Support from pro-Israel group AIPAC becomes a dividing line in Democratic races
Representative Haley Stevens, a Democrat from Michigan and US Senate candidate, speaks during the DC Blockchain Summit in Washington, DC, US, on Tuesday, March 17, 2026. (Photographer: Al Drago/Bloomberg via Getty Images)
(NEW YORK) — Against the backdrop of polls showing declining Democratic support for Israel — especially among young voters — the American Israel Public Affairs Committee’s support for candidates is under intense scrutiny and is becoming a dividing line in contentious Democratic primaries from Michigan to New Jersey.
A poll released earlier this month by the Pew Research Center shows that Americans’ views toward Israel are trending negative, especially among Democrats.
The survey found that 6 in 10 Americans have a very or somewhat unfavorable view of Israel. That number is up 7% since last year and 20 percentage points since 2022. Among Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents, the percentage who have a very or somewhat unfavorable opinion of Israeli was 80%.
One manifestation of those changing views is the increased scrutiny of political contributions from pro-Israel groups, especially AIPAC.
Conflicts over AIPAC funding have been fueled in part by the popularity of the group Citizens Against AIPAC Corruption, better known by their social media handle Track AIPAC, which says it’s a “grassroots effort to reveal and counter the influence of AIPAC and the Israel Lobby by systematically documenting their financial contributions to our federal officials” and accuses Israel of committing genocide in Gaza — a charge the Israeli government has long denied.
The group churns out graphics of donations to politicians to its audience of 400,000+ followers on X. These numbers include contributions by not just AIPAC but by individuals who have previously donated to groups it says are part of the “pro-Israel lobby.” That approach has received controversy, with critics saying it’s unfair to conflate the donations of individuals with the support of the pro-Israel lobby as whole.
AIPAC has been critical of Track AIPAC’s approach. National spokesperson Deryn Sousa described it in a statement to ABC as “an un-American and undemocratic online campaign that applies selective standards to stigmatize and silence pro‑Israel Democrats.”
Estimates of donations from the pro-Israel lobby were cited by an audience member in a town hall for Michigan Democratic Sen. Elissa Slotkin, who told the questioner, “If you’re equating “Israel lobby” to Jews, I got a problem with that.”
In Michigan, the Uncommitted National Movement, which encouraged opposition to then-President Joe Biden’s support of Israel’s war against Hamas in Gaza, received more than 100,000 votes in the 2024 Democratic presidential primary in the swing state.
Divisions over support for Israel have continued to dominate that state’s highly competitive Democratic Senate primary. Michigan is home to one of the largest Arab-American populations in the country as well as a sizeable Jewish community.
Senate candidate Dr. Abdul El-Sayed, the former Wayne County, Michigan, health director who ran unsuccessfully for governor in 2018, has been the most vocal on the issue, repeatedly calling the war in Gaza a genocide and criticizing his opponents for accepting donations from AIPAC and other pro-Israel groups.
Appearing alongside controversial podcaster and political commentator Hasan Piker on the campus of the University of Michigan, El-Sayed took explicit aim at AIPAC, saying, “No longer are we going to sit idly by while AIPAC tells us that the goal of our foreign policy is to align with a foreign government.”
Most of his criticism has been directed towards his opponent, Rep. Haley Stevens. Stevens, who is Jewish, was backed by AIPAC in her 2022 primary challenge of then-Rep. Andy Levin, a progressive Jewish member who had opposed some of Israel’s policies. Stevens recorded a video in support of AIPAC last month. The Democratic Majority for Israel — a pro-Israel group — has endorsed her Senate run.
The third candidate in the race, State Sen. Mallory McMorrow, has criticized Piker for some of his comments on Jews and the conflict in Gaza, calling it a genocide and promising not to take money from AIPAC.
Track AIPAC endorsed El-Sayed, calling him “the only candidate for US Senate in Michigan with the spine to call out Israel’s atrocities,” and saying “his voice can’t be bought.”
Nearby Minnesota also faces a progressive vs. centrist Senate battle between Rep. Angie Craig and Lt. Gov. Peggy Flanagan. While Flanagan has pledged not to take any funds from AIPAC, Craig has received funds in her past congressional races from AIPAC and has been endorsed by the Democratic Majority for Israel.
