SC Senate passes K-12 voucher bill pulling from lottery profits
COLUMBIA — The Senate passed a bill Thursday that would create a program allowing certain K-12 students to use state lottery funds to pay tuition in private schools.
After two weeks of debate, including friction among Republicans as some tried to remove all eligibility caps on the program, the Senate passed the bill 32-12 along party lines. The bill would revive private tuition payments halted by the state Supreme Court last September.
Sen. Shane Martin, a former school board member in Spartanburg 6, was the only Republican to vote no. He did not say why.
Republicans made the bill a top priority for the session, saying they wanted to renew payments to the parents of children accepted for the program's first year before the state's high court stopped them a month into the school year. Donations will keep every student in their private schools at least through the third quarter of this school year.
As passed Thursday, the bill will allow up to 10,000 students whose parents earn up to 300% of the federal poverty level to receive about $7,500 to pay for private school tuition next school year. That money would come from lottery revenue, instead of pulling from the general fund, which the S.C. Supreme Court found violated the state constitution.
Voters who approved SC's lottery never intended it to fund K-12 vouchers, Democrats argue
The income cap would increase to 400% for 15,000 students in 2026-27. The funding those students receive would change depending on how much aid legislators send to public schools, with the scholarships equivalent to 90% of the per-pupil average.
While students already enrolled in private schools would be eligible, they would have to wait until after public schools students had a chance to apply before picking up open spots.
Initially, 15,000 students whose families were making up to 600% of the federal poverty level would be eligible by the 2027-2028 school year to receive the full per-pupil average the state funds, which this coming school year would be about $8,500. That would come after two years of lower caps.
Unlike the law passed several years ago, students already enrolled in private school would also be able to receive the money. Students enrolled in a public school would have first grabs, though, after a change passed Thursday. That would let students whose families want to send them to private school but don't have the means to get first pick, said Sen. Michael Johnson, who proposed the change.
'I'm not stopping anyone in a private school from applying,' the Fort Mill Republican said. 'I'm saying, 'Hey, let's let the poorest kids have an opportunity to apply before the kids in private school.''
The final income cap of 600% of the poverty level, or $187,200 for a family of four, would allow nearly every student in the state to qualify, said Senate Majority Leader Shane Massey.
'I think that's the K-12 equivalent of free college,' the Edgefield Republican said. 'I don't want to bail out people who are already able to do that. I want to help people who are stuck.'
That was the original intention of the law passed two years ago, Massey said. Legislators wanted to help poor children attending schools that didn't meet their needs be able to afford to go to whatever school they chose, he said.
Massey successfully proposed changing the amount of money offered as well, arguing that the $6,000 legislators offered in the 2023 law was based on what a committee decided was reasonable based on private school tuition.
The proposed $8,500 'is too much money,' Massey said, arguing that schools would raise tuition to match the state-funded scholarships.
'If you allow for a scholarship of $8,500, the schools are going to charge $8,500,' he said.
Sen. Wes Climer pushed back against his own party leader's proposed changes, calling on his peers repeatedly to remove all limitations on who can use the money.
'Here's the bottom line: If you're against school choice, you are for this amendment,' the Rock Hill Republican said to fellow senators after Massey's first attempt to pass the changes. 'If you are for school choice, you are against this amendment.'
Massey's initial proposal to change the bill Tuesday failed, with a mix of Republicans and Democrats voting it down. Senators picked up the pieces separately Thursday, adding back in Massey's decreases in the income cap and scholarship amount.
Toward the end of Thursday's debate, Climer proposed a change that would get rid of all eligibility requirements in the bill, making the program universal. Senators voted down that plan.
Democrats and Republicans alike disapproved on proposals from Climer and Sen. Josh Kimbrell, R-Spartanburg, to expand eligibility.
Sen. Darrell Jackson dubbed it the 'Shane Beamer' plan, referring to the fact that the University of South Carolina football coach who makes $6.4 million each year would be able to receive the funds to pay his children's tuition if he so wished.
'What I'm hearing is that the CEO who makes a million dollars a year would never really have school choice in South Carolina because the government isn't paying for it,' the Hopkins Democrat said.
