
The Trump administration said ‘many Jewish groups' support a controversial nominee — some have never heard of him
But when CNN reached out to those groups, most said the same thing: they don't support Ingrassia — and, in some cases, don't even know who he is. One went on the record to support Ingrassia — but that came after its executive director initially told CNN they were not supporting his nomination.
The first group listed, the Zionist Organization of America, and its leader Mort Klein, told CNN through a spokesperson that he doesn't know Ingrassia and had not endorsed him.
The chairman of a second group, the US Holocaust Memorial Council — which the administration originally referred to as 'The Holocaust Council' — told CNN it is a nonpartisan, nonpolitical group that does not take positions on political nominees.
The executive director of a third listed group, the Israeli Defense and Security Forum (IDSF) — an Israeli-based advocacy group for the country's national defense, also told CNN they had never expressed support for Ingrassia.
The executive director of a fourth group, the Israel Heritage Foundation, initially told CNN the same. But several days later the group's president said they were in fact supporting Ingrassia.
Ingrassia, who has just over six months of government experience, was nominated in May to lead the Office of Special Counsel, an independent agency tasked with protecting federal whistleblowers and enforcing civil service laws.
Last week, CNN's KFile reported Ingrassia's history of racist invective and conspiratorial rants, as well his claims that straight White men were the most intelligent demographic group.
In a tweet, Ingrassia called the October 7, 2023, Hamas attack against Israel, which killed an estimated 1,200 people that day and took another 251 people hostage, a 'psyop,' or a psychological operation.
His nomination has drawn scrutiny over his past promotion of conspiracy theories and tweets from his podcast that included calls for martial law following Donald Trump's 2020 election loss and harsh anti-Israel rhetoric aimed at the GOP.
Ingrassia has also been scrutinized for his ties to Nick Fuentes, a noted White nationalist and Holocaust denier, as well as his defense of Fuentes' ability to post on social media.
Given a chance to respond to those comments last week, the administration replied with a statement attributed to an unnamed senior administration official.
'He has the support of many Jewish groups and has been a steadfast advocate for Jewish causes and personnel during his time working for the Trump administration,' the statement read.
When asked which groups were consulted, the administration initially named just two: the Zionist Organization of America, and a group they called 'The Holocaust Council' — of which no group by that name could be found.
Reached for comment, a spokesperson for Morton Klein, the president of the first group listed, initially told CNN last Thursday that he had never heard of Ingrassia and had not endorsed his nomination.
Told of his denial by CNN, the administration pointed to a segment from June in which Klein is asked on the 'Wise Guys with John Tabacco' show on Newsmax if he'd support 'my buddy Paul Ingrassia,' for special counsel.
'If you ask me to do that I will certainly do that,' Klein replied.
Told of the administration's response, a Klein spokesperson reiterated it was an off-hand comment, and he did not know who Ingrassia was.
After several emails from CNN asking for clarity on 'The Holocaust Council,' the administration said they meant the United States Holocaust Memorial Council, the board of trustees for the Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, D.C.
But that group is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization, and the chair of the board of trustees told CNN they do not endorse nominees.
'The museum and the council do not take positions on nominees. We're a nonpolitical and nonpartisan organization,' Stuart E. Eizenstat, chair of the Holocaust Memorial Council and a Biden presidential appointee, said in a phone interview.
When asked if they meant individual board members support Ingrassia, a senior Trump administration official responded, 'it's a good question,' and then did not respond to follow up inquiries.
At least one member of the board of trustees of the Holocaust Memorial Council has commented in the past on Ingrassia publicly: Siggy Flicker, a former cast member of 'the Real Housewives of New Jersey,' whom Trump appointed in May. Flicker called Ingrassia an 'antisemite' several weeks ago in a since-removed post on Instagram. A source familiar with the board said Flicker removed the post after speaking with Ingrassia.
Flicker did not respond to repeated CNN requests for comment.
The administration also pointed to Jonathan Burkan, a Trump-appointed member of the Holocaust Memorial Council, as supporting Ingrassia's nomination. But Burkan told CNN, while he spoke to Ingrassia through a mutual friend and Ingrassia told him he was not antisemitic, 'I don't get involved in any nominations. I'm just not doing that.'
Last week, CNN reported that Ingrassia was spotted at a 2024 rally for Fuentes in Detroit and defended him online, including calling for his reinstatement on Twitter. A now-deleted X account tied to Ingrassia's former podcast also echoed far-right and anti-Israel rhetoric, amplified Fuentes' posts, and called for Trump to declare martial law after his defeat in 2020.
Ingrassia disputed to The Intercept and NPR in May that his attendance at the rally was intentional. 'I had no knowledge of who organized the event, observed for 5-10 minutes, then left,' he told NPR.
After CNN's story published, the administration listed two other groups — the Israel Heritage Foundation and the Israel Defense and Security Forum — as supporting Ingrassia.