Craig has not received AIPAC funding in this race. When asked if it planned to make an endorsement in that race, Track AIPAC’s Co-Executive Director Cory Archibald, who has worked as a consultant for progressive Democrats like former Reps. Cori Bush and Jamaal Bowman, said that it will monitor the race “and we know AIPAC has an interest in who wins Minnesota.”
The track record of AIPAC’s spending in some of the year’s early primaries has been mixed. In New Jersey’s 11th Congressional District, AIPAC spent $2 million on ads attacking moderate Democratic incumbent Tom Malinowski, who supported some conditions on aid to Israel. That primary was won by progressive Analilia Meija, who has called Israel’s actions in Gaza a genocide. Track AIPAC ran an ad supporting her in that race, which marked its first-ever ad buy.
The issue of AIPAC support has emerged on the national level. The Democratic National Committee considered a proposal at its spring conference to condemn the “growing influence” of money in primaries, specifically citing AIPAC. That resolution failed. AIPAC celebrated the decision, saying that “the DNC made clear that all Democrats including millions who are AIPAC members have the right to participate fully in the democratic process.”
Track AIPAC says that despite that setback, it plans to remain “an important voice for change in this cycle and many more to come.”
Signage at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) headquarters in Washington, DC, US, on Tuesday, Feb. 10, 2026. Stefani Reynolds/Bloomberg via Getty Images
(WASHINGTON) — The Environmental Protection Agency has walked back a landmark environmental decision to regulate greenhouse gas emissions and fight climate change.
Calling it “the single largest deregulatory action in U.S. history,” the EPA announced Thursday that it was “eliminating both the Obama-era 2009 Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Endangerment Finding and all subsequent federal GHG emission standards for all vehicles and engines of model years 2012 to 2027 and beyond.”
For more than 16 years, the EPA’s endangerment finding served as the scientific and legal foundation for federal regulations on carbon dioxide and five other heat-trapping greenhouse gases. The 2009 decision found that certain greenhouse gases endanger public health and welfare. The regulations that resulted cover everything from vehicle tailpipe emissions to the release of greenhouse gases from power plants and other significant emission sources.
EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin made the announcement in the White House, alongside President Donald Trump.
“The Endangerment Finding has been the source of 16 years of consumer choice restrictions and trillions of dollars in hidden costs for Americans,” Zeldin said in a statement after the announcement. “The Trump EPA is strictly following the letter of the law, returning commonsense to policy, delivering consumer choice to Americans and advancing the American Dream.”
The EPA said the decision would “[save] American taxpayers over $1.3 trillion,” and “restores consumer choice, makes more affordable vehicles available for American families, and decreases the cost of living on all products by lowering the cost of trucks.”
In a statement to ABC News prior to Thursday’s announcement, the EPA called the endangerment finding “one of the most damaging decisions in modern history,” adding, “in the intervening years, hardworking families and small businesses have paid the price as a result.”
Some climate scientists and policy experts say the agency’s decision to repeal the finding, even just for cars and trucks, could significantly affect U.S. efforts to address human-amplified climate change. The EPA calculates that the transportation sector is the largest contributor of direct greenhouse gas emissions in the country, with cars and trucks accounting for more 75% of those emissions.
“This is taking away the principal federal authority to regulate greenhouse gases. All of the federal regulations under the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gases depend on the endangerment finding. If it’s wiped out, none of those regulations exist,” said Michael Gerrard, a professor at Columbia Law School and the faculty director of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law.
Gerrard said the immediate impact of the EPA’s decision will be somewhat muted by the fact that the Trump administration has already revoked most regulations on greenhouse gas emissions. These include greenhouse gas emission limits on passenger vehicles, emission controls on fossil fuel-powered power plants, and controls on methane leakage from oil and gas wells.
“But this action attempts to be the nail in the coffin of all those regulations, at least for the balance of the Trump administration,” Gerrard added.
Saying the decision “amounts to the largest act of deregulation in the history of the United States,” the Trump administration estimates the move will save Americans $1.3 trillion, primarily by reducing the cost of cars and trucks. The EPA said consumers will save more than $2,400 on the purchase of a new vehicle.
But Lou Leonard, dean of Clark University’s School of Climate, Environment, and Society, says the repeal could also result in companies facing more financial and legal challenges.
“It’s going to expose, particularly businesses that are very fossil fuel intensive, to legal claims that they might not have otherwise been exposed to,” said Leonard.