Republicans focused on the cost of the program as a whole. If the state instituted universal school choice, which would allow any child to receive money to attend private school, that could cost the state as much as $367 million each year, Hembree said.
Climer and Kimbrell also proposed getting rid of the scholarships from the lottery fund and replacing them with a tax credit that would balance out by removing money from the education fund. While that proposal was thrown out as not being germane to the original bill, it caught the interest of some senators.
Pulling from the lottery fund could pass constitutional muster, but a tax credit is 'bulletproof,' argued Davis.
'I don't know why we're so determined to do something in a more complicated way,' Davis said.
As the Senate was debating the program, a rally on the Statehouse's front steps celebrated National School Choice Week.
State Superintendent Ellen Weaver, a longtime proponent of education vouchers, held a sign reading, 'choice means hope.'
'Education choice and freedom is on the move in South Carolina,' Weaver said. 'Here in South Carolina, we are building the education system of the future.'
Lt. Gov Pamela Evette praised the state for already having a number of choices for students already available, including public, private, charter and virtual schools.
'In South Carolina, we are blessed to have so many options for education,' said Evette, a mother of three.
The ability to transfer to another school is a major deal for students who can benefit from smaller class sizes and more one-on-one attention, said Candance Carroll, a lobbyist for advocacy group Americans for Prosperity South Carolina.
She included her own daughter, a 10-year-old who has autism, among them.
'I needed a school that could meet her unique needs,' Carroll said. 'That's when I understood the power of school choice.'
Reporter Shaun Chornobroff contributed to this report.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
30 minutes ago
- Yahoo
News Analysis: Newsom's decision to fight fire with fire could have profound political consequences
Deep in the badlands of defeat, Democrats have soul-searched about what went wrong last November, tinkered with a thousand-plus thinkpieces and desperately cast for a strategy to reboot their stalled-out party. Amid the noise, California Gov. Gavin Newsom has recently championed an unlikely game plan: Forget the high road, fight fire with fire and embrace the very tactics that virtue-minded Democrats have long decried. Could the dark art of political gerrymandering be the thing that saves democracy from Trump's increasingly authoritarian impulses? That's essentially the pitch Newsom is making to California voters with his audacious new special election campaign. As Texas Democrats dig in to block a Republican-led redistricting push and Trump muscles to consolidate power wherever he can, Newsom wants to redraw California's own congressional districts to favor Democrats. His goal: counter Trump's drive for more GOP House seats with a power play of his own. It's a boundary-pushing gamble that will undoubtedly supercharge Newsom's political star in the short-term. The long-game glory could be even grander, but only if he pulls it off. A ballot-box flop would be brutal for both Newsom and his party. The charismatic California governor is termed out of office in 2026 and has made no secret of his 2028 presidential ambitions. But the distinct scent of his home state will be hard to completely slough off in parts of the country where California is synonymous with loony lefties, business-killing regulation and an out-of-control homelessness crisis. To say nothing of Newsom's ill-fated dinner at an elite Napa restaurant in violation of COVID-19 protocols — a misstep that energized a failed recall attempt and still haunts the governor's national reputation. The redistricting gambit is the kind of big play that could redefine how voters across the country see Newsom. The strategy could be a boon for Newsom's 2028 ambitions during a moment when Democrats are hungry for leaders, said Democratic strategist Steven Maviglio. But it's also a massive roll of the dice for both Newsom and the state he leads. 'It's great politics for him if this passes,' Maviglio said. 'If it fails, he's dead in the water.' The path forward — which could determine control of Congress in 2026 — is hardly a straight shot. The 'Election Rigging Response Act,' as Newsom has named his ballot measure, would temporarily scrap the congressional districts enacted by the state's voter-approved independent redistricting commission. Under the proposal, Democrats could pick up five seats currently held by Republicans while bolstering vulnerable Democratic incumbent Reps. Adam Gray, Josh Harder, George Whitesides, Derek Tran and Dave Min, which would save the party millions of dollars in costly reelection fights. But first the Democratic-led state Legislature must vote to place the measure on the Nov. 4 ballot and then it must be approved by voters. If passed, the initiative would have a 'trigger,' meaning the redrawn map would not take effect unless Texas or another GOP-led state moved forward with its own gerrymandering effort. 