Jewish members of Congress and political candidates are facing an unprecedented barrage of direct and violent antisemitic threats that have drastically altered their day-to-day lives and personal security. Lawmakers from both parties say that the traditional era of veiled dog whistles has been replaced by a shocking level of hate speech delivered through official office lines, social media platforms, and direct mail. Lawmakers have shared graphic communications, Axios revealed. Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY) reportedly received a letter praising Adolf Hitler alongside a drawing depicting him being shot in the head. Rep. Greg Landsman (D-OH) said callers told his office that he “should just go die,” while Rep. Max Miller (R-OH) received voicemails warning that “a real holocaust will take effect” and threatening that Jewish lawmakers would be “shot dead every f*cking day.” The growing concern was punctuated by the recent arrest of John Kevin Lipinski near the home of Rep. Jared Moskowitz (D-FL). Authorities discovered an arsenal of weapons, tactical gear, and 3,000 rounds of ammunition, along with a hit list targeting Moskowitz, Jewish cemeteries, synagogues, and “bar mitzvah halls.” In response to the threat, Moskowitz now requires private security, metal detectors at indoor events, and police stationed outside his family home. Political figures across the spectrum warn that extreme rhetoric has broken into mainstream American politics, emanating from factions on both the far-right and the far-left. “Both ends of our parties are wackadoos who hate Jews,” Rep. Miller observed, while California state Sen. Scott Wiener (D), a hard-Left congressional candidate, acknowledged that “horrific” and “very violent” rhetoric has deeply infiltrated corners of the Left. On the Right, traditional conservative figures have faced criticism for failing to aggressively police antisemitism within their ranks. A political action committee supporting Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) drew intense condemnation after running an ad featuring a Jewish donor alongside a rainbow Star of David—an incident Rep. Seth Magaziner (D-RI) labeled “the most brazen example of an antisemitic political ad that I have seen in years.” Massie declined to denounce the ad, instead characterizing his race as a “referendum… on whether the Israeli lobby can buy a seat in Kentucky.” Additional incidents have heightened tensions on Capitol Hill. William Paul, the son of Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), engaged in an antisemitic tirade against Rep. Mike Lawler (R-NY) at a Washington bar, blaming “you Jews” for political opposition to Massie and calling them “anti-American.” Meanwhile, Tucker Carlson has been normalizing conspiratorial anti-Zionist narratives that echo historical antisemitic tropes regarding hidden global manipulation. On the Left, anti-Israel rhetoric has frequently crossed into overt prejudice, occasionally protected by party establishment figures prioritizing electoral coalitions. In Texas, Democratic congressional primary frontrunner Maureen Galindo was exposed for posting rants about “Jews who own Hollywood” and the “synagogue of Satan.” Galindo openly campaigned on plans to introduce legislation to try any American official who has accepted Israeli funding for treason. Furthermore, mainstream Democratic leadership has faced backlash for embracing controversial figures. In Maine, the party establishment has rallied behind Senate candidate Graham Platner, despite disclosures regarding his Nazi tattoo and a history of antisemitic commentary. While Halie Soifer of the Jewish Democratic Council of America expressed “deep concern” over Platner, other prominent party strategists insisted the party would remain firmly on the “Platner train.” Prominent progressives, including California Democrat Rep. Ro Khanna, have similarly faced criticism for publicly defending and boosting controversial left-wing commentators accused of popularizing dangerous rhetoric. Ultimately, moderate lawmakers warn that the failure of both party establishments to forcefully excoriate their own internal extremists has allowed naked Jew-hatred to move from the fringes of American political life directly into the mainstream.