“When the EPA vacates the space legally and says we’re not going to regulate, we’re out of this game, then that not only creates room for other state and local governments to do their regulation, but it also creates room for legal claims against companies for not acting on climate, because they can’t say, well, we’re just following the regulations that the federal government has created,” he added.
“The EPA’s 2009 endangerment finding triggered a trillion-dollar regulatory cascade that Congress never authorized,” the conservative nonprofit Pacific Legal Foundation said in a statement to ABC News. “What began as authority to address regional smog and acid rain has been stretched to vehicle emissions, power plants, oil and gas operations, and federal lands – reshaping America’s entire energy economy and ability to harness natural resources through administrative fiat.”
The EPA’s expected repeal of the 2009 finding “restores the principle that decisions of this magnitude require clear congressional authorization, not bureaucratic improvisation,” the statement continued.
A widely anticipated decision
The announcement from the administration was widely anticipated; the Trump administration has made the endangerment finding’s review a priority since the first day of Trump’s second term.
On Jan. 20, 2025, Trump signed an executive order titled “Unleashing American Energy” that required the head of the EPA to work with other agencies to “submit joint recommendations to the Director of OMB on the legality and continuing applicability of the Administrator’s findings” regarding the endangerment finding. The order gave them 30 days to respond.
Then, in March, the EPA announced more than two dozen policy recommendations aimed at rolling back environmental protections and eliminating a series of climate change regulations, including plans to “formally reconsider the endangerment finding.”
In a statement at the time, EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin wrote, “The Trump Administration will not sacrifice national prosperity, energy security, and the freedom of our people for an agenda that throttles our industries, our mobility, and our consumer choice while benefiting adversaries overseas. We will follow the science, the law, and common sense wherever it leads, and we will do so while advancing our commitment towards helping to deliver cleaner, healthier, and safer air, land, and water.”
As part of the March announcement, the agency released a fact sheet about the endangerment finding, describing it as “the first step in the Obama-Biden Administration’s (and later the Biden-Harris Administration’s) overreaching climate agenda” and stating that it has cost the country trillions of dollars.
The EPA announced its proposal to rescind the endangerment finding in late July 2025, citing recent Supreme Court decisions that limited the regulatory power of executive agencies and arguing that the Obama administration misinterpreted Congress’s intent when it passed the Clean Air Act.
The Supreme Court case that led to the endangerment finding
The endangerment finding stems from the 2007 Supreme Court decision Massachusetts v. EPA, which held that the EPA could regulate greenhouse gases from motor vehicles under the 1970 Clean Air Act because those gases are air pollutants.
That ruling became the legal foundation for many of the federal government’s greenhouse gas emissions regulations for vehicles, fossil-fuel power plants, and other sources of pollution responsible for climate change.
Writing for the court at the time, Justice John Paul Stevens said, “If EPA makes a finding of endangerment, the Clean Air Act requires the agency to regulate emissions of the deleterious pollutant from new motor vehicles.”
“Under the clear terms of the Clean Air Act, EPA can avoid taking further action only if it determines that greenhouse gases do not contribute to climate change or if it provides some reasonable explanation as to why it cannot or will not exercise its discretion to determine whether they do,” Stevens added.
In 2009, the head of the EPA made a landmark environmental decision. Lisa P. Jackson, appointed by President Barack Obama to lead the agency, determined that the current and projected concentrations of six greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide, “endanger both the public health and the public welfare of current and future generations.” Her decision, based on a nearly 200-page EPA analysis of the science, more than 380,000 public comments and two public hearings, became what is now known as the “endangerment finding.”
Critics of decision say the underlying science is even stronger today
Critics of the administration’s plan to rescind the finding argue that the science linking greenhouse gas emissions to climate change is even stronger today than when the endangerment finding was established in 2009. They argue that the repeal lacks both a scientific basis and a legal foundation and will exacerbate the harmful impacts of climate change. Some are already promising to fight the decision in court.
“The Trump administration justifies this assault on science and our health by falsely claiming that U.S. climate-heating pollution doesn’t matter and that it lacks the authority to cut it. That’s a lie, and any 6-year-old knows it’s wrong to lie,” said Dan Becker, director of the Center for Biological Diversity’s Safe Climate Transport Campaign, in a statement to ABC News.