'I think what Governor Newsom and other Democrats are doing here is exactly the right thing we need to do,' Democratic National Committee Chairman Ken Martin said Thursday. 'We're not bringing a pencil to a knife fight. We're going to bring a bazooka to a knife fight, right? This is not your grandfather's Democratic Party,' Martin said, adding that they shouldn't be the only ones playing by a set of rules that no longer exist. For Democrats like Rep. Laura Friedman (D-Glendale), who appeared alongside Newsom to kick off the effort, there is "some heartbreak" to temporarily shelving their commitment to independent redistricting. But she and others were clear-eyed about the need to stop a president "willing to rig the election midstream," she said. Friedman said she was hearing overwhelmingly positive reactions to the proposal from all kinds of Democratic groups on the ground. "The response that I get is, 'Finally, we're fighting. We have a way to fight back that's tangible,'" Friedman recounted. Still, despite the state's Democratic voter registration advantage, victory for the ballot measure will hardly be assured. California voters have twice rallied for independent redistricting at the ballot box in the last two decades and many may struggle to abandon those beliefs. A POLITICO-Citrin Center-Possibility Lab poll found that voters prefer keeping an independent panel in place to draw district lines by a nearly two-to-one margin, and that independent redistricting is broadly popular in the state. (Newsom's press office argued that the poll was poorly worded, since it asked about getting rid of the independent commission altogether and permanently returning line-drawing power to the legislators, rather than just temporarily scrapping their work for several cycles until the independent commission next draws new lines.) California voters should not expect to see a special election campaign focused on the minutia of reconfiguring the state's congressional districts, however. While many opponents will likely attack the change as undercutting the will of California voters, who overwhelmingly supported weeding politics out of the redistricting process, bank on Newsom casting the campaign as a referendum on Trump and his devious effort to keep Republicans in control of Congress. Newsom employed a similar strategy when he demolished the Republican-led recall campaign against him in 2021, which the governor portrayed as a "life and death" battle against "Trumpism" and far-right anti-vaccine and antiabortion activists. Among California's Democratic-heavy electorate, that message proved to be extremely effective. "Wake up, America," Newsom said Thursday at a Los Angeles rally launching the campaign for the redistricting measure. "Wake up to what Donald Trump is doing. Wake up to his assault. Wake up to the assault on institutions and knowledge and history. Wake up to his war on science, public health, his war against the American people." Kevin Liao, a Democratic strategist who has worked on national and statewide campaigns, said his D.C. and California-based political group chats had been blowing up in recent days with texts about the moment Newsom was creating for himself. Much of Liao's group chat fodder has involved the output of Newsom's digital team, which has elevated trolling to an art form on its official @GovPressOffice account on the social media site X. The missives have largely mimicked the president's own social media patois, with hyperbole, petty insults and a heavy reliance on the 'caps lock' key. "DONALD IS FINISHED — HE IS NO LONGER 'HOT.' FIRST THE HANDS (SO TINY) AND NOW ME — GAVIN C. NEWSOM — HAVE TAKEN AWAY HIS 'STEP,' " one of the posts read last week, dutifully reposted by the governor himself. Some messages have also ended with Newsom's initials (a riff on Trump's signature "DJT" signoff) and sprinkled in key Trumpian callbacks, like the phrase 'Liberation Day,' or a doctored Time Magazine cover with Newsom's smiling mien. The account has garnered 150,000 new followers since the beginning of the month. Shortly after Trump took office in January, Newsom walked a fine line between criticizing the president and his policies and being more diplomatic, especially after the California wildfires — in hopes of appealing to any semblance of compassion and presidential responsibility Trump possessed. Newsom had spent the first months of the new administration trying to reshape the California-vs.