News Starfleet Academy Avery Brooks Gave His Blessing to Starfleet Academy’s Big Sisko Episode Writer Tawny Newsome breaks down the battle to pay tribute to Captain Sisko and Avery Brooks in Starfleet Academy’s latest episode By Matthew Byrd | Published on February 6, 2026 Photo: John Medland/Paramount+ Comment 0 Share New Share Photo: John Medland/Paramount+ Note: This article contains light spoilers for Star Trek: Starfleet Academy episode 5 “Series Acclimation Mil.” While we won’t dive into the full spoilers here (you can find more of those in this review), it’s safe to call Star Trek: Starfleet Academy‘s latest episode (“Series Acclimation Mil”) a massive tribute to both Deep Space Nine and Avery Brooks’ beloved character, Captain Benjamin Sisko. Starfleet Academy co-showrunner Noga Landau even referred to it as a love letter to both DS9 and Sisko in our recent interview with them. And now, in an expansive (and excellent) interview with TrekMovie, episode writer Tawny Newsome explains how the episode came about. “I was pretty adamant that for this episode, it was our job to make this an homage, a celebration, and really a bit of a correction for what I feel has been an oversight in a lot of modern Trek,” says Newsome. “We haven’t talked nearly enough about the Siskos, about Benjamin Sisko, or about the show Deep Space Nine at all, despite it being a massive addition to our canon. So I was pretty adamant. I’ll say I was frothing at the mouth some days about how important this was. So if anyone thought it was too much canon, they shared those details among themselves.” Even though Starfleet Academy‘s writers have thus far not shied away from using the series’ setting and premise as an excuse to dive deep into Star Trek lore, the Sisko storyline is its own beast. Not only is it a relatively deep cut (despite DS9‘s resurging popularity in more recent years), but addressing that storyline at all means running the risk of interfering with the deliberate ambiguity that makes it so powerful. So far as that goes, Newsome and the writers wanted to work as closely as they could with the DS9 crew in order to make sure they were doing the right thing. That process involved partnering with one of the biggest players in the Sisko storyline, actor Cirroc Lofton, who played Jake Sisko in DS9. “Cirroc and I were on the phone and at lunches for months and months and months and months trying to figure out how we could get this done,” says Newsome of working with Lofton. “Getting the episode made was such a gargantuan feat, and I have had so many partners locked arm-in-arm in battle. Between [co-showrunners] Noga Landau and Alex [Kurtzman], Cirroc, [executive producer] Aaron Baiers… don’t even know where to start, but all I can tell you is that it was seemingly so impossible to be able to address the hugeness of the Sisko story with some of the limitations that we have because of canon, some of the limitations that we have because of available actors. And we really just wanted to honor the man, Avery Brooks.” Brooks retired from acting roughly 20 years ago, but even if he was willing to appear on the show, having him on-screen again risked compromising the story the team was trying to tell. However, Brooks was a presence behind the scenes where he approved of the episode nearly every step of the way. “I don’t know if he has seen it yet, but he has read it,” Newsome says of Brooks’ involvement. “It was really important for us as the writers to get his blessing at multiple steps along the way, thanks to Cirroc, who deserves an executive producer credit for this episode. He was well aware of things, maybe even before I was authorized to share them. But I was like, ‘We got to make sure Mr. Brooks is cool with this.'” Though Brooks doesn’t make a physical cameo, we do hear Sisko’s voice towards the end of the episode. Interestingly, that audio clip wasn’t taken from DS9 but came from a more personal source. “That is a private recording that belonged to Mr. Brooks that he very graciously allowed us to use,” Newsome reveals regarding the audio that was taken from Brooks’ spoken word album Here. “I still get chills thinking about how it came to be, because I was very anxious asking him for anything. Because this man has given so much of his artistry, his life and himself to this franchise… he very graciously allowed us to have this.” Perhaps more importantly, Newsome feels that the writers were able to honor Brooks’ long-standing belief that Sisko would never abandon his family without them actually having to show the character or even definitively say what happened to him. “We had to square that with the fact that we have seen a lot added to the canon, and there hasn’t been any mention of seeing him,” Newsome muses. “So we sort of had to get into the territory of something that maybe science and Starfleet records can’t explain. So that’s why we wanted to put it in Jake’s mouth at the end where he literally says, ‘I can’t prove it.’ But all those things you think he missed, he didn’t. He was there.” And even though the entire episode is a tribute to Star Trek fandom as much as it is a tribute to Brooks and Sisko, Newsome says she snuck in one additional Easter egg few fans may pick up on. “I made them put in Kerrice [SAM] saying some version of ‘I can live with it,'” Newsome says regarding a variation of one of Sisko’s most impactful lines. “And someone who kept doing a version of the script later kept taking it out. And I kept putting it back in, probably seven or eight times. And finally, it made it to it made it to filming.” [end-mark] The post Avery Brooks Gave His Blessing to <i>Starfleet Academy</i>’s Big Sisko Episode appeared first on Reactor.

