equality of results. People yearn for liberty and freedom.

Throughout history, the Left has followed the same pattern: change the rules, alter the demographics — through election manipulation, bureaucratic fiat, court orders. And when those fail, through violence.

Because statism, socialism, and communism can never sustain public support — no matter how much deception, propaganda, or brainwashing is employed.

The former vice president delivered the combative message Friday night at the Louisiana Democratic Party’s annual fundraising gala in New Orleans, framing her potential 2028 campaign as a battle that requires “leaders who have moral conviction and know how to fight.”

The Louisiana event marked one of Harris’s most explicit statements yet about the strategic direction she believes Democrats must take following their 2024 defeat. Party fundraising dinners like these have historically served as testing grounds for presidential hopefuls to workshop their messaging with core Democratic audiences before launching into national campaigns. Harris appeared to be using the New Orleans stage to gauge reaction to a more aggressive posture than the one that defined her previous campaign.

“AS I TRAVEL THE COUNTRY, PEOPLE ARE SAYING ‘WE WANT OUR LEADERS TO FIGHT.’ AND IN THIS FIGHT, I SAY WE START BY GETTING COMFORTABLE WITH SOME THINGS, INCLUDING HAVING A CERTAIN KIND OF RUTHLESSNESS.”

The word choice represents a notable departure from the cautious rhetoric that characterized much of Harris’s time as vice president and her brief 2024 presidential campaign. Political analysts often describe “ruthlessness” in campaign contexts as a willingness to aggressively attack opponents, pivot quickly when strategies fail, and prioritize winning over maintaining careful diplomatic language. It’s the kind of quality Democrats have increasingly said they want after watching Republican candidates dominate news cycles with provocative statements while Democratic nominees stayed on-message with poll-tested talking points.

Harris lost to President Donald Trump in a landslide after replacing Joe Biden as the Democratic nominee in 2024. Biden left office with dismal approval ratings and presided over the worst inflation in 40 years — baggage Harris carried straight into her defeat.

The inheritance of Biden’s record proved impossible for Harris to overcome during the compressed 2024 campaign timeline. As sitting vice president, she struggled to distance herself from administration policies that voters blamed for their economic pain, while also trying to demonstrate loyalty to the president who had elevated her to the ticket. That political tightrope left her unable to credibly position herself as a change candidate, even as polling consistently showed Americans wanted a dramatically different direction.

Now she’s testing a new pitch: ruthless fighter instead of Biden’s deputy.

Harris told the gala crowd of hundreds that voters across the country are demanding leaders who “know how to fight.” The speech focused heavily on affordability — the issue that helped sink her campaign when families were paying 20-30% more for groceries than they did under Trump’s first term.

By centering her remarks on affordability and economic anxiety, Harris appeared to be acknowledging what post-election analysis identified as the defining issue of 2024. Exit polls and voter surveys repeatedly showed that concerns about cost of living outweighed all other factors in determining vote choice. The grocery price comparison Harris confronted represents perhaps the most visceral economic indicator voters used to evaluate the Biden-Harris administration’s performance, making it unavoidable territory for any Democrat hoping to reclaim credibility on economic management.

The Louisiana appearance is part of a broader comeback tour. Harris confirmed in April she’s “thinking about” a 2028 presidential run despite her crushing loss. Recent polling shows her as a leading Democratic candidate for 2028, though she remains deeply tied to Biden’s unpopular economic record.

Her positioning in early 2028 polling reflects both name recognition advantages and the unsettled nature of the Democratic field rather than enthusiastic voter support. History offers mixed lessons for defeated vice presidential or presidential candidates attempting comebacks — Richard Nixon eventually succeeded after his 1960 loss, but many others faded into political irrelevance. Harris faces the challenge of remaining visible and relevant without appearing desperate or tone-deaf to the reasons voters rejected her ticket.

Translation: Democrats want someone who can land punches. Whether Harris — who couldn’t land any against Trump in three months of campaigning — is that person remains the $2 billion question her party burned through last cycle.

The 2028 primary field is already taking shape. Harris faces potential competition from governors who distanced themselves from Biden’s failures and weren’t on the ticket when inflation peaked. Her “ruthlessness” pitch sounds like a candidate who knows she has ground to make up.

Those governors represent a particular threat because they can point to state-level accomplishments while credibly arguing they had no role in the federal policies voters punished Democrats for in 2024. They enter the race without the defensive posture Harris must adopt when questioned about her previous administration’s record. The comparison will force Harris to demonstrate that her new approach represents genuine evolution rather than superficial rebranding designed to obscure an unchanged candidate.

The irony: calling for ruthlessness after running one of the most carefully-scripted, gaffe-avoiding campaigns in modern history. Voters will decide in 2028 whether Harris 2.0 is actually different — or just better-marketed.