-Trump narrative that dominated the president's first term and move away from his party's prior "resistance" brand. Those conciliatory overtures coincided with Newsom's embrace of a more ecumenical posture, hosting MAGA leaders on his podcast and taking a position on transgender athletes' participation in women's sports that contradicted the Democratic orthodoxy. Newsom insisted that he engaged in those conversations to better understand political views that diverged from his own, especially after Trump's victory in November. However, there was the unmistakable whiff of an ambitious politician trying to broaden his national appeal by inching away from his reputation as a West Coast liberal. Newsom's reluctance to readopt the Trump resistance mantle ended after the president sent California National Guard troops into Los Angeles amid immigration sweeps and ensuing protests in June. Those actions revealed Trump's unchecked vindictiveness and abject lack of morals and honor, Newsom said. Of late, Newsom has defended the juvenile tone of his press aides' posts mocking Trump's own all-caps screeds, and questioned why critics would excoriate his parody and not the president's own unhinged social media utterances. "If you've got issues with what I'm putting out, you sure as hell should have concerns about what he's putting out as president," Newsom said last week. "So to the extent it's gotten some attention, I'm pleased." In an attention-deficit economy where standing out is half the battle, the posts sparkle with unapologetic swagger. And they make clear that Newsom is in on the joke. 'To a certain set of folks who operated under the old rules, this could be seen as, 'Wow, this is really outlandish.' But I think they are making the calculation that Democrats want folks that are going to play under this new set of rules that Trump has established,' Liao said. At a moment when the Democratic party is still occupied with post-defeat recriminations and what's-next vision boarding, Newsom has emerged from the bog with something resembling a plan. And he's betting the house on his deep-blue state's willingness to fight fire with fire. Times staff writers Seema Mehta and Laura Nelson contributed to this report. Sign up for Essential California for news, features and recommendations from the L.A. Times and beyond in your inbox six days a week. This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
Yahoo
36 minutes ago
- Yahoo
How the Supreme Court could wind up scrapping high-profile precedents in coming months
The Supreme Court's landmark opinion on same-sex marriage isn't the only high-profile precedent the justices will have an opportunity to tinker with – or entirely scrap – when the court reconvenes this fall. From a 1935 opinion that has complicated President Donald Trump's effort to consolidate power to a 2000 decision that deals with prayer at high school football games, the court will soon juggle a series of appeals seeking to overturn prior decisions that critics say are 'outdated,' 'poorly reasoned' or 'egregiously wrong.' While many of those decisions are not as prominent as the court's 2015 ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges that gave same-sex couples access to marriage nationwide, some may be more likely to find a receptive audience. Generally, both conservative and liberal justices are reticent to engage in do-overs because it undermines stability in the law. And independent data suggests the high court under Chief Justice John Roberts has been less willing to upend past rulings on average than earlier courts. But the Supreme Court's 6-3 conservative majority hasn't shied from overturning precedent in recent years – notably on abortion but also affirmative action and government regulations. The court's approval in polling has never fully recovered from its 2022 decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, which established the constitutional right to abortion. Here are some past rulings the court could reconsider in the coming months. Who Trump can fire Even before Trump was reelected, the Supreme Court's conservatives had put a target on a Roosevelt-era precedent that protects the leaders of independent agencies from being fired by the president for political reasons. The first few months of Trump's second term have only expedited its demise. The 1935 decision, Humphrey's Executor v. US, stands for the idea that Congress may shield the heads of independent federal agencies, like the National Labor Relations Board or the Consumer Product Safety Commission, from being fired by the president without cause. But in recent years, the court has embraced the view that Congress overstepped its authority with those for-cause requirements on the executive branch. Court watchers largely agree 'that Humphrey's Executor is next on the Supreme Court's chopping block, meaning the next case they are slated to reverse,' said Victoria Nourse, a professor at Georgetown University Law Center who worked in the Biden administration. In a series of recent emergency orders, the court has allowed Trump – ever eager to remove dissenting voices from power – to fire leaders of independent agencies who were appointed by former President Joe Biden. The court's liberal wing has complained that, following those decisions, the Humphrey's decision is already effectively dead. 