Republican gov slams city for considering 'antisemitic' resolution, threatens to pull funding
A city in Texas could lose its state funding over a resolution calling for a ceasefire in Gaza and an arms embargo against Israel. Gov. Greg Abbott, R-Texas, wrote a letter to San Marcos Mayor Jane Hughson admonishing the City Council, which voted to bring the resolution to a formal vote on May 6.
In his letter, Abbott pointed out that while the council was considering a resolution for a "permanent ceasefire in occupied Palestine," it had not done the same to condemn Hamas following the Oct. 7 massacre.
"Israel is a stalwart ally of the United States and a friend to Texas. I have repeatedly made clear that Texas will not tolerate antisemitism. Anti-Israel policies are anti-Texas policies," Abbott wrote.
The governor said he was "proud" to have signed a law banning Texas government entities from supporting efforts to boycott, divest from and sanction (BDS) Israel. The BDS movement argues that Israel should not receive financial support due to its actions in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank.
Texas law, specifically Code § 2271.002, states that government entities are prohibited from entering into a contract worth $100,000 or more without a written guarantee that the contracting entity does not boycott Israel. Under the law, "boycott Israel" is defined as "refusing to deal with, terminating business activities with, or otherwise taking any action that is intended to penalize, inflict economic harm on, or limit commercial relations specifically with Israel..." Government entities that violate the law put their funding at risk.
Abbott wrote in his letter that his office had already begun "reviewing active grants with San Marcos to determine whether the city has breached terms by falsely certifying compliance with Texas law." Additionally, he said that if the city moves to pass the resolution, his office would not enter into future grant agreements with the city and would terminate active grants.
The City Council agenda description of the April 15 discussion read: "Hold a discussion regarding a possible resolution calling for the immediate and permanent ceasefire in occupied Palestine, an arms embargo on Israel, recognition of Palestinian sovereignty, and the protection of constitutional rights for all people under national and international law."
San Marcos City Council member Alyssa Garza, who apparently put the resolution on the agenda, spoke at the April 15 meeting, framing the resolution as a way to fight big government. Garza listed the ways in which she believes larger government entities are threatening smaller ones and insisted that Texans could not rely on the same government "to stop a genocide."
"[It's] clear to me that when they fund bombs, but cut aid for housing and education and so on here, that's connected. When they silence protests here and crush dissent abroad, that's connected. When they defund local governments and nonprofits and they call us 'distractive' for standing up, that's absolutely connected," Garza said.
Another council member, Amanda Rodriguez, said the resolution wasn't political, but rather a "moral litmus test." She also described the war in Gaza as a "genocide." Additionally, Rodriguez made a plea to Jews who did not attend the meeting because "there has been such a conflation with this resolution being compared to antisemitism." As part of the plea, she then said, "You cannot tell me that Judaism as a religion supports this."
In just five days, the San Marcos City Council is set to vote on the resolution and if it passes, Abbott's office is expected to evaluate its grants to the city.
Hughson, Garza and Rodriguez have yet to respond to a Fox News Digital request for comment.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNN
22 minutes ago
- CNN
Troops begin detaining immigrants in national defense zone at border in escalation of military role
US troops have begun directly detaining immigrants accused of trespassing on a recently designated national defense zone along the southern US border, in an escalation of the military's enforcement role, authorities said Wednesday US Army Lieutenant Colonel Chad Campbell described in detail the first detentions by troops last week of three immigrants accused of trespassing in a national defense area near Santa Teresa, New Mexico. Those migrants were quickly turned over to US Customs and Border Protection and are now among more than 1,400 migrants to have been charged with illegally entering militarized areas along that border, under a new border enforcement strategy from President Donald Trump's administration. Troops are prohibited from conducting civilian law enforcement on US soil under the Posse Comitatus Act. But an exception known as the military purpose doctrine allows it in some instances. Authorities 'noticed three individuals crossing the protective barrier into the United States,' Campbell said. 'A Department of Defense response went to interdict those three individuals, told them to sit down. … In a matter of three minutes, border patrol agents came in to apprehend. So that three minutes is that temporary detention' by the military. Trump has designated two national military defense areas along the southern US border for New Mexico and a 60-mile stretch of western Texas, from El Paso to Fort Hancock, while transferring much of the land from the Interior Department to oversight by the Department of Defense for three years. The Trump administration plans eventually to add more militarized zones along the border, a military spokesman said Wednesday at a news conference in El Paso. 'We have been very clear that there will be additional National Defense Areas across the southern border,' said Geoffrey Carmichael, a spokesperson for an enforcement task force at the southern border. 'I won't speculate to where those are going to be.' Proponents of the militarized zones, including federal prosecutors, say the approach augments traditional efforts by Customs and Border Protection and other law enforcement agencies to secure the border. 