A California federal jury nixed billionaire Elon Musk’s lawsuit against OpenAI CEO Sam Altman on Monday, concluding that Musk filed his claims after the statute of limitations had expired. The jury returned its verdict after deliberating for just 90 minutes following a three-week trial in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, who presided over the case, said that she agreed with the jury’s unanimous decision. “I’ve always said I would accept the jury’s verdict. I think there’s a substantial amount of evidence to support the jury’s finding,” Gonzalez Rogers said. Legal experts said the jury likely focused on whether Musk waited too long to file suit under California law. Vincent Joralemon, a senior fellow at UC Berkeley law school, told The New York Post that California imposes a three-year statute of limitations for breach of charitable trust claims and a two-year limit for unjust enrichment claims. “I’m guessing the jurors got into their room and said, ‘Does it seem like Musk knew about this in 2019?’ and everyone said ‘yes’ and then they go, ‘we’re done,'” he said. Musk brought the case in 2024, accusing Altman and OpenAI co-founder Greg Brockman of betraying the organization’s original nonprofit mission by changing OpenAI to a profit-driven enterprise. OpenAI was founded in 2015 as a nonprofit focused on developing artificial intelligence in a manner that would benefit humanity. Musk, who helped launch the organization and donated roughly $38 million before ultimately leaving the board in 2018, said OpenAI’s leadership abandoned that principle for financial gain. The SpaceX founder asked for $150 billion in damages — and promised to appeal when the jury decided against him. “Regarding the OpenAI case, the judge & jury never actually ruled on the merits of the case, just on a calendar technicality,” Musk said in an X post on Monday. “There is no question to anyone following the case in detail that Altman & Brockman did in fact enrich themselves by stealing a charity,” he added. “The only question is WHEN they did it! I will be filing an appeal with the Ninth Circuit, because creating a precedent to loot charities is incredibly destructive to charitable giving in America.” Musk’s attorney Marc Toberoff also vowed to appeal the decision: “I have a one-word reaction: Appeal. This war is not over.” Toberoff argued that OpenAI improperly raised money as a publicly subsidized nonprofit before later restructuring into a for-profit operation “where the officers and directors of the charity enrich themselves to the tune of billions.” Elon Musk’s lawyer, Marc Toberoff, on today’s verdict in the OpenAI case: “I have a one-word reaction: Appeal. This war is not over. We firmly believe what happened with OpenAI was wrong on a very basic level that you can’t raise millions of dollars in a publicly subsidized… pic.twitter.com/D6x1Ja43mB — Sawyer Merritt (@SawyerMerritt) May 18, 2026

President Donald Trump has agreed to dismiss his $10 billion lawsuit against the IRS in exchange for a formal apology and the creation of a new $1.776 billion Anti-Weaponization Fund, a Justice Department program designed to compensate Americans who say they were unfairly targeted by federal authorities. According to officials cited in the reporting, the settlement also ends Trump’s related claims involving the 2022 FBI search of Mar-a-Lago and the Russia-collusion investigation.  The administration is presenting the fund as a broader remedy for what Trump and his allies describe as government “weaponization.” A senior official said the program is open to anyone who believes they were unfairly targeted by any administration, not just Republicans or Trump supporters. That could include people charged in connection with the events of January 6, 2021, at the Capitol and even Hunter Biden, whose legal troubles and expenses have been widely publicized. An official said the purpose is not to enrich claimants indiscriminately, but to compensate people for tangible losses such as legal fees and other costs tied to what they experienced. The official described the goal as restoring dignity and helping people recover some of what they lost. The settlement does not guarantee payment to Trump, his sons, or the Trump Organization; instead, they are expected to receive a formal apology, while any compensation claims would be evaluated separately. The program will be overseen by five board members appointed by Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, with one additional member selected in consultation with congressional leaders. The president may remove board members without cause. The board will have the authority to issue apologies, request more information, and recommend monetary relief. Supporters of the settlement argue that the agreement reflects Trump’s long-running promise to end government abuse and politically motivated prosecutions. Trump made that case during his second inaugural address, saying the power of the state should never again be used to persecute political opponents. A spokesman for Trump’s legal team said the president entered the settlement “squarely for the benefit of the American people,” while continuing his fight to hold accountable those who wronged Americans. The DOJ has argued that the fund fits within existing legal authority for settlement payments, pointing to the Judgment Fund and prior claims processes as precedent. The administration says the new structure is intended to create a formal, flexible mechanism for reviewing claims from across the political spectrum.