'For 90 years, Humphrey's Executor v. United States has stood as a precedent of this court,' Justice Elena Kagan wrote last month. 'Our emergency docket, while fit for some things, should not be used to overrule or revise existing law.' Through the end of the Supreme Court term that ended in June, the Roberts court overruled precedent an average of 1.5 times each term, according to Lee Epstein, a law professor at Washington University in St. Louis who oversees the Supreme Court Database. That compares with 2.9 times on average prior to Roberts, dating to 1953. An important outstanding question is which case challenging Humphrey's will make it to the Supreme Court – and when. Flood of campaign cash? The high court has already agreed to hear an appeal – possibly this year – that could overturn a 2001 precedent limiting how much political parties can spend in coordination with federal candidates. Democrats warn the appeal, if successful, could 'blow open the cap on the amount of money that donors can funnel to candidates.' In a lawsuit initially filed by then-Senate candidate JD Vance and other Republicans, the challengers describe the 2001 decision upholding the caps – FEC v. Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee – as an 'aberration' that was 'plainly wrong the day it was decided.' If a majority of the court thinks the precedent controls the case, they wrote in their appeal, 'it should overrule that outdated decision.' Republicans say the caps are hopelessly inconsistent with the Supreme Court's modern campaign finance doctrine and that they have 'harmed our political system by leading donors to send their funds elsewhere,' such as super PACs, which can raise unlimited funds but do not coordinate with candidates. In recent years, the Supreme Court has tended to shoot down campaign finance rules as violating the First Amendment. Obergefell's anniversary A recent Supreme Court appeal from Kim Davis, a former county clerk from Kentucky who refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, has raised concerns from some about the court overturning its decade-old Obergefell decision. Davis is appealing a $100,000 jury verdict – plus $260,000 for attorneys' fees – awarded over her move to defy the Supreme Court's decision and decline to issue the licenses. Davis has framed her appeal in religious terms, a strategy that often wins on the conservative court. She described Obergefell as a 'mistake' that 'must be corrected.' 'If ever there was a case of exceptional importance, the first individual in the Republic's history who was jailed for following her religious convictions regarding the historic definition of marriage, this should be it,' Davis told the justices in her appeal. Even if there are five justices willing to overturn the decision – and there are plenty of signs there are not – many court watchers believe Davis' appeal is unlikely to be the vehicle for that review. Ilya Somin, a law professor at George Mason University, wrote recently that there are 'multiple flaws' with Davis' case. People in the private sector – say, a wedding cake baker or a website developer – likely have a First Amendment right to exercise their objections to same-sex marriage. But, Somin wrote, public employees are a very different matter. 'They are not exercising their own rights,' he wrote, 'but the powers of the state.' Race and redistricting Days after returning to the bench in October to begin a new term, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in one of the most significant appeals on its docket. The case centers on Louisiana's fraught congressional districts map and whether the state violated the 14th Amendment when it drew a second majority-Black district. If the court sides with a group of self-described 'non-Black voters,' it could gut a key provision of the Voting Rights Act. Three years ago, a federal court ruled that Louisiana likely violated the Voting Rights Act by drawing only one majority Black district out of six. When state lawmakers tried to fix that problem by drawing a second majority-minority district, a group of White voters sued. Another court then ruled that the new district was drawn based predominantly on race and thus violated the Constitution. The court heard oral arguments in the case in March. But rather than issuing a decision, it then took the unusual step in June of holding the case for more arguments. Earlier this month, the court ordered more briefing on the question of whether the creation of a majority-minority district to remedy a possible Voting Rights Act violation is constitutional. The case has nationwide implications; if the court rules that lawmakers can't fix violations of the Voting Rights Act by drawing new majority-minority districts, it could make it virtually impossible to enforce the landmark 1965 law when it comes to redistricting. That outcome could effectively overturn a line of Supreme Court precedents dating to its 1986 decision in Thornburg v. Gingles, in which the court ruled that North Carolina had violated the Voting Rights Act by diluting the power of Black voters. Just two years ago, the court ordered officials in Alabama to redraw the state's congressional map, upholding a lower court decision that found the state had violated the statute. 