'These partnerships and consequences exist so that we can promote the most humane border environment we've ever had,' El Paso sector Border Patrol Chief Agent Walter Slosar said. 'We are dissuading people from entering the smuggling cycle … to make sure that smugglers cannot take advantage of individuals who are trying to come into the United States.' Defense attorneys — and judges in some instances — are pushing back against the novel application of national security charges against immigrants who enter through those militarized zones — and carry a potential sentence of 18 months in prison on top of a possible six-month sentence for illegal entry. A judge in New Mexico has dismissed more than 100 national security charges against immigrants, finding little evidence that immigrants knew about the national defense areas. Those migrants still confronted charges of illegal entry to the US. In Texas, a Peruvian woman who crossed the US border illegally was acquitted of unauthorized access to a newly designated militarized zone in the first trial under the Trump administration's efforts. US Attorney Justin Simmons, who oversees western Texas, vowed to press forward with more military trespassing charges. 'We're gonna keep going forward on these NDA charges,' Simmons said. 'We are gonna still bring them, we may win on them, we may not. … At the end of the day, you are not going to be allowed to stay in this country if you enter this country illegally.' Greater military engagement at the border takes place at the same time dozens of mayors from across the Los Angeles region banded together Wednesday to demand that the Trump administration stop the stepped-up immigration raids that have spread fear across their cities and sparked protests across the US. Trump has authorized the deployment of an additional 2,000 National Guard members to respond to immigration protests in LA. That directive brings the total number of Guard put on federal orders for the protests to more than 4,100. The Pentagon had already deployed about 700 Marines to the protests to the city.
San Francisco Chronicle
28 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
UN to vote on resolution demanding Gaza ceasefire, hostage release and aid access
UNITED NATIONS (AP) — The U.N. General Assembly is expected to vote Thursday on a resolution demanding an immediate ceasefire in Gaza, the release of all hostages held by Hamas, and the opening of all Israeli border crossings for deliveries of desperately needed food and other aid. The resolution, drafted by Spain and obtained Wednesday by The Associated Press, 'strongly condemns any use of starvation of civilians as a method of warfare.' Experts and human rights workers say hunger is widespread in Gaza and some 2 million Palestinians are at risk of famine if Israel does not fully lift its blockade and halt its military campaign, which it renewed in March after ending a ceasefire with Hamas. Last week, the U.N. Security Council failed to pass a resolution demanding a ceasefire in Gaza and calling on Israel to lift all restrictions on the delivery of aid. The United States vetoed the resolution because it was not linked to the release of the hostages, while all 14 other members of the council voted in favor. There are no vetoes in the 193-member General Assembly, where the resolution is expected to pass overwhelmingly. But unlike in the Security Council, assembly resolutions are not legally binding, though they are seen as a barometer of world opinion. After a 10-week blockade that barred all aid to Gaza, Israel is allowing the United Nations to deliver a trickle of food assistance and is backing a newly created U.S. aid group, which has opened several sites in the center and south of the territory to deliver food parcels. But the aid system rolled out last month by the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation has been troubled by near-daily shootings as crowds make their way to aid sites, while the longstanding U.N.-run system has struggled to deliver food because of Israeli restrictions and a breakdown of law and order. The draft resolution being voted on Thursday references a March 28 legally binding order by the top United Nations court for Israel to open more land crossings into Gaza for food, water, fuel and other supplies. The International Court of Justice issued the order in a case brought by South Africa accusing Israel of acts of genocide in its war in Gaza, charges Israel strongly denies. The resolution stresses that Israel, as an occupying power, has an obligation under international law to ensure that humanitarian aid reaches those in need. It reiterates the assembly's commitment to a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, with the Gaza Strip as part of a Palestinian state. The assembly is holding a high-level meeting next week to push for a two-state solution, which Israel has rejected. The resolution supports mediation efforts by Egypt, Qatar and the United States aimed at implementing a January ceasefire agreement. When the U.S. vetoed last week's Gaza resolution, acting Ambassador Dorothy Shea said it would have undermined the security of Israel and diplomatic efforts to reach a ceasefire 'that reflects the realities on the ground.' Like the failed Security Council resolution, the resolution to be voted on Thursday also does not condemn Hamas' deadly attack in southern Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, which ignited the war, or say the militant group must disarm and withdraw from Gaza. Both are U.S. demands. The Hamas-led militants killed around 1,200 people, mostly civilians, and took 251 hostage. About 55 hostages are still being held. Israel's military campaign has killed over 55,000 Palestinians, according to Gaza's Health Ministry. It says women and children make up most of the dead, but doesn't distinguish between civilians and combatants. Israel says it has killed more than 20,000 militants, without providing evidence.