After the world’s largest organization of plastic surgeons recommended delaying “transgender” surgery until a patient reaches the age of 19, the American Medical Association stated it would follow that guidance—but added a key word that set off alarm bells for one medical watchdog group. The AMA, America’s most influential doctor association, has long advocated against laws to restrict experimental transgender interventions euphemistically described as “gender-affirming care.” This activism may complicate any attempt to shift from previous support for these interventions. “It is no surprise the AMA chooses to leave itself wiggle room, given its record of opposing government protections for minors from harmful transgender procedures,” Dr. Kurt Miceli, a board-certified physician in psychiatry and internal medicine who serves as chief medical officer at Do No Harm, told The Daily Signal on Thursday. The American Society of Plastic Surgeons, citing a peer-reviewed study from the Department of Health and Human Services, concluded that “there is insufficient evidence demonstrating a favorable risk-benefit ratio for the pathway of gender-related endocrine and surgical interventions in children and adolescents.” “ASPS recommends that surgeons delay gender-related breast/chest, genital, and facial surgery until a patient is at least 19 years old,” the society added. AMA’s Position The American Medical Association told National Review that it agrees with ASPS, but critics say it misstated the society’s position. “Our colleagues at ASPS concluded that the evidence supporting gender-related surgery in minors is insufficient and of low certainty,” the AMA said in the statement, also provided to The Daily Signal. “The American Medical Association respects the expertise and dedication of surgeons who care for patients every day.” “The AMA supports evidence-based treatment, including gender-affirming care,” the statement added. “Currently, the evidence for gender-affirming surgical intervention in minors is insufficient for us to make a definitive statement. In the absence of clear evidence, the AMA agrees with ASPS that surgical interventions in minors should be generally deferred to adulthood.” This week, both the American Medical Association and American Society of Plastic Surgeons warned about the risks of gender transition surgeries for kids and teens.“In the absence of clear evidence, surgical interventions in minors should be generally deferred.”Their decisions… pic.twitter.com/yPK3vlZKLj— Rob Bluey (@RobertBluey) February 6, 2026 Misleading? Do No Harm’s Miceli criticized the American Medical Association’s statement. He noted that its recommendation that surgical interventions “generally” be deferred to adulthood differed from the ASPS’s recommendation, which left no room for exceptions.  “The American Medical Association statement is purposefully vague and misstates ASPS’s clear rejection of all sex-change surgeries for minors,” the doctor told The Daily Signal. “The AMA also fails to address the insufficient evidence supporting endocrine interventions, unlike ASPS,” he added. “Waffling on a question this central to the safety and wellbeing of American children is unacceptable. The AMA must clarify its position and should definitively reject all sex-change procedures for minors.” On the latest episode of “The Signal Sitdown” @Schilling1776 brilliantly unpacks how conservatives have succeeded against transgenderism.WATCH?? pic.twitter.com/XciEm6FF3X— Bradley Devlin (@bradleydevlin) February 1, 2026 The American Medical Association’s History After the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (2022), the association launched the “Task Force to Preserve the Patient-Physician Relationship When Evidence-Based, Appropriate Care Is Banned or Restricted.” The task force focuses on abortion but also anticipated a strategy to prevent or mitigate “bans on other appropriate health care, such as gender affirming care.” The task force also includes an ad hoc committee focusing on addressing “barriers” to transgender medical interventions. The Daily Signal reached out to the organizations in the task force, including the Endocrine Society, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and the other members, asking if they would comment on the ASPS position and whether it would alter their advocacy with the task force. Most did not respond, though a few did. The Texas Medical Association told The Daily Signal that it “supports Texas physicians following Texas law in this matter.” Dr. Eric Wargotz, a pathologist and president of the Maryland State Medical Society, told The Daily Signal that his organization will follow the ASPS recommendation. “The Maryland State Medical Society’s position, generally, is we refer to the society and support their positions,” he said. “We feel they know the science better than we, as a general medical society, so we tend to follow their lead.” The American Society for Reproductive Medicine referred The Daily Signal to its 2021 ethics statement that patients who identify as transgender should receive access to fertility services. The American Academy of Pediatrics, by contrast, told U.S. News & World Report that its position had not changed. “The guidance from the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) for health care for young people with gender dysphoria does not include a blanket recommendation for surgery for minors,” Dr. Andrew Racine, the AAP’s president, said. “The AAP continues to hold to the principle that patients, their families and their physicians — not politicians — should be the ones to make decisions together about what care is best for them.” HHS Weighs In The Department of Health and Human Services declined to comment directly on the AMA’s position, but a spokesperson told The Daily Signal that “HHS continues to fight to protect America’s children from irreversible harm outlined in the Department’s peer-reviewed report.” HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. praised the ASPS for its new position. “We commend the American Society of Plastic Surgeons for standing up to the overmedicalization lobby and defending sound science,” Kennedy said in a statement Tuesday. “By taking this stand, they are helping protect future generations of American children from irreversible harm.” The post Is the American Medical Association Really Changing Course on Transgender Surgery for Minors? appeared first on The Daily Signal.