House axes vote on Israel boycott bill: ‘Bowed to extreme-right forces'
Republican House leaders axed a planned vote on Monday for a bill intended to protect Israel from boycotts, amid a backlash from some conservatives over free speech concerns.
Former Florida congressman Matt Gaetz compared the provisions in the legislation to the 10th biblical plague of Egypt: the death of the firstborn.
Advertisement
'If this bill becomes law, how many Israeli products do I need in my home to avoid fines or prison?' Gaetz asked. 'If I leave an Israeli-made product outside my home, is it the 2025 version of lamb's blood that keeps my family safe?'
The bipartisan bill, titled the International Governmental Organizations Anti-Boycott Act, would extend existing anti-boycott legislation that bars Americans from complying with bans imposed by foreign countries to also forbid compliance with boycotts imposed by international governmental organizations, like the United Nations.
Former U.S. Representative Matt Gaetz (R-FL) speaks during a rally organized by conservative activists in Beverly Hills, California, U.S., April 27, 2025.
REUTERS
The legislation doesn't mention Israel explicitly, but the Jewish state has long been the target of international boycott efforts.
Advertisement
Reps. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.), Anna Paulina Luna (R-Fla.) and Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) were among Republicans to speak out against the bill.
'Americans have the right to boycott, and penalizing this risks free speech,' Luna wrote. 'I reject and vehemently condemn antisemitism, but I cannot violate the First Amendment.'
A spokesman for Rep. Josh Gottheimer (D-N.J.), a co-sponsor of the bill, slammed the Republican leadership for caving to Greene, who speculated in 2018 that the Rothschilds might have caused wildfires in California by 'beaming the sun's energy back to earth.'
Advertisement
'It's beyond outrageous and offensive that House leadership bowed to extreme-right forces and pulled this commonsense, bipartisan bill that makes antisemitic and hate-driven boycotts illegal,' Tony Wen, Gottheimer's communications director, told JNS.
'Who was behind this effort?' Wen said. 'None other than a member of Congress, who once claimed that Jews have space lasers, and another who refused to condemn Hamas. Reps. Marjorie Taylor Greene and Thomas Massie should be ashamed of themselves.'
The bill's sponsor, Rep. Mike Lawler (R-N.Y.), defended the legislation on the grounds that the underlying anti-boycott act was signed into law by U.S. President Donald Trump in 2018. Lawler also criticized Greene for backing international governmental organizations.
'This is simply holding the United Nations accountable,' Lawler wrote. 'Was President Trump virtue signaling when he signed the original bill? And when did you become a defender of the United Nations?'
Advertisement
U.S. Congressman Josh Gottheimer delivers remarks at a press conference announcing new actions to support air safety for passengers and families at Newark Liberty International Airport in Newark, New Jersey, on February 21, 2025.
KYLE MAZZA/Shutterstock
On Friday, the office of House Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-La.) released a schedule of votes for Monday that included the bill, but the updated House schedule on Monday morning did not include it. (JNS sought comment from Scalise and Lawler.)
Legal challenges arguing that similar state-level anti-boycott legislation violates the First Amendment have a poor record in court.
