Trump criticized for using antisemitic slur in Iowa speech
(DES MOINES, Iowa) — President Donald Trump celebrated the passage of his massive tax and policy bill during a “Salute to America” event in Des Moines, Iowa, a day ahead of the Fourth of July.
Jewish advocacy groups slammed President Donald Trump for using an anti-Semitic descriptor on Thursday during his Iowa speech celebrating the passage of his spending bill.
Trump used the term “Shylocks,” which evokes a centuries-old antisemitic trope about Jewish people and greed, to talk about the tax changes in the bill.
“No death tax, no estate tax, no going to the banks and bar exam from, in some cases a fine banker, and in some cases Shylocks and bad people, but they took away a lot of family. They destroyed a lot of families, but we did the opposite,” he told the crowd.
President Donald Trump speaks at a rally at the Iowa State Fairgrounds, July 3, 2025, in Des Moines, Iowa.
Charlie Neibergall/AP
Shylock is a reference to the name of the Jewish moneylender and villain in playwright William Shakespeare’s “The Merchant of Venice” who demands a “pound of flesh” from protagonist Antonio.
The Anti-Defamation League on Friday morning criticized the president, reiterating that the term is “extremely offensive and dangerous.”
“President Trump’s use of the term is very troubling and irresponsible. It underscores how lies and conspiracies about Jews remain deeply entrenched in our country. Words from our leaders matter and we expect more from the President of the United States,” the organization said in a statement.
Amy Spitalnick, the CEO of the Jewish Council for Public Affairs, also condemned Trump’s comments, saying in a statement it was one of “the most quintessential antisemitic stereotypes.”
“This is not an accident. It follows years in which Trump has normalized antisemitic tropes and conspiracy theories — and it’s deeply dangerous,” she added.
Trump was asked about his use of the word after he returned to Washington D.C. early Friday. The president, who has made combating antisemitism in schools a priority in his administration, claimed he has “never heard it that way.”
“To me, Shylock is somebody that’s a money lender at high rates. I’ve never heard it that way. You view it differently than me. I’ve never heard that,” Trump claimed.
This is not the first time that an executive branch member came under fire for using the term.
In 2014, then-Vice President Joe Biden took heat for using the term during the 40th anniversary celebration of the Legal Services Corporation, referring to predatory bankers as “these Shylocks who took advantage of these women and men while overseas.”
Biden apologized after then-Anti-Defamation League National Director Abraham Foxman criticized the use of the term.
“He’s correct, it was a poor choice of words, particularly as he said coming from ‘someone as friendly to the Jewish community and open and tolerant an individual as is Vice President Joe Biden.’ He’s right,” Biden said in a statement.
ABC News’ Benjamin Siegel contributed to this report.
(WASHINGTON) — The Supreme Court’s conservative majority on Tuesday signaled that it is poised to establish a right of parents to opt-out their children from public school instruction that conflicts with sincerely held religious beliefs.
The case, brought by a group of Christian, Muslim and Jewish parents from Montgomery County, Maryland, specifically seeks a guaranteed exemption from the classroom reading of storybooks with LGBTQ themes, including same-sex marriage and exploration of gender identity.
The parents allege use of the books in elementary school curriculum — without an opportunity to be excused — amounts to government-led indoctrination about sensitive matters of sexuality. The school board insists the books merely expose kids to diverse viewpoints and ideas.
The justices engaged in spirited debate for more than 2 1/2 hours of oral arguments, wrestling with where to draw the line between exposure and coercion, which is forbidden under the First Amendment.
“Is merely being exposed to the reading of the book out loud coercion?” asked Justice Sonia Sotomayor of the parents’ attorney Eric Baxter. “Is looking two men getting married — is that the religious objection?”
“Our parents would object to that,” Baxter replied.
Several of the court’s conservative members suggested an opt-out for sensitive subjects should be common sense.
“I’m a bit mystified as a lifelong resident of the county how it came to this,” said Justice Brett Kavanaugh. “I’m surprised that this is the hill we’re going to die on, in terms of not respecting religious liberty.”