An arrest warrant has been issued for an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officer accused of shooting a Venezuelan migrant and lying about the circumstances surrounding the incident. Hennepin County Attorney Mary Moriarty announced Monday that ICE officer Christian Castro has been charged with four counts of second-degree assault and one count of falsely reporting a crime involving an attempted arrest in January, according to NBC News. Castro is accused of firing his weapon at the front door of a Minneapolis home “with the intent to cause fear of immediate bodily harm or death to the four adults who were just inside the door,” Moriarty said during a Monday news conference. “Mr. Castro fired his service weapon at the front door of the home, knowing there were people who had just run inside that presented absolutely no threat to him or anyone else,” Moriarty said. According to Moriarty, the bullet pierced the front door and struck Venezuelan migrant Jose Sosa-Celis in the leg before traveling through a closet and lodging in the wall of a child’s bedroom. At the time of the shooting, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) claimed that Sosa-Celis tried to “evade arrest” before he “began to resist and violently assault” a federal officer. DHS said two other individuals came out of a nearby apartment and began attacking the officer “with a snow shovel and broom handle.” Sosa-Celis then “got loose and began striking the officer with a shovel or broomstick.” The officer “fired a defensive shot” after “fearing for his life and safety,” hitting Sosa-Celis in the leg, DHS said. Sosa-Celis and the two others “ran back into the apartment and barricaded themselves inside” before ICE arrested the trio. Acting ICE Director Todd Lyons announced in February the opening of a federal investigation after video footage showed that “sworn testimony provided by two separate officers appears to have made untruthful statements.” The officers were also placed on administrative leave. “Lying under oath is a serious federal offense,” Lyons said. “The men and women of ICE are entrusted with upholding the rule of law and are held to the highest standards of professionalism, integrity, and ethical conduct,” he said. “Violations of this sacred sworn oath will not be tolerated. ICE remains fully committed to transparency, accountability, and the fair enforcement of our nation’s immigration laws.” A federal judge dismissed charges against the two migrants in February after the U.S. Attorney for the District of Minnesota filed a motion to dismiss, citing “newly discovered evidence” that was “materially inconsistent with the allegations” made against the pair, according to the Associated Press. During Monday’s press conference, Moriarty said Castro “was not under any physical threat when he fired his weapon, or even beforehand,” according to NBC News. “He was not hit by a shovel or a broom. In fact, he was not hit at all,” she said. The latest charges come a month after Moriarty issued a separate arrest warrant for another ICE officer accused of flashing a gun at motorists while passing them on a highway. The Minnesota State Patrol received a 911 call in February from the alleged victims who said a driver pulled up next to them on the shoulder of a highway and pointed a gun at them, Moriarty said at an earlier press conference. The Trump administration pulled back its deployment of hundreds of federal agents to the Twin Cities after the deadly, immigration officer-involved shootings of Alex Pretti and Renee Good. President Donald Trump also sent his border czar, Tom Homan, to quell the chaos and broker agreements between ICE and local authorities. Trump subsequently fired then-Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem in the wake of the two fatal shootings.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is gearing up for yet another political battle as the Israeli Knesset weighs dissolving early ahead of elections expected this fall. For many Israelis, the coming vote will be another referendum on Netanyahu himself.  After years of political chaos, repeated elections, war, and deep internal divisions, the campaign is shaping up less as a debate over policy and more as a simple question facing the country yet again: whether Israelis want the Bibi era to continue. Netanyahu is facing political pressure from multiple directions ahead of the upcoming election. His coalition is fracturing over the controversial issue of military exemptions for ultra-Orthodox Israelis, public anger over the failures surrounding the October 7 attacks continues, and opposition parties are attempting to unite. Netanyahu is no stranger to political survival. Even before the October 7 attacks, Israel had already gone through four elections in just a few years as coalition governments repeatedly fell apart. Netanyahu himself served as prime minister from 1996 to 1999 and then again from 2009 to 2021, becoming the longest-serving prime minister in Israeli history. His current government is now approaching the end of his four half term in office, which is the maximum allowed under Israeli law and a rare achievement in Israel’s notoriously unstable parliamentary system. Elections must legally be held by October 27 at the latest.  While the Israel Netanyahu governs today is different from the country that existed before October 7, focus is shifting back to deep domestic divisions. Just prior to the Hamas attacks, Israel was consumed by internal division over Netanyahu’s proposed judicial reforms, with massive protests rocking the country and raising fears of a constitutional crisis.  Then came October 7, the deadliest terrorist attack in Israeli history, followed by war in Gaza and escalating regional conflict involving Iran and its proxies. In the aftermath, a wartime coalition government was formed, temporarily muting some political tensions while all focus was on ensuring the Jewish state’s defense and survival.  Now, even as negotiations with Iran continue to stall and fears of a broader regional war remain, Israeli domestic tensions are once again exploding ahead of a possible election. At the center of the immediate political crisis is one of the most sensitive issues in Israeli society: military service exemptions for the Haredi, or ultra-Orthodox, community.  