In 2023, the Fifth, Eighth and 11th Circuit Courts of Appeals each upheld state laws designed to counter the anti-Israel boycott, divestment and sanctions movement in separate cases. The Supreme Court has declined to consider appeals to those rulings.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
25 minutes ago
- The Hill
Trump EPA moves to repeal climate rules that limit greenhouse gas emissions from US power plants
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Environmental Protection Agency on Wednesday proposed repealing rules that limit planet-warming greenhouse gas emissions from power plants fueled by coal and natural gas, an action that Administrator Lee Zeldin said would remove billions of dollars in costs for industry and help 'unleash' American energy. The EPA also proposed weakening a regulation that requires power plants to reduce emissions of mercury and other toxic pollutants that can harm brain development of young children and contribute to heart attacks and other health problems in adults. The rollbacks are meant to fulfill Republican President Donald Trump's repeated pledge to 'unleash American energy' and make it more affordable for Americans to power their homes and operate businesses. If approved and made final, the plans would reverse efforts by Democratic President Joe Biden's administration to address climate change and improve conditions in areas heavily burdened by industrial pollution, mostly in low-income and majority Black or Hispanic communities. The power plant rules are among about 30 environmental regulations that Zeldin targeted in March when he announced what he called the 'most consequential day of deregulation in American history.' Zeldin said Wednesday the new rules would help end what he called the Biden and Obama administration's 'war on so much of our U.S. domestic energy supply.' 'The American public spoke loudly and clearly last November,' he added in a speech at EPA headquarters. 'They wanted to make sure that … no matter what agency anybody might be confirmed to lead, we are finding opportunities to pursue common-sense, pragmatic solutions that will help reduce the cost of living … create jobs and usher in a golden era of American prosperity.' Environmental and public health groups called the rollbacks dangerous and vowed to challenge the rules in court. Dr. Lisa Patel, a pediatrician and executive director of the Medical Society Consortium on Climate & Health, called the proposals 'yet another in a series of attacks' by the Trump administration on the nation's 'health, our children, our climate and the basic idea of clean air and water.' She called it 'unconscionable to think that our country would move backwards on something as common sense as protecting children from mercury and our planet from worsening hurricanes, wildfires, floods and poor air quality driven by climate change.' 'Ignoring the immense harm to public health from power plant pollution is a clear violation of the law,' added Manish Bapna, president and CEO of the Natural Resources Defense Council. 'If EPA finalizes a slapdash effort to repeal those rules, we'll see them in court.' The EPA-targeted rules could prevent an estimated 30,000 deaths and save $275 billion each year they are in effect, according to an Associated Press examination that included the agency's own prior assessments and a wide range of other research. It's by no means guaranteed that the rules will be entirely eliminated — they can't be changed without going through a federal rulemaking process that can take years and requires public comment and scientific justification. Even a partial dismantling of the rules would mean more pollutants such as smog, mercury and lead — and especially more tiny airborne particles that can lodge in lungs and cause health problems, the AP analysis found. It would also mean higher emissions of the greenhouse gases driving Earth's warming to deadlier levels. Biden, a Democrat, had made fighting climate change a hallmark of his presidency. Coal-fired power plants would be forced to capture smokestack emissions or shut down under a strict EPA rule issued last year. Then-EPA head Michael Regan said the power plant rules would reduce pollution and improve public health while supporting a reliable, long-term supply of electricity. The power sector is the nation's second-largest contributor to climate change, after transportation. In its proposed regulation, the Trump EPA argues that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases from fossil fuel-fired power plants 'do not contribute significantly to dangerous pollution' or climate change and therefore do not meet a threshold under the Clean Air Act for regulatory action. Greenhouse gas emissions from coal and gas-fired plants 'are a small and decreasing part of global emissions,' the EPA said, adding: 'this Administration's priority is to promote the public health or welfare through energy dominance and independence secured by using fossil fuels to generate power.' The Clean Air Act allows the EPA to limit emissions from power plants and other industrial sources if those emissions significantly contribute to air pollution that endangers public health. If fossil fuel plants no longer meet the EPA's threshold, the Trump administration may later argue that other pollutants from other industrial sectors don't either and therefore shouldn't be regulated, said Meghan Greenfield, a former EPA and Justice Department lawyer now in private practice. The EPA proposal 'has the potential to have much, much broader implications,' she said. Zeldin, a former New York congressman, said the Biden-era rules were designed to 'suffocate our economy in order to protect the environment,' with the intent to regulate the coal industry 'out of existence' and make it 'disappear.' National Mining Association president and CEO Rich Nolan applauded the new rules, saying they remove 'deliberately unattainable standards' for clean air while 'leveling the playing field for reliable power sources, instead of stacking the deck against them.' But Dr. Howard Frumkin, a former director of the National Center for Environmental Health and professor emeritus at the University of Washington School of Public Health, said Zeldin and Trump were trying to deny reality. 'The world is round, the sun rises in the east, coal-and gas-fired power plants contribute significantly to climate change, and climate change increases the risk of heat waves, catastrophic storms and many other health threats,' Frumkin said. 'These are indisputable facts. If you torpedo regulations on power plant greenhouse gas emissions, you torpedo the health and well-being of the American public and contribute to leaving a world of risk and suffering to our children and grandchildren.' A paper published earlier this year in the journal Science found the Biden-era rules could reduce U.S. power sector carbon emissions by 73% to 86% below 2005 levels by 2040, compared with a reduction of 60% to 83% without the rules. 'Carbon emissions in the power sector drop at a faster rate with the (Biden-era) rules in place than without them,' said Aaron Bergman, a fellow at Resources for the Future, a nonprofit research institution and a co-author of the Science paper. The Biden rule also would result in 'significant reductions in sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides, pollutants that harm human health,' he said.