“The United States is the second-largest carbon polluter in the world after China, and the largest historical emitter of greenhouse gases. The U.S. emitted 11% of the world’s greenhouse gases in 2021, and during Trump’s first term his administration admitted that emissions in excess of 3% were ‘significant,’” he added.
“EPA’s own settled science shows that managing greenhouse gases is fundamental to protecting Americans. Rolling back these safeguards is a dangerous breach of responsibility to protect people, the environment, and our economy, benefitting polluters at the expense of all people,” said World Resources Institute (WRI) U.S. Director David Widawsky in a statement.
Overwhelming scientific evidence
In the more than 16 years since the EPA issued its 2009 endangerment finding, the science on how greenhouse gases impact human health has become more robust.
In response to the EPA’s request for public input, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine conducted a comprehensive independent assessment of the science behind the endangerment finding to help inform the agency’s final decision. They released their report in September, concluding the EPA’s 2009 determination was accurate and is now supported by stronger scientific evidence, with many uncertainties that existed at the time now resolved.
“[T]he evidence for current and future harm to human health and welfare created by human-caused greenhouse gases is beyond scientific dispute,” the report stated.
The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine are private, nonprofit institutions that provide independent, objective analysis and advice to the nation on such issues. They operate under an 1863 congressional charter to the National Academy of Sciences, signed by President Abraham Lincoln.
Similarly, the United Nations concluded that “health and the climate are inextricably linked, and today the health of billions is endangered by the climate crisis.” The U.N. cited severe weather events, toxic air pollution, an increased risk of infectious disease outbreaks, and extreme heat as evidence that human-amplified climate change poses a significant danger to people.
In 2021, 200 leading medical journals issued a joint editorial stating that “the science is unequivocal: a global increase of 1.5° C above the pre-industrial average and the continued loss of biodiversity risk catastrophic harm to health that will be impossible to reverse.”
And in 2023, the Fifth National Climate Assessment, a report that the federal government describes as providing “authoritative scientific information about climate change risks, impacts, and responses in the U.S.,” found that “climate changes are making it harder to maintain safe homes and healthy families; reliable public services; a sustainable economy; thriving ecosystems, cultures, and traditions; and strong communities.”
“This is another setback in the fight against climate change. We’re already seeing climate change having very negative impacts. It worsens flooding, heat waves, wildfires and other impacts. We’ve seen catastrophes already in the United States for all of these. We will see more,” Gerrard said.
What happens next?
A coalition of state attorneys general, including those from California, New York, Connecticut, and Massachusetts, along with environmental groups such as the Natural Resources Defense Council, has indicated they will challenge the EPA’s decision. They argue the action is unlawful because it ignores the agency’s obligations under the Clean Air Act to regulate pollutants that endanger public health and welfare.
“This action is unlawful, ignores basic science, and denies reality. We know greenhouse gases cause climate change and endanger our communities and our health – and we will not stop fighting to protect the American people from pollution,” said California Governor Gavin Newsom and Wisconsin Governor Tony Evers, who are also the co-chairs of the U.S. Climate Alliance.
While the courts could overturn the repeal, Gerrard said they could also rule that the EPA needs congressional authorization for significant regulatory actions.
“If the Supreme Court says that, that would tie the hands of another president in reinstating the endangerment finding and in using the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gases. It would not block another president from rejoining the Paris Agreement or doing lots of other things to fight climate change, but it would greatly hurt their ability to use the Clean Air Act,” said Gerrard.
Previous lawsuits challenged the endangerment finding itself, but the courts have consistently rejected those efforts. In 2012, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the endangerment finding after fossil fuel industry groups challenged the EPA’s use of scientific assessments. The court ruled that the EPA’s findings were supported by substantial evidence and that the agency had considered the scientific evidence in “a rational manner.” The following year, the Supreme Court declined to hear petitions specifically contesting the finding.
Leonard warns that it will be a “long road” to learn out how the decision plays out.
“There’s a lot of uncertainty, and we’re gonna have even more starting tomorrow or the next day, and that’s not good. It’s not good for the public health of Americans, it’s not good for the welfare of our communities, and it’s not good for the business climate and the economy in America,” said Leonard.
A memorial dedicated to the 19 children and two adults murdered on May 24, 2022 during a mass shooting at Robb Elementary School is seen on January 6, 2026, in Uvalde, Texas. Brandon Bell/Getty Images
(UVALDE, Texas) — Editor’s note: Some of the testimony described below is extremely graphic.