In 2022, after introducing several LGBTQ-themed books into the language arts curriculum, the school board allowed parents to opt-out if the content was deemed objectionable as a matter of faith. One year later, officials reversed course and said an opt-out program had become unwieldy and ran counter to values of inclusion.
“I’m not understanding why it’s not feasible,” Kavanaugh said later. “The whole goal of some of our religious precedents is to look for the win/win.”
Justice Samuel Alito, who appeared most sympathetic to the parents, said he believes the five books in question — out of more than 100 in the school curriculum — “have a clear message” and that “a lot of people disagree with it.”
“What is the big deal about allowing them to opt out?” Alito asked Alan Schoenfeld, the county’s attorney. “Why is it not administrable? They are able to opt-out of the health class, right?”
Chief Justice John Roberts questioned whether elementary school students could realistically be assumed to understand that a presentation of the books was different than a teacher’s endorsement of them.
“I understand the idea when you’re talking about a sophomore, a junior, whatever, in high school,” Roberts said, “but I’m not sure that same qualifying factor applies when you’re talking about five-year-olds.”
Justice Neil Gorsuch suggested the board may have exhibited discriminatory “hostility” toward religion in reversing course on the opt-outs, while Justice Amy Coney Barrett appeared inclined to believe the board’s distinct purpose was to coerce children into accepting beliefs about sexuality.
“It was part of the curriculum to teach them that boys can be girls or boys can — or that your pronouns can change depending on how you feel one day to the next?” Barrett asked skeptically.
“Federal courts are not meant to sit as school boards in deciding these curriculum disputes,” Schoenfeld said later, noting that the Montgomery County board was democratically elected by local residents.
The court’s three liberal justices all vigorously challenged the parents’ request in the case, seeing opt-out rights as a slippery slope.
Sotomayor said the list of potential religiously offensive content is limitless, from depictions of women who work, to stories involving divorce, pictures of interfaith marriage, even teachings around evolution.
Justice Elena Kagan said the constitutional right parents are claiming is remarkably broad. “I’m searching for what in the legal arguments would allow us to draw lines in this area, and I’m not finding it,” Kagan said. “It’ll be like opt-outs for everyone.”
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson worried aloud that a decision siding with the parents could have far-reaching implications beyond books.
She asked about a gay teacher with a photo of his wedding on a desk, or a student group putting “love is love” posters around the campus, or about exposure to a transgender student in the classroom, where a teacher refers to them by their preferred pronouns?
“Is it a burden for a religious student who is being taught at home and through their religion that gender is not a situation that can be changed … to be in a public school classroom where the teacher is referring to another student by what this student believes is the wrong pronoun?” Jackson asked.
“That would, in fact, constitute a burden on religious exercise,” replied Baxter, implying such a student might have a case for an opt-out.
A decision in the case is expected by the end of June.
(WASHINGTON) — The world is waiting for President Donald Trump’s decision on whether the U.S. will join Israel in military action to wipe out Tehran’s nuclear facilities.
As he weighs his options, Trump is being squeezed by different pressures from forces at home and abroad.
The president huddled with advisers in the Situation Room twice already this week, and was set to do so again on Thursday. He approved attack plans presented to him but was waiting to see if Iran would be willing to negotiate and hasn’t made a final decision, sources familiar with the matter told ABC News.
Moving ahead with military action would be a departure from Trump’s “America First” campaign pledge to keep the U.S. out of foreign entanglements. The possibility he may do so has prompted a sharp rift in his Republican base of supporters.
Hawkish members of the GOP are pushing for Trump to take aggressive action rather than pursue diplomacy. Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham, during an interview on Fox News earlier this week, said the U.S. needs to “finish the job” with Iran.
Meanwhile, hugely popular MAGA media figures like Tucker Carlson and Steve Bannon who helped propel Trump’s movement in 2016 and in 2024 are calling for restraint.
A poll out on Wednesday from Fox News found voters split on the issues Trump is facing. A majority of registered voters surveyed believe Israel’s strikes on Iran’s nuclear program would result in more danger. But a majority also believes Iran poses a national security threat to the U.S.
Trump, in response to the disagreement among his base, says his supporters are “more in love” with him than ever.