'Some opponents of the Voting Rights Act may urge the court to go further and overturn long-standing precedents, but there's absolutely no reason to go there,' said Michael Li, an expert on redistricting and voting rights and a senior counsel in the Brennan Center's Democracy Program. The case will not affect the battle raging over redistricting and the effort by Texas Republicans to redraw congressional boundaries to benefit their party. That's because the Supreme Court ruled in a landmark 2019 decision that federal courts cannot review partisan gerrymanders. What's at stake in the Louisiana case, instead, is how far lawmakers may go in considering race when they redraw congressional and state legislative boundaries every decade. When soldiers sue Air Force Staff Sgt. Cameron Beck was killed in 2021 on Whiteman Air Force Base in Missouri when a civilian employee driving a government-issued van turned in front of his motorcycle. When his wife tried to sue the federal government for damages, she was blocked by a 1950 Supreme Court decision that severely limits damages litigation from service members and their families. The pending appeal from Beck's family, which the court will review behind closed doors next month, will give the justices another opportunity to reconsider that widely criticized precedent. The so-called Feres Doctrine generally prohibits service members from suing the government for injuries that arose 'incident to service.' The idea is that members of the military can't sue the government for injuries that occur during wartime or training. But critics say the upshot is that service members have been barred from filing routine tort claims – including for traffic accidents involving government vehicles – that anyone else could file. 'This court should overrule Feres,' Justice Clarence Thomas, a stalwart conservative, wrote earlier this year in a similar case the court declined to hear. 'It has been almost universally condemned by judges and scholars.' Thomas is correct that criticism of the opinion has bridged ideologies. The Constitutional Accountability Center, a liberal group, authored a brief in the Beck case arguing that the 'sweeping bar to recovery for servicemembers' adopted by the Feres decision 'is at odds' with what Congress intended. But the federal government, regardless of which party controls the White House, has long rejected those arguments. The Justice Department urged the Supreme Court to reject Beck's case, noting that Feres has 'been the law for more than 70 years, and has been repeatedly reaffirmed by this court.' Prayer for relief Prominent religious groups are taking aim at a 25-year-old Supreme Court precedent that barred prayer from being broadcast over the public address system before varsity football games at a Texas high school. In that 6-3 decision, the court ruled that a policy permitting the student-led prayer violated the Establishment Clause, a part of the First Amendment that blocks the government from establishing a state religion. But the court's makeup and views on religion have shifted substantially since then, with a series of significant rulings that thinned the wall that once separated church from state. When the justices meet in late September to decide whether to grant new appeals, they will weigh a request to overturn that earlier decision, Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe. The new case involves a Christian school in Florida that was forbidden by the state athletic association from broadcasting the prayer ahead of a championship game with another religious school. The Supreme Court should overrule Santa Fe 'as out of step with its more recent government-speech precedent,' the school's attorneys told the high court in its appeal. 'Santa Fe,' they said, 'was dubious from the outset.' It is an argument that may find purchase with the court's conservatives, who have increasingly framed state policies that exclude religious actors as discriminatory. In 2022, the high court reinstated a football coach, Joseph Kennedy, who lost his job at a public high school after praying at the 50-yard line after games. Those prayers, conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote for the court at the time, amounted to 'a brief, quiet, personal religious observance.' Kennedy submitted a brief in the new case urging the Supreme Court to take up the appeal – and to now let pregame prayers reverberate through the stadium. The school, Kennedy's lawyers wrote, 'has a longstanding tradition of, and deeply held belief in, opening games with a prayer over the stadium loudspeaker.' Solve the daily Crossword
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Behind the journey: Why did Congressman Hamadeh travel from Jerusalem to Damascus?