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. A familiar storyline is hardening into regulatory doctrine across Europe: frame social media use as addiction, then require platforms to reengineer themselves around age segregation and digital ID. The European Commission’s preliminary case against TikTok, announced today, shows how that narrative is now being operationalized in policy, with consequences that reach well beyond one app. European regulators have accused TikTok of breaching the Digital Services Act by relying on what they describe as “addictive design” features, including infinite scroll, autoplay, push notifications, and personalized recommendations. Officials argue these systems drive compulsive behavior among children and vulnerable adults and must be structurally altered. What sits beneath that argument is a quieter requirement. To deliver different “safe” experiences to minors and adults, platforms must first determine who is a minor and who is not. Any mandate to offer different experiences to minors and adults depends on a reliable method of telling those groups apart. Platforms cannot apply separate algorithms, screen-time limits, or nighttime restrictions without determining a user’s age with a level of confidence regulators will accept. Commission spokesman Thomas Regnier described the mechanics bluntly, saying TikTok’s design choices “lead to the compulsive use of the app, especially for our kids, and this poses major risks to their mental health and wellbeing.” He added: “The measures that TikTok has in place are simply not enough.” The enforcement tool behind those statements is the Digital Services Act, the EU’s platform rulebook that authorizes Brussels to demand redesigns and impose fines of up to 6% of global annual revenue. The commission said TikTok may need to change the “basic design” of its service, including disabling infinite scroll over time, enforcing stronger screen-time breaks at night, and altering its recommender system. Those changes depend on user classification. A platform cannot apply one algorithm to children and another to adults without reliably knowing which is which. Age self-declaration is widely dismissed by regulators as insufficient. That leaves identity checks, government-issued documents, facial analysis, or other biometric estimation systems. Each option introduces new data collection layers that did not previously exist. TikTok has rejected the accusations. “The Commission’s preliminary findings present a categorically false and entirely meritless depiction of our platform, and we will take whatever steps are necessary to challenge these findings through every means available to us,” the company said in a statement. The commission’s case file emphasizes usage statistics to support its view. Regnier said TikTok has 170 million users in the EU and claimed “most of these are children.” He cited unspecified data showing that 7% of children aged 12 to 15 spend four to five hours daily on the app, and that it is “by far” the most used platform after midnight among 13- to 18-year-olds. “These statistics are extremely alarming,” he said. From the regulator’s perspective, those numbers justify deeper intervention. Investigators argue that TikTok ignores signals of compulsive use, such as repeated nighttime sessions and frequent app openings by minors, and that its safeguards are not “reasonable, proportionate and effective.” Existing time management tools are described as easy to dismiss, while parental controls are portrayed as demanding too much effort. TikTok counters that it already offers custom screen-time limits, sleep reminders, and teen accounts that allow parents to set boundaries and prompt evening log-offs. The company says these features allow users to make “intentional decisions” about their time on the app. The broader policy direction is not limited to Europe. Australia has banned social media for under-16s, and governments in Spain, France, Britain, Denmark, Malaysia, and Egypt are pursuing similar paths. In the United States, TikTok recently settled a lawsuit centered on social media addiction, while Meta’s Instagram and Google’s YouTube still face claims tied to youth harm. Across jurisdictions, the addiction frame performs a specific function. By presenting platform use as a health risk, regulators gain justification to demand persistent monitoring, differentiated treatment, and verification of user attributes. Age becomes a regulatory gateway, and identity systems become the enforcement infrastructure. More: The Gospel of the Anxious Generation That trajectory raises unresolved questions about privacy and data minimization. Age verification systems, whether based on documents or biometrics, require platforms to collect and process more sensitive information than they do today. Once established, such