Yahoo
25 minutes ago
- Yahoo
General Trump has entered the fray and this is just the beginning
Donald Trump has long had a keen fascination with swashbuckling generals from the Second World War. His rally speeches are peppered with anecdotes about General Douglas MacArthur and he used a clip from one of his favourite war movies to open his event at Manhattan's Madison Square a week before last year's election. 'Americans love a winner and will not tolerate a loser,' says George C Scott, playing Gen George Patton in the 1970 movie Patton. What could be more Trumpian? The president's first administration was packed with generals and retired generals. Mr Trump made no secret of his admiration for their can-do attitude and straightforward command structure until, that is, he soured on their adherence to rules and legal norms. This time around, his flood-the-zone strategy of bamboozling the media and Democratic opponents with a constant stream of executive orders, public comments, and proclamations could come from one of Patton's real-life quotes: 'As long as you attack them, they cannot find the time to attack you.' This week, Mr Trump is leaning into his role of commander-in-chief in a much more literal sense. He has deployed active service personnel as an arm of domestic policy to back his massive deportation push. As protests grew in response to immigration raids around Los Angeles, he took the highly unusual step of deploying National Guard troops at the weekend despite the opposition of the California governor. On Tuesday he used a speech honouring soldiers to defend his decision against charges it was a politically motivated stunt. 'Generations of army heroes did not shed their blood on distant shores only to watch our country be destroyed by invasion and third-world lawlessness,' he said at the army base in Fort Bragg, North Carolina. A day later, the first of 700 Marines arrived in Los Angeles. And he has left open the possibility of going even further, using the Insurrection Act, which authorises the president to deploy military forces on American soil to suppress domestic violence in certain scenarios. 'If there's an insurrection, I would certainly invoke it. We'll see,' he said from the Oval Office. And then there is Saturday's military parade. More than 100 military vehicles and thousands of soldiers are set to roll or march down Constitution Avenue in front of the White House. Black Hawk and Apache helicopters will fill the skies. It will be the $50 million fulfilment of a dream Mr Trump has had since 2017, when he was a guest of Emmanuel Macron, the French president, at a Bastille Day parade. Hundreds of troops marching down the Champs-Élysées beneath plumes of red, white and blue smoke trailing behind fighter jets, left a deep impression on Mr Trump. 'It was one of the greatest parades I've ever seen,' he later said. 'We're going to have to try and top it.' A parade during his visit to China in 2017 also got the Trump seal of approval. He called it 'magnificent'. Then, he was quietly advised then that it would not be appropriate to parade the nation's military might through the capital. But like so much of his thwarted first-term agenda, he has spent the past four years staffing up with officials who can make his dreams come true. Officially, Saturday's parade will mark the 250th birthday of the army. And it doesn't hurt that it falls on the 79th birthday of Mr Trump. Critics say he is abusing the nation's armed forces for his own ends. 'He views the military as political props,' said John Bolton, who worked as Trump's national security adviser in his first term before falling out with him. 'He thinks they make him look good.' The event could serve another purpose, illustrating how Mr Trump is bringing the nation's biggest and strongest institutions into line. And as commander-in-chief he is the one to call the shots, illustrating his hold on power. Members of Washington's diplomatic corps will be in the audience on Saturday. 'He just likes the pomp and circumstance,' said one, speaking on condition of anonymity. 