The endorsement from Harris, who as vice president has carefully navigated the Democratic Party’s ideological divides, represents a significant moment in the broader debate over the party’s direction. Her decision to back El-Sayed over the moderate alternative reinforces a growing willingness among national Democrats to rally behind progressive candidates in competitive general election races, even when those candidates emerge from contentious primaries that exposed deep fissures within the party coalition.

El-Sayed, who narrowly defeated centrist Representative Haley Stevens in this week’s primary, faces Republican Mike Rogers in November.

The primary battle itself was hard-fought and at times bitter, with both candidates making the case that they represented the best path forward for Democrats seeking to reclaim Senate control. Stevens argued throughout the race that her centrist positioning and proven electoral track record in her congressional district made her the safer bet in a state that Trump carried just two years ago. El-Sayed, meanwhile, contended that an energized progressive base and a bold economic message would be necessary to turn out the Democratic voters needed for victory in a midterm environment.

“Dr. Abdul El-Sayed understands that the power is with the people, and that the stakes couldn’t be higher in this election,” Harris said in a Friday statement. “While Michiganders struggle to afford everyday essentials — housing, gas, groceries, health care, and child care — Trump and Republicans in Congress are giving away $1 trillion in tax breaks to the wealthy and powerful.”

Harris lamented what she called “crises facing America’s working families,” vowing to help El-Sayed “ensure we win a Democratic Senate majority in November.”

The vice president’s emphasis on kitchen-table economic issues in her endorsement statement reflects a deliberate effort to frame El-Sayed’s progressivism not as ideological extremism but as practical advocacy for working-class families. This approach mirrors the broader Democratic messaging strategy heading into the midterms, which seeks to pivot from cultural controversies to pocketbook concerns that pollsters suggest resonate most strongly with swing voters.

El-Sayed, the child of Egyptian immigrants who lost the 2018 Michigan gubernatorial primary to Gretchen Whitmer, racked up endorsements from the party’s progressive wing: Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Rashida Tlaib, and Chris Van Hollen.

His 2018 gubernatorial campaign established El-Sayed as a prominent voice in progressive politics and built a fundraising and volunteer infrastructure that proved valuable in this Senate primary. That earlier race also demonstrated both his appeal to younger, more liberal voters and the challenges he faces in winning over moderate Democrats and independent voters who comprise a critical segment of Michigan’s electorate.

Stevens, by contrast, drew support from retiring incumbent Senator Gary Peters, former Senator Debbie Stabenow, and former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi — the centrist establishment bench.

The endorsement lineups on both sides illustrated the persistent divide within the Democratic Party between those who believe the path to victory runs through mobilizing the progressive base and those who argue that appealing to moderate swing voters in suburban and rural areas remains essential. This tension has played out in Democratic primaries across the country and shows no signs of abating as the party seeks to define its identity in the Trump era.

The candidate hailed Harris’s backing on social media, framing the race as part of a broader fight against Trump.

Vice President @KamalaHarris understands the key role control of the US Senate plays in lowering prices for Michiganders and holding Trump accountable. To achieve a Senate majority in 2026, we need to win Michigan, and that means beating Mike Rogers. Trump and his allies prey on… pic.twitter.com/su28YGoC80

— Dr. Abdul El-Sayed (@AbdulElSayed) August 7, 2026

“Trump and his allies prey on our divisions—which is why it’s so important to bring communities together right now,” El-Sayed wrote. “Her support in this race is critical to building an unstoppable coalition against Rogers, Trump, and their assault on our rights and democracy.”

He called Rogers “Trump’s minion.”

The sharp rhetoric directed at both Rogers and Trump reflects El-Sayed’s strategy of nationalizing the race and tying his Republican opponent directly to the former president, whose popularity in Michigan remains a subject of intense debate among political strategists. While Trump carried the state in 2024, his margin was relatively narrow, suggesting vulnerability that Democrats hope to exploit.

Republicans currently hold 53 Senate seats. Democrats control 43, plus two Independents who caucus with them. Democrats need to flip four seats to claim a majority in the final two years of Trump’s presidency.

The mathematical challenge facing Democrats is steep but not insurmountable, and party leaders have identified Michigan as one of their most promising pickup opportunities. Control of the Senate would give Democrats significant leverage to block Trump’s legislative agenda and judicial appointments, raising the stakes of races like this one considerably.

Trump won Michigan in 2024, but Rogers lost the state’s open Senate race that year to Democrat Elissa Slotkin.

Rogers’s previous statewide defeat raises questions about his viability as a candidate, though Republicans argue that the political environment has shifted in their favor since that loss. His name recognition and fundraising capacity remain formidable advantages in what is expected to be one of the most expensive Senate races in the country.