US Congressman Abraham J. Hamadeh travelled to Syria to 'discuss the Congressman's continuing efforts to bring Americans home" and advance peace US Rep. Abraham J. Hamadeh made an important trip to the Middle East this week that included what his office called an 'unprecedented trip from Jerusalem to Damascus.' The Republican from Arizona met with Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa and Syrian Foreign Minister Asaad Hassan al-Shaibani during the trip to Syria. This is significant because Syria is currently continuing its transition from the rule of the Assad regime, which fell in December 2024, to a new government that has promised to unify the country. However, tensions between groups have led to infighting among the Druze, Bedouins, and others. Hamadeh's trip to the region illustrates US engagement with Israel, Syria, and key officials in both countries. According to a statement from Hamadeh's office, he travelled to Syria to 'discuss the congressman's continuing efforts to bring Americans home, advance 'Peace Through Strength,' and advocate for a Syria that looks toward the future and not the past.' However, the larger symbolic importance of this visit is that it was a historic trip by a US official from Jerusalem to Damascus. His office says it is the first time in decades that this has happened. It harkens back to the era of US 'shuttle' diplomacy, when American foreign policy heavyweights, such as Henry Kissinger, would travel around the region. Druze in Israeli and Syrian society On Thursday, Hamadeh met with Sheikh Mowafaq Tarif, the spiritual leader of Israel's Druze community. They discussed regional security, the Druze role in Israeli society, and recent attacks on Druze in Syria. Last month, Israel bombed Damascus to deter attacks on the Druze in Syria. The US President Donald Trump's administration has worked to engage with Syria. Trump appointed US Ambassador to Turkey Tom Barrack as US envoy to Syria in May. Barrack has played a key role since then in ensuring that Syria has the best chance possible regarding US ties and what may come next. This includes reducing US sanctions on Syria. The envoy has also shuttled back and forth to Beirut and around the Middle East, becoming a key figure in Trump's regional doctrine. Trump leans on figures such as Barrack and Steve Witkoff to see his policies through. Hamadeh has shown, through this trip to the region, that he is willing to personally go to the places that matter the most in terms of the future of the Middle East. The Republican congressman brings experience to the table in his meetings. As Jewish Insider noted in March, 'Hamadeh is the child of Syrian immigrants with Druze, Kurdish, and Muslim heritage and served in the US military in Saudi Arabia,' giving him a unique perspective on regional affairs. HIS OFFICE said on Monday that 'as an emissary of the Peace Through Strength agenda, Congressman Hamadeh, a former US Army Reserve intelligence officer, was in Syria for six hours to meet with President al-Sharaa to discuss the return of Kayla Mueller's body to her family in Arizona, the need to establish a secure humanitarian corridor for the safe delivery of medical and humanitarian aid to Sweida, and the need for Syria to attain normalization with Israel and join the Abraham Accords.' It also noted that 'in the meeting, Congressman Hamadeh strongly emphasized the need for Syria to course correct in light of recent tragic events.' Hamadeh spoke to Sharaa about a unified Syria and how Damascus 'must provide peace and security for all of its people, including the Christian, Druze, Kurdish, Alawite, and other minority communities. Congressman Hamadeh asserts that this is the only way to build a new Syria that is reflective of its ethnic and religious mosaic,' his office noted. The congressman is supportive of Trump's decision to lift some sanctions on Syria. He also 'believes that Congress should play a key role in this process to ensure that the Syrian government is upholding its commitments to the US. As a result, Congressman Hamadeh and his staff have engaged in interagency efforts to ascertain what is and is not happening on the ground in Syria amid this current conflict. Congressman Hamadeh is grateful for, and supportive of, Ambassador and Special Envoy Tom Barrack's strong leadership in the Levant.' Hamadeh is a member of the important House Armed Services Committee. He is the co-author of the bipartisan Promoting Education on the Abraham Accords for Comprehensive Engagement (PEACE) Act, 'which aims to strengthen US diplomatic engagement by institutionalizing training on the Abraham Accords and other normalization agreements at the US State Department.' His visit to Syria builds on an earlier visit in April by Republican Congressmen Marlin Stutzman of Indiana and Cory Mills of Florida. They were the first members of Congress to visit Syria after the fall of the Assad regime. It remains to be seen what comes next. It is important for Damascus to work with the US-backed Syrian Democratic Forces in eastern Syria toward unity. However, Damascus should also respect the SDF, which is a mostly Kurdish force, and also respect requests for a less centralized government. Minorities in Syria are concerned about elements within the government and their supporters. The government has not been able to rein in extremists who have attacked Alawites and Druze. In many cases, it appears to be complicit in the attacks and then tries to walk back its mistakes when things have gone too far.