Democrats in Congress are raising their own concerns over Trump’s war power authority. Sen Tim Kaine, a Virginia Democrat, moved to limit Trump’s powers by introducing a floor resolution that would require approval from Congress before the U.S. could get involved in a military conflict with Iran.
On the world stage, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is trying to press Trump to join the fray, arguing it’s in America’s interest.
“Today, it’s Tel Aviv. Tomorrow, it’s New York. Look, I understand ‘America First’. I don’t understand ‘America Dead.’ That’s what these people want,” Netanyahu told ABC News Chief Washington Correspondent Jonathan Karl last week.
Netanyahu pointedly added, “We’re not just fighting our enemy. We’re fighting your enemy. For God’s sake, they chant, “death to Israel, death to America.” We’re simply on their way. And this could reach America soon.”
Iran, however, and its allies (Russia and China) are pushing against U.S. involvement. Tehran has warned any action would be met with retaliation.
Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said on Wednesday: “The Americans should know, the Iranian nation will not surrender, and any intervention by the U.S. will be met with a forceful response and irreparable damage.”
“War will be met with war, bombing with bombing, and strike with strike. Iran will not submit to any demands or dictates,” Khamenei said.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, testifying before a Senate subcommittee on Wednesday, said the U.S. military was “ready and prepared” to carry out any decision Trump will make.
Hegseth told lawmakers that Trump “has options and is informed of what those options might be, and what the ramifications of those options might be.” He also said that “maximum force protection at all times is being maintained” for American troops in the region.
Trump offered a clue into his decision-making process as he took reporter questions in the Oval Office on Wednesday afternoon.
“I like to make the final decision one second before it’s due, because things change, especially with war,” the president said.
(WASHINGTON) — Gathered on the Senate floor after a 26-hour, record-breaking vote-a-rama series, senators voted hastily on two final Republican-led amendments before getting to the main event: final passage of President Donald Trump’s “big, beautiful bill.”
Vice President JD Vance was presiding over the chamber after breaking a tie on a previously considered wraparound amendment to the bill. It was assumed that he would soon break another tie on the bill’s final passage, with a number of Republican holdouts remaining to make the vote math still uncertain.
It was just a matter of who would be the third “no” vote Republicans could afford to lose and still pass the bill. Sens. Thom Tillis and Rand Paul had already committed to voting it down.
Sen. Lisa Murkowski was widely thought to be the last opponent, with a temporary SNAP carveout for her state of Alaska hanging in the balance down until the last minute.
When the final vote started, Murkowski was seated in the second row near the middle of the chamber. Next to her was Mississippi GOP Sen. Roger Wicker and next to him was another moderate Republican Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, who eventually proved to be the third and final GOP “no” vote.
Collins, dressed in a hot-pink pantsuit, votes near the top of the alphabet. But she left near the beginning of the vote’s final passage to go to the cloakroom. She missed her chance to vote when her name was called, coming out shortly after and walking directly to Murkowski. Collins put her arm around Murkowski, and then went up to the clerk and put her thumb down: no. She then left the chamber.
Focus was then squarely on Murkowski, whose vote could have tanked the entire bill. But former Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell came up to sit next to her. The two talked quietly and then shook hands. When her name was called, Murkowski quietly said “Aye.”
Senators had added additional sweeteners for her state, including a provision aimed at insulating Alaska from some of the bill’s harshest impacts on SNAP.
She then started to leave the chamber, shaking hands with GOP Sens. Jerry Moran of Kansas and Bill Cassidy of Louisiana before exiting.
Afterward, Murkowski told ABC News’ she “struggled mightily with the [bill’s] impact on the most vulnerable in this country.”
“I needed help, and I worked to get that every single day. And did I get everything that I wanted? Absolutely not,” she added.
Senate Majority Leader John Thune didn’t speak to either woman after their votes. He was seated in his chair in the front of the chamber.
Collins later explained her vote in a statement: “My vote against this bill stems primarily from the harmful impact it will have on Medicaid, affecting low-income families and rural health care providers like our hospitals and nursing homes.”
She also said she had problems with cuts to energy tax credits and that the rural hospital relief fund that was created to try to get Republican holdouts to vote for the bill was insufficient.
ABC News’ John Parkinson and Lauren Peller contributed to this report.