systems are difficult to limit to a single purpose. The same rails built to separate children from adults can later be repurposed for other forms of access control. The commission has said its preliminary findings do not determine the final outcome and that TikTok will have the opportunity to respond. If Brussels proceeds to a non-compliance decision, remedies could include mandatory redesigns alongside financial penalties. A recent precedent illustrates how forcefully the DSA can be applied. Last year, Elon Musk’s platform X was fined for DSA breaches, including what the EU described as a “deceptive” verification badge and barriers to advertising research. The TikTok case signals that the next phase of online regulation is less about individual posts and more about identity, classification, and algorithmic permissioning. Framed as child protection, it advances a model in which access to digital speech increasingly depends on proving who you are and how old you are, before the feed even begins. In a statement from the US House Judiciary Committee, which has questioned the EU’s fine against X, said “the Commission’s punitive actions against platforms have proven to be pretextual to coerce platforms to censor more political speech.” The Committee also added, “The Committee is deeply concerned that the Commission may be weaponizing the DSA against any company that complies with a lawfully issued congressional subpoena.” If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post Massive TikTok Fine Threat Advances Europe’s Digital ID Agenda appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

Police Finally Make Arrests in Minneapolis

Wednesday's NewsNight With Abby Phillip on CNN may have set a new low, or come close to doing so, if we weren't talking about the world of liberal media, when CNN Analyst Bakari Sellers referred to Vice President JD Vance as, "an A-hole," while weighing in on remarks he made during a recent interview with The Daily Mail.  Vance refused to apologize for reposting a a post by White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller, which claimed that ICE shooting victim Alex Pretti was an "assassin." Sellers, who seemed overly interested in the race and sexuality of shooting victims, pulled no punches as he asserted "two people are murdered in the street." SELLERS: ..And then you get to Alex Pretti and you have a straight white male who's a gun owner, who's gunned down in the street, street, shot ten times for our eyes to see. And then the tides change. What you saw from J.D. Vance was J.D. Vance being an A-hole. And that's emblematic of the White House. But even more importantly, it's something that shows a bit of naivete from the Vice President in that he's not reading the same tea leaves that even Donald Trump is reading. The majority of white male evangelicals are fleeing away from this, you know, ICE in the middle of the streets, taking women and children out, shooting white people in the middle of the streets. So let's review: Abby Phillip pounced on Shermichael Singleton as disrespectful for the sentence "I don't believe boys should play girl sports.” That was impolite, to call a boy a boy. But you can call the vice president an "A-hole." That's somehow not disrespectful.  The closest anyone came to confronting Sellers on his outrageous remark was Federalist Reporter Brianna Lyman. LYMAN: I wanted to go back to something you said, Bakari. It seems that the topic of this conversation right now is whether J.D. Vance should have apologized or taken back labeling Pretti as an assassin, because, you know, some say that he jumped to conclusions. You just accuse ICE agents and Border Patrol of murder. Aren't you going to say like, why don't we wait for the investigation? Like don't you want to also wait for the investigation instead of prematurely.. a homicide doesn't mean murder...[Crosstalk] SELLERS: ..You asked me a question I'm going to answer. And so, no, I'm not going to back away from the fact that what I saw with my own eyes were two people who were murdered in the street. The reason I say that is based upon my lived experience. The reason I say that is because I'm in courtrooms around the country and I actually deal with people like the families of Renee Good, like the families of Alex Pretti. His bizarre and senseless analysis continued. SELLERS: ...If you get into a skirmish with an officer, many times, if they shoot you, that is a murder. You know why? Because in this country, in the United States of America, resisting arrest, you know what, that's not a death penalty crime. LYMAN: No, trying to run someone over with your car is a crime. SELLERS: Yes, but that's not.. LYMAN: That's what Renee Good did. The back and forth between the two continued, and soon Scott Jennings questioned Sellers. JENNINGS: You would advise a person or a client of yours to literally engage in the middle of an active law enforcement matter? SELLERS: If they see something wrong, I would say yes. I would say, definitely.. JENNINGS: That's a crime...You're advising people to commit crimes. Sensing his foot in his mouth, Sellers felt the need to clarify. SELLERS: ..If my client came to me and said, Bakari, I was outside and I saw something going down and I saw somebody being abused and I went and tried to put myself in between them, or I raised the camera, do not hit officers, do not spit on officers. But, yes, by all means, if you see something wrong, videotape it... Simply put, it was not a good night for Sellers, and one would think that as a "journalist", Phillip would have asked him to apologize for his vulgarity aimed at Vance. Oh, sorry, "This Is CNN."