Netanyahu’s coalition included and depended on Haredi political parties that oppose drafting young men studying in religious seminaries, or yeshivas, into the Israel Defense Forces. Many ultra-Orthodox leaders fear military service could pull students away from religious studies, expose them to secular and forbidden lifestyles, or place them under non-religious authority structures.  But after nearly three years of war, support has grown significantly among the broader Israeli public for requiring Haredi Israelis to serve alongside their peers. Many Israelis argue the military needs additional manpower to alleviate reservists who have carried an unsustainable burden through repeated deployments since October 7. Others say it is unfair that Haredi communities receive significant economic assistance without their young people serving in the military. That is not to say that no Haredi Israelis serve in the military. While still a minority, some ultra-Orthodox men do enlist, including in the IDF’s all-ultra-Orthodox Hasmonean Brigade. The brigade, founded after October 7 in response to the needed manpower and the sense of duty that some Haredi men felt to protect their nation, operates as an all-male unit with religious accommodations for its soldiers.  According to Ynet, the brigade has recently carried out raids targeting weapons and terrorist infrastructure in Lebanon, while its first class of soldiers also recently completed officer training courses. If the Knesset dissolves this week, the timing itself would only move elections up by a matter of weeks, but it would create one significant complication. Israel will enter what is known as a caretaker government, in which the outgoing government continues governing with limited powers until a new coalition is formed after elections in order to avoid a vacuum in leadership.  During that period, key appointments cannot easily be confirmed, which has become a major issue because Israel has still not finalized confirmation of a new Mossad director, a priority Netanyahu reportedly wants completed. At the same time, caretaker governments can be advantageous to sitting prime ministers by giving them greater operational flexibility with an inactive Knesset. Dissolving the government early could also help ensure elections take place several weeks before the third anniversary of October 7, when public anger and emotions surrounding the attacks could intensify even further.  The opposition is already preparing to make the next election a referendum on accountability for October 7. Former Prime Minister Naftali Bennett has pledged that if he forms the next government, the very first cabinet meeting would establish a formal commission of inquiry into the failures that led to the October 7 massacre. Several opposition figures argue Israel must fully investigate what went wrong militarily, politically, and institutionally.  Bennett is attempting to rebuild a coalition spanning the Israeli political spectrum. Politically, he is trying to convince centrist and left-leaning voters that he can pull support away from Netanyahu while also reassuring conservatives who abandoned him after he previously partnered with left-wing and Muslim Brotherhood-aligned Arab parties in 2021 to remove Netanyahu from power.  Former IDF Chief of Staff Gadi Eisenkot is also emerging as a major political figure. Viewed as a centrist with strong national security credentials, Eisenkot has become increasingly attractive to voters seeking military credibility without Netanyahu’s polarizing political baggage. His recently-founded Yashar political party has already caught the eye of many Israelis. Polling shows the opposition could become significantly stronger if alliances form. According to a recent Maariv poll, 55% of Israelis surveyed said Netanyahu should retire from political life, while only 38% said he should continue running. The same poll found that if Eisenkot joined Bennett and left-wing opposition leader Yair Lapid on a joint list, the alliance could potentially win 49 seats in the Knesset. A minimum of 61 seats is needed to form a governing coalition. It’s important to note that Israeli polling remains notoriously unreliable at this stage because the final political alignments remain unclear. A political insider compared the current numbers to early American presidential straw polls conducted before candidates officially announce their campaigns.  Another insider added that the upcoming election will likely be another referendum on “Bibi,” with many voters sorting themselves into camps that are pro-Netanyahu, anti-Netanyahu, or anti-anti-Netanyahu — meaning voters who may not personally support Netanyahu but are exhausted by what they see as relentless political opposition to him.  One insider described it as a type of political infection similar to Trump derangement syndrome. “They will do anything to get rid of Bibi, even allying with those they have far deeper ideological disagreements with politically.” Some of Netanyahu’s supporters see him as advantageous both because he is feared by his country’s enemies and because of his close relationship to President Donald Trump. While some Americans believe removing Netanyahu from power could significantly alter Israel’s wartime posture, many analysts believe an opposition government would prosecute the wars in Gaza and against Iran-backed forces in largely similar ways.  The bigger question may be whether a government without Netanyahu may be more open to international pressure for a Palestinian state in Gaza and parts of the West Bank, also known as Judea and Samaria. Especially if expanding the Abraham Accords to include Saudi Arabia required concessions on Palestinian statehood. Some Israelis also believe that a different leader could repair their country’s relations with leaders in Europe and Democrats in the United States. Netanyahu’s age and health may also become factors in the campaign. The 76-year-old prime minister has dealt with heart-related health issues in and recently underwent treatment for prostate cancer.  For now, it appears Netanyahu intends to run again. It’s never been his nature to back down from a fight, especially one that could protect his legacy. But after years of political dominance, coalition maneuvering, and survival, the next Israeli election may become the clearest test yet of whether the country is ready to move beyond the Netanyahu era.