House No.2 Democrat Katherine Clark calls Gaza war a "genocide"
Why it matters: Clark's comment makes her one of just over a dozen House members to have used that word to describe the situation in Gaza, and easily the highest ranking member of Congress to have done so.
According to the news outlet Zeteo, 13 other House members have used the word "genocide" to describe the war in Gaza — a dozen progressive Democrats and right-wing Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.).
Clark is the No. 2 to House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) who has been critical of the Israeli government at times but generally supportive of the country throughout his career.
Clark's comments were reported earlier by The Grayzone.
Driving the news: Clark made the remark as she was confronted by pro-Palestinian protesters at an event hosted by Quaker group Friends Meeting at Cambridge.
"We each have to continue to have an open heart about how ... how we take action to in time to make a difference," Clark said in the clip.
"Whether that is stopping the starvation and genocide and destruction of Gaza, or whether that means we are working together to stop the redistricting that is going on, taking away the vote from people."
"And it's exhausting to do all of it, but we have to," she said.
What they're saying: "Whip Clark's position on the war has not changed," Clark spokesperson Joy Lee said in a statement.
"Security and peace for the Palestinian and Israeli people can only be achieved through a permanent ceasefire, the immediate return of the remaining hostages, and a surge of humanitarian aid to Gaza."
"It should not be controversial to say that Israeli children did not deserve to be kidnapped and murdered by Hamas, nor should it be controversial to say that Palestinian children, who bear no responsibility for Hamas' atrocities, do not deserve to be killed by war or starvation.
"A secure future for Israeli and Palestinian children demands a real two-state solution and a permanent end to efforts to deny their rights to exist."
Between the lines: A Congressional Progressive Caucus member before she became minority whip, Clark has generally been seen as the left's best ally in the House Democratic leadership trio.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Los Angeles Times
38 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
Trump's missile defense system is nothing but fool's gold
There can be wisdom in cliche. More than 120 years after philosopher George Santayana wrote, 'Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it,' his well-known phrase remains an essential guide for national defense. Case in point: The French failed to draw the proper lessons from the brutal trench warfare of World War I and constructed a better, yet still fixed, static defense in the 1930s — the Maginot Line — that was simply bypassed by the Germans on their way to Paris during World War II. It can also be a mistake to learn too much from a recent success, applying those lessons to different circumstances. For example, Israel has been remarkably successful at ballistic missile defense with its 'Iron Dome,' built to defend against short- and medium-range missile attacks from its regional enemies. So President Trump has launched his program to expand current U.S. missile defenses and build a 'Golden Dome' — similar in concept, but designed to defend the entire U.S. against long-range missile attacks. And already, with little national debate, Congress is allocating $38 billion this year toward the estimated $175-billion final cost, to be completed by January 2029 — its timing a parting gift from the president (assuming he leaves the White House on schedule). Is this modern shield a sustainable or wise choice for allocating U.S. defense dollars? It assumes that the Israeli missile defense against threats in its neighborhood can be replicated by the United States — a nation nearly 450 times the size of Israel — against global threats including the world's big boys, Russia and China. That assumption could produce a massively expensive venture, not 'golden' but instead built of fool's gold, with as little thought for the future strategic environment as the French gave to the Maginot Line. The vision of an American public protected from nuclear disaster is alluring — and the threats are real. Ballistic missiles are a clear danger to U.S. allies and bases and our homeland. Russia has hundreds of long-range ballistic missiles that can strike the U.S. within minutes; China is enhancing its arsenal of