Yahoo
29 minutes ago
- Yahoo
How to decode the shifting politics of the anti-Trump protests
Protests against Donald Trump's mass deportations, now spreading nationwide, could define his presidency, make or break Democratic careers and shape future elections. The White House, which thinks it has all the cards, keeps escalating the drama in Los Angeles. Trump's aggression underlines two themes of his second presidency – the desires to look strong and to grab even more power. Democrats, still looking to explain their 2024 election defeat and to cope with Trump's round-the-clock shock politics, again risk looking weak and overmatched. But in California Gov. Gavin Newsom, at least, they finally have a champion willing to stand up to Trump – even if he's mostly looking to 2028. As the most significant protest outburst of Trump's second term develops, top leaders in both parties face risky calculations and swift adjustments. Democrats have a political base itching for a fight back against the president, but must worry that radical reactions from the party's left wing will alienate the voters who walked out on them in 2024. The White House might be convinced that the confrontations are a political gift that put Democrats in a political vise for now. But Trump is stoking tensions that could be hard to control. And by putting troops into volatile situations in the proximity of protesters and agitators, he risks clashes that could turn tragic and could validate claims that he's risking lives for a callous personal payoff. The White House's line on the crisis is blunt and ruthless. '(Democrats') opposition to President Trump has forced them to side with illegal alien criminals in their communities and violent rioters and looters over law enforcement officers who are just doing their jobs,' White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said Wednesday. A key goal here is to dehumanize the humans caught up in the deportation effort. The experience of an undocumented migrant often involves broken families and desperate people fleeing persecution or poverty. Even the hardest-hearted voter might feel sympathy. So, Leavitt implied that all those being targeted by ICE officers are 'illegal alien murderers, rapists and pedophiles.' Republicans are also reviving a previously successful narrative that helped Trump win power twice – that Democrats hate the police. 'That's how radical Democrats have become. Their opposition to President Trump has forced them to side with illegal alien criminals in their communities and violent rioters and looters over law enforcement officers who are just doing their jobs,' Leavitt said. Next, an assault on the patriotism of Democrats, suggesting that they are disloyal and side with enemies. Leavitt said, 'These attacks were aimed not just at law enforcement, but at American culture and society itself. Rioters burned American flags, chanted 'death to ICE' and spray-painted anti-American slogans on buildings.' This dystopian picture isn't just for political effect; it's designed to drown out a ballooning constitutional crisis over whether Trump has the authority to use active-duty troops on US soil. And this is the classic argument used by authoritarians everywhere – the fabric of society is so broken that only a strongman can fix it. 'President Trump will never allow mob rule to prevail in America. The most basic duty of government is to preserve law and order, and this administration embraces that sacred responsibility,' Leavitt said. She added, 'That's why President Trump deployed the National Guard and mobilized Marines to end the chaos and restore law and order. The mob violence is being stomped out. The criminals responsible will be swiftly brought to justice, and the Trump administration's operations to arrest illegal aliens are continuing unabated.' Some of the administration's rhetoric seems also designed to inject momentum into the deportation drive, the volume of which has disappointed some officials, and to normalize the use of the military in the effort. If Trump doesn't use maximum aggression, the narrative goes, deportations will stop, Americans will be unsafe and a foreign 'invasion' will succeed. Arkansas Sen. Tom Cotton made this point in a Wall Street Journal opinion piece 'Send in the Troops, for Real' that he used to call for 'an overwhelming show of force to end the riots.' He wrote: 'The threat from the radical left is clear: Don't enforce immigration laws. If you do, left-wing street militias will burn down cities, and Democratic politicians will back the rioters. The president is absolutely right to reject this threat, enforce immigration laws, and restore civil order.' Trump never undersells his tough guy act. He's ready to go beyond the deployments of 4,000 National Guard troops and 700 Marines he's sent to Los Angeles, who are not yet on the front lines of protests. 