'I don't see an attack on democracy. Mr Trump looks around at other leaders and thinks that this is the sort of thing that a head of state gets.' In the meantime, polls suggest a limit to what he can do as commander-in-chief. A new YouGov survey found that 47 per cent of Americans disapprove of deploying the Marines to Los Angeles, with only 34 per cent approving, despite other polls showing that voters approve of the broader deportation operation. And while legal scholars will debate whether Mr Trump's decision to deploy troops stands up to scrutiny, and whether it breaches a federal law, the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, which prevents the use of American forces to enforce domestic laws, the president sees things in black and white. He knows where the battle lines are drawn as he made clear in his Fort Bragg speech. He used highly partisan language to slam the Los Angeles protesters and to champion the armed forces. 'They're heroes. They're fighting for us,' he said. 'They're stopping an invasion, just like you'd stop an invasion.' His armed forces are all part of Mr Trump's us-against-them view of the world. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Yahoo
25 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Milei says Argentina to move Israel embassy to Jerusalem in 2026
Argentine President Javier Milei said Wednesday his country would in 2026 move its embassy in Israel to Jerusalem, the status of which is one of the most delicate issues in the Israel-Palestinian conflict. "I am proud to announce before you that in 2026 we will make effective the move of our embassy to the city of west Jerusalem, as we promised," Milei said in a speech in the Israeli parliament during an official state visit. Argentina's embassy is currently located in Herzliya near the coastal city of Tel Aviv. This is Milei's second visit to Israel since being elected in 2023. His previous trip, in February 2024, was his first official state visit outside of Argentina. During that trip he announced plans to move Argentina's embassy to Jerusalem -- a controversial move that echoed US President Donald Trump's shock 2017 decision to unilaterally recognise Jerusalem as Israel's capital. Israel has occupied east Jerusalem since 1967, later annexing it in a move not recognised by the international community. Israel treats the city as its capital, while Palestinians want east Jerusalem to become the capital of a future state. Most foreign embassies to Israel are located in the coastal hub city of Tel Aviv in order to avoid interfering with negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians. Speaking ahead of Milei's address to parliament on Wednesday, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said "the city of Jerusalem will never be divided again." Several countries, including the United States, Paraguay, Guatemala, Honduras and Kosovo, have moved their embassies to Jerusalem, breaking with international consensus. - 'Stand firm' - In 2017, during his first term as US president, Trump unilaterally recognised Jerusalem as Israel's capital, sparking Palestinian anger and the international community's disapproval. The United States transferred its embassy to Jerusalem in May 2018. Milei, who has professed a deep interest in Judaism and studied Jewish scripture, is one of Israel's staunchest defenders. As Israel faces mounting international pressure over the dire humanitarian situation in Gaza after more than 20 months of war, Milei sought to express his support. "As a nation, we want to stand firm alongside you as you go through these dark days, we will not yield to criticism resulting from cowardice or complicity with barbarism," he said on Tuesday during a meeting with Israeli President Isaac Herzog. He also demanded the "unconditional return of the four Argentines still in captivity" in Gaza after Hamas's October 7, 2023 attack on Israel triggered the war. The Palestinian militant group's attack resulted in the deaths of 1,219 people on the Israeli side, mostly civilians, according to an AFP tally of official figures. The health ministry in Hamas-run Gaza says the retaliatory Israeli military offensive has killed at least 55,104 people, the majority civilians. The United Nations considers these figures to be reliable. Out of 251 taken hostage during the Hamas attack, 54 are still held in Gaza including 32 the Israeli military says are dead. lma-acc/ysm