long-range weapons and has a huge arsenal of shorter-range missiles that could hit Taiwan and other U.S. allies and bases in the Asia-Pacific region. Ominous, yes. But even more important in assessing the Golden Dome is that today's threats are rapidly evolving, beginning with long-range ballistic missiles. These systems traveling at significantly greater speeds are inherently harder to defend against than the threats facing Israel. Russia, China and others are also investing in advanced missiles designed to evade defenses through their trajectory, maneuverability and the deployment of decoys. Shorter-range ballistic missiles too are becoming more capable of evasion. When fired in large groups they can penetrate a significant defense, as Iran did at times during June's 12-day war with Israel. Nor are ballistic missiles the only strategic threat. Witness Ukraine's use of cheap, conventionally armed drones to target Russia's strategic bomber force in a successful surprise attack in May. We should anticipate our adversaries' investing in cheap swarms of lethal drones and other new technologies to bypass our eye-poppingly expensive Golden Dome, like German tanks bypassing the Maginot Line. The design of the Golden Dome defense also remains incomplete. It will reportedly include both ground and space-based interceptors as part of a layered defense. But the details are sketchy and still difficult to assess. U.S. defense contractor Lockheed Martin says the Golden Dome is 'about connecting a global array of complex systems that need to work at lightning speed and with pinpoint precision at the mission's moment of truth.' That sounds impressive, even intimidating. But the rules of physics, and the offense-defense dynamic, have historically worked against strategic missile defense systems. Incoming weapons must be detected; interceptors must be guided to their targets through swarms of decoys; and the defense at the 'moment of truth' must achieve a near-perfect score against an increasingly lethal array. Imagine a relatively 'small' attack of 100 nuclear-tipped missiles and a Golden Dome that shoots down 80% of the incoming barrage. Pretty good. But that still leaves 20 nuclear warheads capable of destroying 20 American cities — with swarms of undetected nuclear-tipped drones mopping up — and space-bound nuclear detonations devastating civilian and military communications for years. Could any rational American president rely on such a defense in an actual crisis? Also, what if an American president, believing the rhetoric surrounding the Golden Dome, calculated that he or she could achieve American dominance through the threat or actual use of nuclear weapons — without fear of a nuclear response? As we became more isolated from allies and others around the world, the Golden Dome could help enclose us in a kind of gilded cage. Which brings us back to the cost. The Trump administration estimates the Golden Dome's price tag to reach $175 billion. Yet the Congressional Budget Office believes the space-based interceptors alone could cost more than $500 billion — equivalent to half of the annual defense budget. In a new era of federal spending, which will greatly expand our budget deficits while shrinking programs for our citizens most in need, the cost of the Golden Dome is unconscionable. Forty years ago, President Reagan proposed an ambitious, highly complex, missile defense system with space-based interceptors. Reagan's special advisor, Paul Nitze, declared that 'Star Wars' (as the media dubbed it) should be deployed only if the defense were effective, survivable and 'cost effective at the margins' — or in his words: 'They must be cheap enough to add additional defensive capability so that the other side has no incentive to add additional offensive capability to overcome the defense.' The Nitze criteria prevailed: Two successive U.S. administrations recast America's missile defenses to focus on short- and medium-range threats, not the immensely more capable threats from Russia and China. Over time, our missile defenses became more affordable, focused and effective — without the expense of space-based interceptors. The savings were applied to other defense and domestic priorities. And America became stronger still. A good lesson from the past. Steven Andreasen, who served as the National Security Council's staff director for defense policy and arms control from 1993 to 2001, teaches public policy at the University of Minnesota. Anthony Lake was a national security advisor in the Clinton administration.