IDSF's CEO Yaron Buskila told CNN that his organization had not endorsed Ingrassia, but that it was possible one of its 50,000 members did.
'No one ever supported him or said something about him in the media. Generally we are not supporting politicians, we support only ideas that can benefit the security of Israel,' he told CNN in an email on Sunday.
The director of international relations for the group also told CNN on Monday in an email they were not supporting Ingrassia.
'I wish we can be more helpful, but as you probably know, IDSF is an Israeli NGO (not a Jewish NGO) that focuses on Israeli national security issues. We really are not a relevant organization to be addressing the viability of a candidate for the Office of Special Counsel,' Elie Pieprz, the director, told CNN.
'We are not familiar with Paul Ingrassia and are not in a position to express support or opposition to his nomination,' he added. 'If anyone claimed that IDSF took a position on this, it was inadvertent. IDSF is not opposed or in favor of his nomination.
'None of us in the IDSF staff even heard about Paul Ingrassia before you mentioned him,' he continued.
The Israel Heritage Foundation is supporting Ingrassia's nomination, the group's executive president Stephen Soloway told CNN on Monday. Their support came after the group's executive director Rabbi David Katz told CNN on Thursday they were not supporting Ingrassia.
'Something doesn't make sense,' Katz told CNN in a phone call. 'It doesn't make sense, I have no idea who he is.'
On Monday, Soloway told CNN that Katz was wrong. The group was supporting Ingrassia's nomination.
'He's a major supporter of Judaism,' Soloway told CNN. 'He's not an antisemite. I consider Paul a very good friend.'
Asked about the discrepancy with Katz, Soloway told CNN, 'Rabbi Katz is our cheerleader,' before insisting CNN cover 'Zofran Muhammed' in the New York City's mayoral race, presumably meaning Zohran Mamdani, the Democratic nominee.
As CNN also reported on Wednesday, Ingrassia has promoted a 9/11 conspiracy theory and others, defended January 6 rioters, and amplified extremist voices online. He describes himself as 'Trump's favorite writer' after the former president reposted his content nearly 100 times in 2024 alone.
Ingrassia did not respond to a request for comment.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
23 minutes ago
- Yahoo
How reliable is the jobs data? Economists and Wall Street still trust it
WASHINGTON (AP) — The monthly jobs report is already closely-watched on Wall Street and in Washington but has taken on a new importance after President Donald Trump on Friday fired the official who oversees it. Trump claimed that June's employment figures were 'RIGGED' to make him and other Republicans 'look bad.' Yet he provided no evidence and even the official Trump had appointed in his first term to oversee the report, William Beach, condemned the firing of Erika McEntarfer, the director of the Bureau of Labor Statistics appointed by former President Joe Biden. The firing followed Friday's jobs report that showed hiring was weak in July and had come to nearly a standstill in May and June, right after Trump rolled out sweeping tariffs. Economists and Wall Street investors have long considered the job figures reliable, with share prices and bond yields often reacting sharply when they are released. Yet Friday's revisions were unusually large — the largest, outside of a recession, in five decades. And the surveys used to compile the report are facing challenges from declining response rates, particularly since COVID, as fewer companies complete the surveys. Nonetheless, that hasn't led most economists to doubt them. 'The bottom line for me is, I wouldn't take the low collection rate as any evidence that the numbers are less reliable,' Omair Sharif, founder and chief economist at Inflation Insights, a consulting firm, said. Many academics, statisticians and economists have warned for some time that declining budgets were straining the government's ability to gather economic data. There were several government commissions studying ways to improve things like survey response rates, but the Trump administration disbanded them earlier this year. Heather Boushey, a top economic adviser in the Biden White House, noted that without Trump's firing of McEntarfer, there would be more focus on last week's data, which points to a slowing economy. 'We're having this conversation about made-up issues to distract us from what the data is showing," Boushey said. 'Revisions of this magnitude in a negative direction may indicate bad things to come for the labor market.' Here are some things to know about the jobs report: Economists and Wall Street trust the data Most economists say that the Bureau of Labor Statistics is a nonpolitical agency staffed by people obsessed with getting the numbers right. The only political appointee is the commissioner, who doesn't see the data until it's finalized, two days before it is issued to the public. Erica Groshen, the BLS commissioner from 2013 to 2017, said she suggested different language in the report to "liven it up", but was shot down. She was told that if asked to describe a cup as half-empty or half-full, BLS says 'it is an eight ounce cup with four ounces of liquid.' The revised jobs data that has attracted Trump's ire is actually more in line with other figures than before the revision. For example, payroll processor ADP uses data from its millions of clients to calculate its own jobs report, and it showed a sharp hiring slowdown in May and June that is closer to the revised BLS data. Trump and his White House have a long track record of celebrating the jobs numbers — when they are good. These are the figures is Trump attacking Trump has focused on the revisions to the May and June data, which on Friday were revised lower, with job gains in May reduced to 19,000 from 144,000, and for June to just 14,000 from 147,000. Every month's jobs data is revised in the