'I can be stronger on an attack on Los Angeles,' Trump told the New York Post's 'Pod Force One' podcast, explaining the greater leeway he feels in his second term. And Attorney General Pam Bondi said on the driveway of the White House Wednesday: 'We are not scared to go further … if we need to.' So, will the belligerence work for Trump politically? If he can convince the public that the situation is truly dire, he might gain support for his breaching of a taboo on the use of US troops on domestic soil. There's no doubt that Trump's voters respond to his bullishness. At his campaign rallies, his most violent rhetoric often got the biggest cheers. Hardline tactics against migrants and demonstrators also go down well with his base. White House officials also believe that Trump's tough border policy and plan for deportations won over a broader cohort of voters. 'America voted for mass deportations,' top Trump aide Stephen Miller posted Wednesday on X. Immigration issues have often worked in Trump's favor before. But the risk here is that he's inciting a crisis that could spread, get out of control and cost lives. He might pine to run an autocracy, but it's not clear that most Americans want to live in such conditions. And if protesters or police officers and soldiers were hurt in violence he exacerbated, it's on him. Trump lost after his first term because he made a crisis – the pandemic – worse. History could repeat itself. And once presidents lose the public's confidence, they tend to find it impossible to regain. The breaking point could come if the expulsions widen. Recent polls have shown that while Americans do back deportations and a tougher border policy, they don't necessarily agree when friends, neighbors and otherwise law-abiding members of the community get swept up. In Trump's first term, the zero-tolerance policy of separating migrant kids from their parents caused a public furor encapsulated by the phrase 'kids in cages.' Most political observers believe the country has moved right on immigration because of the Biden administration's hapless performance at the southern border. But a piece of poignant imagery that encapsulates cruelty or incompetence could yet shatter Trump's credibility. Democrats face an extraordinarily complex political situation without a leader recognized by most of the country. Combating Trump's demagoguery and spinning of alternative realities would be nearly impossible if the party were firing on all cylinders – never mind when it's wandering in the wilderness. Newsom's address to Californians on Tuesday night seemed partly calculated to inject some direction and steel to the party and supporters who've watched Trump assault the Constitution, the rule of law and bastions of the liberal establishment for four turbulent months. Everything that Newsom says and does will be refracted through the widespread belief that he plans to run for president. For him and other Democratic governors also contemplating a run, this crisis offers opportunity and peril. Great politicians seize their moments. And a strong pushback to Trump could win goodwill among base voters. Certainly, Newsom can raise his profile by going head-to-the-head with the president every day. Still, few Democrats come out on top of a confrontation with Trump. Perhaps only former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, with her performative contempt, really got the better of Trump. And the president will use the power of his office to hurt his rivals. Before the Los Angeles protests, he was already trying to cut federal aid to California – seeking to punish its people effectively for the way they voted. Several sitting Democratic governors – Josh Shapiro of Pennsylvania, Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan and Wes Moore of Maryland – might also be planning runs in 2028, and could end up facing similar challenges to Newsom. Perhaps one of them will solve the dilemma of how to avoid angering base voters sympathetic to migrants while building support among centrists, independents and moderate Republicans who still want tougher border policies. If they do, they will achieve something almost no center-left politician in the Western world has yet managed. Democratic leaders will also be desperate to make sure the current crisis doesn't unleash reactions inside the party that make it unpalatable to voters more generally. The Black Lives Matter protests in 2020 provide a warning. While many Americans supported the nationwide marches that erupted after the killing of George Floyd by a Minneapolis police officer, calls to 'defund the police' from isolated parts of the progressive base morphed into a political disaster that haunted the party in subsequent elections. And while Trump's deployment of troops to Los Angeles risks challenging constitutional limits, another perennial Democratic warning – that he'll destroy democracy – fell on deaf ears in 2024.