The Michigan contest is one of the most closely watched battlegrounds as both parties eye control of the upper chamber heading into 2026 midterms.

A new poll shows 24 percent of likely Democrat voters in Michigan backing former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg for president in 2028 — while Harris, the party’s 2024 nominee who lost to President Trump, draws just 5.1 percent.

The findings suggest a broader shift in the Democratic Party’s outlook following the 2024 defeat, with voters in the critical swing state reassessing their options early in the next presidential cycle. Michigan has long been viewed as a bellwether for Democratic strategy, making these numbers particularly significant for party strategists attempting to chart a path forward after losing the White House.

The Public Sentiment Institute survey asked Michigan Democrats: “If the 2028 Democrat Primary was held today, who would you vote for?”

Buttigieg led the field. Georgia Sen. Jon Ossoff came in third. Harris finished a distant fourth.

The former Transportation Secretary’s first-place showing represents a remarkable political comeback after his own 2020 presidential campaign fell short. Buttigieg has maintained visibility since serving in the Biden administration, though his current standing remains undefined as the Democratic Party enters what many observers describe as a period of profound soul-searching about its direction and priorities.

But the real story? 21.7 percent said they were undecided — the second-highest response.

“Undecided finishes second. More than a fifth of this electorate has no 2028 preference at all.”

The poll’s authors noted that pushing undecided voters onto a candidate list “would be a fabrication dressed up as precision.”

Translation: Michigan Democrats have no idea who they want — but they know it’s not Kamala.

This level of uncertainty so early in the cycle reflects the unsettled state of Democratic politics in the aftermath of electoral defeat. While early polling often shows high undecided numbers, the specific rejection of the party’s most recent standard-bearer is noteworthy and suggests Harris faces significant headwinds should she pursue another campaign. The 2028 race remains years away, but these early indicators help shape fundraising, endorsements, and strategic positioning among potential candidates.

On the Republican side, President Trump commented in June on a possible 2028 ticket of Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio.

“I watch them together. They get along great. They have a good relationship. They’re sort of similar in a lot of ways, but they’re very talented. I think the two of them running together as a team would be very unbeatable,” Trump said.

The contrast between Republican unity and Democratic uncertainty could not be more stark. While the GOP appears to have a clear succession plan in place, Democrats are navigating a crowded and fragmented field with no obvious frontrunner commanding significant support.

Harris has reportedly been privately contacting progressive Democrats, pro-Palestinian activists, and former aides ahead of a possible 2028 run — despite the Michigan numbers showing Democrat voters have already moved on.

These outreach efforts suggest Harris remains undeterred by early polling, though her focus on specific constituencies rather than broad coalition-building may indicate a narrower path forward than her 2024 campaign attempted. The gap between her behind-the-scenes maneuvering and her public support numbers raises questions about whether she can rebuild the credibility necessary for a competitive primary campaign.

The same poll questioned voters on Israel — and the results show how far left Michigan Democrats have shifted.

When asked if they’d be more or less likely to support a Senate candidate who accepted campaign contributions from a pro-Israel PAC, 55.8 percent said less likely. Just 7.5 percent said more likely.

“Among Michigan Democratic primary voters, accepting pro-Israel PAC money is a net liability by roughly seven to one,” the poll noted.

The “much less likely” response alone outweighed the entire favorable side five times over.

These attitudes represent a dramatic realignment within the Democratic base, particularly in Michigan with its substantial Arab American population. The political calculus around Middle East policy has fundamentally changed for Democrats seeking statewide or national office, creating potential tensions between traditional party donors and an increasingly skeptical grassroots electorate.

Sen. John Fetterman warned in July that Democrats would continue backing away from Israel and refusing to defend the Jewish community in America.

“It won’t stop. In fact, if anything, it’s going to accelerate. Look at the people that have won. They’ve — anti-Israel, anti-American, anti-Western Civilization overall,” Fetterman said.

His warning underscores the intraparty divide that any 2028 candidate will need to navigate, balancing competing constituencies with fundamentally different worldviews on foreign policy and America’s role in international affairs.

The 2028 Democrat field is wide open — and Kamala Harris is already losing it.

2028 MICHIGAN DEM PRIMARY

Buttigieg: 24%
Ossoff: 14%
AOC: 11%
Newsom: 10%
Harris: 5%
Shapiro: 4%
Pritzker: 4%
Hunter Biden: 2%
Booker: 1%
Khanna: 1%
Emanuel: 1%
S.A. Smith: 1%
Moore: 1%
Not sure: 22%@TPSIOfficial | 7/25-29 | 762 LV… pic.twitter.com/GpPxEHMhk2

— InteractivePolls (@IAPolls2022) August 1, 2026