Gonzales — who was one of nearly 400 law enforcement officers to respond to Robb — is charged with child endangerment for allegedly ignoring his training during the botched police response. Nineteen students and two teachers were killed, and investigations have faulted the police response and suggested that a 77-minute delay in police mounting a counterassault could have contributed to the carnage.
Gonzales has pleaded not guilty and his legal team says he did all he could to help students.
Judge Sid Harle issued a warning to the gallery before the jury entered on Friday.
“I want to forewarn you, these photographs are going to be shocking and gruesome, and if anybody wants to step out, you are welcome to step out, but we cannot have any displays in front of the jury,” Harle said. “I’m forewarning you — these are not going to be pleasant to look at, and I’m sorry you’re going to have to look at them just like I had to.”
“There was a lot of shell casings,” said Torrez, who spent three days photographing the room. “There’s a lot of blood, a lot of blood swipes, and the weapon was in the closet.”
Using a pointer to highlight parts of the photos, Torrez testified about the location of the classroom, damage to the door and areas of the room where students didn’t attempt to hide. Defense lawyers had objected to showing the more graphic images, but Harle allowed the bulk of them into evidence due to their relevance to the prosecution’s case.
“Does the scene change?” prosector Bill Turner asked Torrez about some of the photos.
“As far as the presence of blood, it changes dramatically,” Torrez said. “A lot of bullet holes, a lot of shell casings covered in blood, a lot of bullet defects, perforations, penetrations, and just a lot of blood.”
Over the next hour, the courtroom fell almost entirely silent, other than the testimony and occasional ruffling of tissues and sniffling. Some of the jurors craned their necks to see the photos, while others covered their mouths or lifted tissues to wipe their eyes. The families of the victims sat quietly and no one left the courtroom during the testimony.
The photos did not show the bodies of students, which were removed prior to the photos being taken. But jurors did see photos showing large pools of blood and the drag marks made when the bodies were removed. Photos also showed dried bloodstains on desks, textbooks and office supplies.
Torrez testified that investigators placed rods in the cavities left by the bullets to demonstrate the direction of the gunshots. The pink and yellow rods showed that the shooter likely fired downward — through the desks — toward the sheltering students, Torrez said.
Torrez offered his testimony with little context other than his experience as a crime-scene photographer that day. Prosecutors did not explain how the images relate to Gonzales, other than suggesting that his alleged inaction contributed to the loss of life that day.
Defense attorneys say Gonzales is being scapegoated for a broader failure by law enforcement. In its opening statement this week, the defense alleged that prosecutors were playing on jurors’ emotions and that convicting Gonzales would be an injustice piled on top of one of the worst school shootings in U.S. history.
ABC News’ Juan Renteria contributed to this report.
Cindy McCain during a panel session at the World Economic Forum (WEF) in Davos, Switzerland, on Wednesday, Jan. 22, 2025. (Stefan Wermuth/Bloomberg via Getty Images)
(NEW YORK) — Cindy McCain will be stepping down as head of the United Nations World Food Programme to focus on her health, the humanitarian organization announced on Thursday.
McCain, 71, suffered a mild stroke in October 2025, according to the organization. She plans to step down as the group’s executive director in three months, it said.
“With a heavy heart, I am announcing my intention to step down as the Executive Director of the World Food Programme,” McCain said in a statement released through the organization. “Serving this incredible organization has been the honor of a lifetime.”
McCain, who is the widow of the late Arizona Sen. John McCain, stepped away for several months following her stroke before returning in early January to the organization’s headquarters in Rome. She said she hoped to complete her five-year term “but my health has not recovered to a level that allows me to fully serve the enormous demands of this job.”
“This is one of the most difficult decisions I have ever had to make,” McCain said. “Over the past three years, we have delivered life-saving and life-changing assistance for millions of the world’s most vulnerable people — and this unwavering commitment will be more important than ever in the years to come.”
McCain has been serving since April 2023 as the executive director of the World Food Programme, which has a presence in more than 120 countries and over 20,000 staff worldwide.
“During her tenure she has driven several unprecedented changes to reform and scale the organization’s abilities including overhauling its global structure, streamlining its operations and processes, scaling innovative digital technologies, and diversifying its public and private partnership efforts,” the World Food Programme said in a press release.
McCain previously served as the U.S. ambassador to the UN Agencies for Food and Agriculture for two years.