following two months. Trump also repeated a largely inaccurate attack from the campaign about an annual revision last August, which reduced total employment in the United States by 818,000, or about 0.5%. The government also revises employment figures every year. Trump charged the annual revision was released before the 2024 presidential election to 'boost' Vice President Kamala Harris's "chances of Victory," yet it was two months before the election and widely reported at the time that the revision lowered hiring during the Biden-Harris administration and pointed to a weaker economy. Here's why the government revises the data The monthly revisions occur because many companies that respond to the government's surveys send their data in late, or correct the figures they've already submitted. The proportion of companies sending in their data later has risen in the past decade. Every year, the BLS does an additional revision based on actual job counts that are derived from state unemployment insurance records. Those figures cover 95% of U.S. businesses and aren't derived from a survey but are not available in real time. These are the factors that cause revisions Figuring out how many new jobs have been added or lost each month is more complicated than it may sound. For example, if one person takes a second job, should you focus on the number of jobs, which has increased, or the number of employed people, which hasn't? (The government measures both: The unemployment rate is based on how many people either have or don't have jobs, while the number of jobs added or lost is counted separately). Each month, the government surveys about 121,000 businesses and government agencies at over 630,000 locations — including multiple locations for the same business — covering about one-third of all workers. Still, the government also has to make estimates: What if a company goes out of business? It likely won't fill out any forms showing the jobs lost. And what about new businesses? They can take a while to get on the government's radar. The BLS seeks to capture these trends by estimating their impact on employment. Those estimates can be wrong, of course, until they are fixed by the annual revisions. The revisions are often larger around turning points in the economy. For example, when the economy is growing, there may be more startups than the government expects, so revisions will be higher. If the economy is slowing or slipping into a recession, the revisions may be larger on the downside. Here's why the May and June revisions may have been so large Ernie Tedeschi, an economic adviser to the Biden administration, points to the current dynamics of the labor market: Both hiring and firing have sharply declined, and fewer Americans are quitting their jobs to take other work. As a result, most of the job gains or losses each month are probably occurring at new companies, or those going out of business. And those are the ones the government uses models to estimate, which can make them more volatile. Groshen also points out that since the pandemic there has been a surge of new start-up companies, after many Americans lost their jobs or sought more independence. Yet they may not have created as many jobs as startups did pre-COVID, which throws off the government's models. Revisions seem to be getting bigger The revisions to May and June's job totals, which reduced hiring by a total of 258,000, were the largest — outside recessions — since 1967, according to economists at Goldman Sachs. Kevin Hassett, Trump's top economic adviser, went on NBC's 'Meet the Press' on Sunday and said, 'What we've seen over the last few years is massive revisions to the jobs numbers.' Hassett blamed a sharp drop in response rates to the government's surveys during and after the pandemic: 'When COVID happened, because response rates went down a lot, then revision rates skyrocketed.' Yet calculations by Tedeschi show that while revisions spiked after the pandemic, they have since declined and are much smaller than in the 1960s and 1970s. Other concerns about the government's data Many economists and statisticians have sounded the alarm about things like declining response rates for years. A decade ago, about 60% of companies surveyed by BLS responded. Now, only about 40% do. The decline has been an international phenomenon, particularly since COVID. The United Kingdom has even suspended publication of an official unemployment rate because of falling responses. And earlier this year the BLS said that it was cutting back on its collection of inflation data because of the Trump administration's hiring freeze, raising concerns about the robustness of price data just as economists are trying to gauge the impact of tariffs on inflation. U.S. government statistical agencies have seen an inflation-adjusted 16% drop in funding since 2009, according to a July report from the American Statistical Association. 'We are at an inflection point,' the report said. 'To meet current and future challenges requires thoughtful, well-planned investment ... In contrast, what we have observed is uncoordinated and unplanned reductions with no visible plan for the future. Christopher Rugaber, The Associated Press Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data


Bloomberg
25 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
Tariffs Starting to Slow Growth: Morgan Stanley's Zezas
Michael Zezas, Morgan Stanley's head of U.S. public policy research, says that over the next two to three months, we need to look carefully at inflation, labor data, as well as, product-by-product breakdowns to understand how the economy is absorbing tariff actions. He speaks to Romaine Bostick and Scarlet Fu on "The Close." (Source: Bloomberg)


Fox News
25 minutes ago
- Fox News
Texas State Troopers tracking down fleeing Texas Dems
Fox News correspondent Garrett Tenney reports on the Texas Democrats who have fled the state to avoid voting on the proposed new Congressional map on 'Special Report.'