Vox
38 minutes ago
- Vox
Why crime is still Trump's best issue
is a senior politics correspondent at Vox, covering the White House, elections, and political scandals and investigations. He's worked at Vox since the site's launch in 2014, and before that, he worked as a research assistant at the New Yorker's Washington, DC, bureau. President Donald Trump shows crime statistics as he delivers remarks during a press conference in the James S. Brady Press Briefing Room of the White House August 11, 2025, in Washington, Trump's federal takeover of Washington, DC's police force — which looks like something between an authoritarian power grab and an empty stunt — doesn't look like a political winner at first glance. A poll from YouGov last week showed little support for Trump's move; 34 percent of respondents approved of the idea, and 47 percent disapproved. Yet the pushback from Democrats — which often focused on pointing out that DC crime was trending downward, or arguing it wasn't such a serious problem — shows why the larger crime issue remains perilous for them, and advantageous for Trump. Though Trump is unpopular, crime remains one of his strongest issues, and one of the Democratic Party's worst. That sticks in Democrats' craw. Trump's recitation of DC crime statistics was filled with blatant misrepresentations. Furthermore, Trump himself was indicted four times, and he notably pardoned even the violent rioters of January 6, 2025. How could they be losing the law and order issue to this guy? Yet the polling says very clearly that they are. Polls consistently show the public prefers Republicans to Democrats on crime In May, separate polls from both CNN and YouGov asked respondents about which party they trusted more on over a dozen different issues, and both found that crime was the Democrats' worst of all. (The GOP had a 13-point advantage in one poll, and a 12-point advantage in the other.) It hasn't always been this way. Even as recently as 2021, the two parties were about evenly matched in polling from Langer Research. But in 2022, the GOP's advantage on crime surged to its highest in decades of the firm's polling — and it hasn't gone away since. That's for a pretty straightforward reason: A large majority of the public became convinced, due to very real rising crime rates, that crime in cities had become a very serious problem and that tougher policies are necessary — but Democrats often don't seem like they feel the same way. The crime rates have since declined, but voter concerns haven't gone away. In last week's YouGov poll, a large majority — 67 percent — believed crime was a major problem in US cities, and only 23 percent thought it was a minor problem. And back in April 2024, the Pew Research Center asked registered voters whether they believed the US criminal justice system was generally too tough on criminals, or not tough enough. It wasn't even close. A mere 13 percent chose 'too tough,' while 61 percent said 'not tough enough.' Notably, even a plurality of Biden supporters (40 percent of them) believed the system was 'not tough enough,' while just 21 percent of them thought it was too tough. Among the public, the belief that the criminal justice system is overly harsh on criminals is a fringe view. But among progressive activists, it's a core belief. Democrats have a crime problem For the past decade, the intellectual and organizing energy among progressive criminal justice activists has been around preventing police violence and making sentencing of criminals more lenient. In these circles, distrust of police and law enforcement and disdain for mass incarceration were widespread, and concern about crime in cities became viewed as racially coded. Responding to these pressures, Democratic politicians struck an increasingly awkward balance on crime issues. They've tried to disavow 'defund the police,' and big city mayors who have crime-concerned constituents have tried to get tough. But it hasn't been enough to change the party's brand. Why not? Another YouGov poll — taken in September 2024 — asked respondents about several of then-presidential candidate Kamala Harris's criminal justice policy proposals and Trump's. Harris's specific proposals were generally more popular. But on the question of who would do a better job handling crime? Trump had an 8-point advantage. That's because voters don't make up their minds by tallying a policy laundry list. They look for signals about 'whose side are you on?' And Trump has signaled in many ways that he's on the 'tough on crime' side. Democrats' signals have been more mixed. So when Democrats are tempted to say anyone worried about DC's crime level is ignorant, a scaredy-cat, or a demagogue, they should be aware they're going out on a limb. While voters may think Trump is going too far or mishandling certain cases, the broader crime issue remains favorable to him. It will take some serious work for Democrats to change that perception. Crime remains one of the party's most glaring political weaknesses.
The Hill
38 minutes ago
- The Hill
Republican civil war erupts over earmarks in funding bills
The return of earmarks to the annual appropriations bills has sparked a battle among Republicans on Capitol Hill, pitting fiscal hawks against members of the Appropriations Committees and their allies. It's a serious battle and one that could scuttle the chances of passing appropriations bills ahead of the Sept. 30 government funding deadline. Republican responsibility for the huge federal deficit has become a hot political issue after President Trump signed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which is projected to add $3.4 trillion to the debt over the next decade, into law. Conservatives are deeply disappointed that Trump's bill did not make deeper cuts to federal spending, and they want to make a statement with significant reductions in the annual appropriations bills for fiscal 2026. Adding to the frustrations of fiscal hawks, those bills are already loaded with earmarks directing the Trump administration how to spend funds. Conservatives view the return of earmarks as a return to the days of pork-barrel spending and a bad look for Republicans when the party is taking fire from Democrats for exploding future deficits. Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah), a leading conservative, argued that earmarks are still prohibited by Senate Republican conference rules, even though some members of the conference choose not to follow them. 'It's still prohibited by conference policy, and I think we need to stick to that,' Lee told The Hill. Lee said the proliferation of earmarks in the spending bills are 'incompatible with our approach as Republicans, and it's also incompatible with having $37 trillion in debt.' Some conservatives are pushing for Congress to pass a yearlong stop-gap spending measure that would freeze federal funding levels as a strategy to keep spending in check and the next wave of earmarks in limbo. Senate Republicans voted for a 'permanent ban' on earmarks in May 2019, when the proposal passed by a 28-12 vote after a heated debate behind closed doors. But earmarks have since made a big comeback. The House, then controlled by Democrats, voted in March 2021 to reverse an internal ban on earmarks. Senate Republicans, who were in the minority at the time, decided in April 2021 to stick with their conference pro forma ban on earmarks but left open a big loophole by allowing individual GOP senators to request money for home-state projects. That decision still rankles some Republicans years later. They believe they're in a position to change the rising tide of earmarks now that their party controls the White House and both chambers of Congress. Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) called the earmarks buried in the spending bills 'offensive.' 'It is offensive that I don't know what they are yet,' he said of earmarks. 'I'm asking my staff and we don't have the specifics on this. 'That's the problem. This stuff is all secret until you're ready to vote on it,' he added. Johnson has a proposal that would automatically rescind earmarks if lawmakers 'brag' about the millions of dollars in federal funding they're steering to projects back home in any kind of political context. Under his proposal, 'the only time members can talk about the earmarks, their congressionally directed spending, is as part of official Senate business — a hearing, a subcommittee hearing and on the floor,' he said. 'They can't then go out and brag about it in the media … if they do that, if they issue a press release, if they put it in a campaign ad, that spending gets automatically rescinded,' Johnson explained. Twenty-one Republican senators voted for Johnson's amendment when he offered it to the appropriations bill funding military construction and the Department of Veterans Affairs, a bill that was expanded to fund the Department of Agriculture and the legislative branch. Senate Finance Committee Chair Mike Crapo (R-Idaho) and Sens. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), Steve Daines (R-Mont.), Joni Ernst (R-Iowa), Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), Bernie Moreno (R-Ohio), Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and Lee were among the Republicans who voted for Johnson's proposal. The conservatives' backlash against earmarks in the package came after Punchbowl News reported that Senate Appropriations Committee Chair Susan Collins (R-Maine) loaded more than $810 million in earmarks and directed spending for Maine in the fiscal 2026 spending bills crafted by her committee. Collins, who faces a tough reelection battle next year, argues she has a better sense of her state's funding needs than unelected bureaucrats in Washington who otherwise would get to decide how to dole out federal funds without congressional guidance. Other Republicans are working hard behind the scenes to steer more money to their home states. More Republican senators have requested congressionally directed spending, aka earmarks, for the fiscal 2026 spending bills compared to last year. And earmarks have exploded in the Republican-controlled House. One Republican source familiar with the details of the spending bills noted House Republicans are also requesting more earmarks than they did last year and pointed out that Freedom Caucus Chair Andy Harris (R-Md.), an outspoken House conservative, has requested more than $55 million for his district. An analysis by Roll Call found House Republicans have packed the appropriations bills for next year with nearly $8 billion in earmarks. Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.) — the chair of the Senate Steering Committee who voted for Johnson's proposal to rescind earmarks if senators use them to score political points — said conservatives will make additional efforts to pull earmarks out of the spending bills and find other ways to reduce federal spending. 'Hopefully we have time to review the bills [and] not get rushed into votes on these things,' he said. 'We've got to understand we have a $2 trillion [annual] deficit, so we've got to get spending under control. That's what I'm going to try to do, and there are a lot of people in the same camp that I am.' Scott indicated he sees the battle against earmarks as part of a broader effort to curb federal spending after conservatives failed to include bigger spending reforms in Trump's megabill. 'People are doing everything they can to try to get spending under control,' he said. Lee, Johnson and Scott pushed an amendment to Trump's bill in June to reduce Medicaid spending by another $313 billion by preventing new enrollees in Medicaid expansion states from receiving the 9-to-1 enhanced Federal Medical Assistance Percentage if they are not disabled or don't have dependent children. They delayed a key procedural vote to advance the bill in hopes of gaining Republican support for the proposal, but despite assurances of help from Senate GOP leaders and Vice President Vance, the amendment didn't receive a vote.