BlazeTV host Liz Wheeler has done some investigation into Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), and what she found has her asking whether or not Omar could face denaturalization — or even deportation — if her U.S. citizenship was obtained through fraud.And Department of Homeland Security Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs Tricia McLaughlin may have some answers.“I wonder if the Department of Homeland Security is aware of this potential asylum fraud on the part of Ilhan Omar’s father that ended up begetting her ability to be a naturalized citizen,” Wheeler tells McLaughlin.“We’re certainly aware of this, and it’s something that has been looked into. Under U.S. law, the grounds for denaturalization is if citizenship was procured on the basis of fraud. It’s very much a case-by-case basis,” McLaughlin responds.“That’s something of course that the president has Truthed quite a bit about this, and that’s something that people are looking into,” she adds.Wheeler points out that several weeks ago, Tom Homan also said that the DHS was looking into her case.“But there’s various aspects of her case. There’s the case of, you know, her marriage to her brother. There’s the case of some money issues. There’s the case of her father. And it seems to me if her father had committed fraud with his asylum case, and she was a minor at the time, then her naturalized citizenship would have been obtained invalidly,” Wheeler says.“That’s certainly what it sounds like could be the case there,” McLaughlin says. “Like I said, under U.S. law, if the grounds for citizenship is based on fraud, then ... denaturalization is certainly a possibility.”Want more from Liz Wheeler?To enjoy more of Liz’s based commentary, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Talk about retro!Pop star Billie Eilish accepted her "Best Song" Grammy Sunday night with a speech guaranteed to slay ... six years ago.Add Jamie Lee Curtis to the list of liberals who say every Trump move is meant to distract us from the Epstein files.In 2026? Even Iron Eyes Cody would have cringed at her “we’re living on stolen land” shtick.Bummer Billie wasn't all gloom and doom, admitting that "I feel really hopeful in this room" and that "our voices really do matter."We're hopeful, too, young lady!In a heartening display of unity, middle-of-the-road publications like Newsweek, Parade magazine, and even liberal geek forum ScreenRant joined the usual conservative outlets in skewering Eilish's hypocrisy.It seems the "Wildflower" singer's $3 million Glendale mansion sits on the Tongva tribe's ancestral land. They made their voices heard too, by the way, offering Eilish a satirical "eviction" notice.Virtue-signaling sure ain't what it used to be!View's clues“The View” may actually be watchable, at least for a week.The show has avoided adding a real conservative to its panel following Meghan McCain’s 2021 departure. McCain loathed President Donald Trump, but she held her fellow panelists’ feet to the fire. She even did her research, something that can rarely be said about her colleagues.It’s been a one-sided jamboree ever since, with faux conservative Alyssa Farah Griffin fumbling as the show’s token Republican.Enter Savannah Chrisley, an openly pro-MAGA pundit. She’ll be filling in for Griffin during the co-host’s maternity leave for one week, starting February 16.This might be a trial balloon to see if actual debate can exist on the conspiracy-theory-addled show. Or the producers want to see if Joy and Co. can cross-talk Chrisley so aggressively that no Trump-friendly female will follow in her high heels …RELATED: Billie Eilish's virtue signal backfires as native tribe says her $3M mansion is 'in our ancestral land' Photos by ANGELA WEISS/AFP via Getty Images (L), FREDERIC J. BROWN/AFP via Getty Images (R)Spitting imageThat “Exorcist” reboot proved to be one of 2023’s biggest duds. Whose bright idea was it to take pea soup off the menu anyway?At least Universal — which paid $400 million for the rights to the iconic IP back in 2021 — appears to have learned from its mistakes. The studio has scrapped plans for a trilogy in favor of a fresh start. A new "Exorcist" film, helmed by horror vet Mike Flanagan (“The Haunting of Hill House,” “Doctor Sleep”), is slated to hit theaters in 2027.Did we mention it has four Oscar nominees in the cast? Scarlett Johansson. Laurence Fishburne. Chiwetel Ejiofor. Diane Lane. Let's hope that's enough star power to compel audiences to show up — and keep the franchise out of development hell. File-philesThey must all have the same script in hand. It’s the only explanation.Add Jamie Lee Curtis to the list of liberals who say every Trump move is meant to distract us from the Epstein files. Because, as we all know, President Joe Biden knew Trump was part of Jeffrey Epstein’s child sex ring but was too polite to share that information.To quote Dr. Evil, “Riiiiiiiiight.”The Oscar winner slammed ICE this week, adding the obligatory Epstein reference for good measure.“It is inhuman the way this administration is treating its citizens and its constituents and people in need. It’s an abhorrence what they’re doing. The ICE situation is out of control. It’s simply a distraction so that we don’t pay attention to the Epstein files.”So far, there’s nothing in said files to implicate Trump. Maybe the Mueller probe will get to the bottom of this …ShabustedShaboozey is learning one lesson the hard way: You can never, ever be woke enough.The “Bar Song (Tipsy)” singer joined the anti-ICE chorus at Sunday’s Grammy awards, expecting a flood of positive press. And that’s when the trouble began for him.“Immigrants built this country,” he said, hoisting his Grammy aloft. “So this is for them, for all children of immigrants.”Stunningbrave! (Or is it bravestunning?) Not so fast.A chorus of social media scolds attacked him for leaving black Americans out of his “built this country” shtick. Rather than risk a woke cancellation, he served up a mewling apology on his Instagram account.“To be clear, I know and believe that we — black people, have also built this country. … My words were never intended to dismiss that truth.”Who knows? Maybe he’ll write the first country song about being canceled and drowning his sorrows in a double shot of whiskey.

The most powerful pro-Israel lobby may have accidentally boosted a progressive rising star who has accused the Jewish state of committing genocide in Gaza. The New Jersey Democrat primary is in dead heat between former Rep. Tom Malinowski and Analilia Mejia, who has secured the backing of prominent Democrats like Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. In the race to replace Mikie Sherrill, who was just elected to serve as New Jersey's governor, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee is once again putting its thumb on the scale. 'AIPAC has historically enjoyed a winning streak of ousting anti-Zionist Democrats.'Malinowski criticized aid to Israel, prompting a multimillion-dollar ad campaign against the Democrat funded by AIPAC. The campaign hammered Malinowski for his track record on immigration, attempting to frame the Democrat as a pro-Immigration and Customs Enforcement candidate who approved President Donald Trump's deportation funding in 2019. RELATED: One Republican's rhetoric is even starting to spook pro-Israel groups Photo by Spencer Platt/Getty ImagesAIPAC likely projected the ad targeting Malinowski would boost pro-Israel Democratic Lt. Gov. Tahesha Way in the overcrowded primary, but polls show they may have massively underestimated Mejia. AIPAC has historically enjoyed a winning streak of ousting anti-Zionist Democrats, including Squad members like former Reps. Jamaal Bowman of New York and Cori Bush of Missouri. RELATED: Cori Bush brutally defeated in Dem primary — responds with unhinged tirade: ‘I’m coming to tear your kingdom down’ Heather Khalifa/Bloomberg via Getty ImagesThis time around, the race remains too close to call, with the latest poll results putting Mejia at a razor-thin advantage of less than 1%. New Jersey's 11th congressional districts used to be staunchly Republican but flipped to a deep-blue district in 2018, when Sherill defeated GOP candidate Jay Webber. Given the district's newly Democratic affiliation, a primary victory for Mejia would likely guarantee her a seat in the House of Representatives. Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

'Very Revealing'! One Short Word in AOC's WaPo Layoffs Take Gives Away How Dems View the Media

Olympic Boxing Scandal Explodes: Fighter Who Brutalized Female Athletes Finally Admits the Truth