ignoring

Wanjiru Family

Wanjiru Family

British High Commission Nairobi

You may also be interested in:

Getty Images/BBC

As the Democratic Party searches for direction in the post-2024 landscape, its leaders seem bent on alienating their own base over Gaza. This is not a matter of nuance or tactical positioning; it’s a profound moral and political miscalculation.

That failure is on vivid display in the decision by House Democratic Caucus Chair Pete Aguilar (Redlands) to help lead a delegation of mostly freshman Democratic representatives recently to Israel. The trip included meetings with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who is on trial for corruption in Israel and is the subject of arrest warrants from the International Criminal Court alleging war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Polling makes the disconnect impossible to ignore. In July, Gallup found that just 8% of Democrats approve of Israel’s military campaign in Gaza, with disapproval overwhelming. Pew Research Center reported in April that 69% of Democrats now hold an unfavorable view of Israel — a striking shift from just a few years ago. And Data for Progress has consistently found supermajority Democratic support for a permanent ceasefire; in May 2024, 83% of Democrats backed a permanent ceasefire, and in a June 12, 2024, poll a majority of Democrats said they believed Israel was committing war crimes in Gaza.

Aguilar’s role makes this especially galling. He isn’t a backbencher; he’s a high-ranking member of the Democratic Party leadership. That gives him a particular responsibility to model principled conduct for newer members. Instead, he’s showing them the wrong lesson: that obedience to the donor class matters more than representing constituents. The point is underscored by his fundraising: OpenSecrets reports Aguilar received about $678,000 from donors categorized as “Pro-Israel” in the 2023–24 cycle.

The mechanics of that influence are no mystery. The American Israel Public Affairs Committee and allied pro-Israel PACs reward loyalty with torrents of campaign cash and punish dissent with lavishly funded primary challenges. Reps. Jamaal Bowman and Cori Bush — both outspoken critics of Israel’s conduct in Gaza — have been textbook examples: Bowman was unseated after record outside spending flooded his race, and Bush faced a barrage of super-PAC money that ultimately toppled her. The incentive structure is clear: Toe the line and your coffers swell; cross it and a financial juggernaut rolls over you.

There is a political price for complying with this pressure, however. The Institute for Middle East Understanding, using YouGov, found that among voters who backed Joe Biden in 2020 but chose someone else in 2024 “ending Israel’s violence in Gaza” was the top issue for 29% nationally — ahead of the economy — and 20% in battleground states. Those results point to a straightforward conclusion: Ignoring Democratic voters on Gaza depresses enthusiasm and peels away enough support to matter in close races.

Gaza is politically damaging not only because of the issue itself — though the moral stakes could hardly be higher — but also because it has become a measure of where leaders’ loyalties lie. Voters read it as a test of whether their representatives will stand with the people who elected them or with wealthy donors and foreign lobbies. Fail that test and many will assume you might betray them on other critical issues in the future.

The Democratic leadership’s unwillingness to adapt is not just bad politics; it’s a betrayal of basic democratic principles. Rank-and-file Democrats overwhelmingly want an end to the carnage, an end to unconditional military aid to Israel, and policies rooted in human rights and international law. Yet too many leaders seem more concerned with keeping favor in donor circles than with honoring the public’s will.

If Democrats hope to retain their coalition, they need to realign policy with their voters’ values: call for a permanent ceasefire; condition U.S. military assistance on compliance with international law; and replace photo-op delegations with diplomacy that centers on justice and accountability.

Until then, every AIPAC-sponsored trip led by a party leader will read like a declaration of priorities — and a reminder of the price the party will continue to pay at the ballot box.

George Bisharat is a professor emeritus at UC Law San Francisco and a longtime commentator on U.S. policy toward the Middle East.

In 2010, California voters drove the foxes from the henhouse, seeing to it that lawmakers in Washington and Sacramento would no longer have the power to draw congressional districts to suit themselves.

It wasn’t close.

Proposition 20 passed by a lopsided 61%-to-38% margin, giving congressional line-drawing authority to an independent mapmaking commission and thus ending decades of pro forma elections by injecting much-needed competition into California’s House races.

Now, Gov. Gavin Newsom is talking about undoing voters’ handiwork.

Newsom said he may seek to cancel the commission, tear up the boundaries it drew and let Democratic partisans draft a new set of lines ahead of next year’s midterm election — all to push back on President Trump and Texas Republicans, who are attempting a raw power grab to enhance the GOP’s standing in 2026.

The threatened move is a long shot and, more than anything, a ploy to boost Newsom’s White House ambitions.

It’s also highly presumptuous on his part, reflecting an increased arrogance among lawmakers around the country who are saying to voters, in effect, “Thank you for your input. Now go away.”

Take what just happened in Missouri. Last year, 58% of voters approved a ballot measure increasing the state minimum wage and requiring employers to provide paid sick leave. This month, Republican Gov. Mike Kehoe signed legislation that limited the minimum wage increase and scrapped the sick leave requirement altogether.

In two other states, Alaska and Nebraska, lawmakers similarly tried but failed to, respectively, overturn voter-passed measures on paid sick leave and a hike in the minimum wage.

“It’s a damning indictment of representative democracy when elected officials are scared of the will of their own voters,” said Alexis Magnan-Callaway of the Fairness Project, a union-backed advocacy group that focuses on state ballot measures.

It is indeed.

But it’s part of a pattern in recent years of lawmakers, mainly in Republican-led states, undercutting or working to roll back voter-designed measures to enshrine abortion rights, expand Medicare and raise the minimum wage.

To be clear, those measures were passed by voters of all stripes: Democrats, Republicans, independents.

“People are transcending party lines to vote for issues that they know will impact their communities,” said Chris Melody Fields Figueredo, executive director of the Ballot Initiative Strategy Center, a progressive organization. By ignoring or working to nullify the result, she said, lawmakers are helping contribute “to what we’re seeing across the country, where people are losing faith in our institutions and in government.”

And why wouldn’t they, if politicians pay no mind save to ask for their vote come election time?

In a direct attack on the initiative process, at least nine state legislatures passed or considered laws in their most recent session making it harder — and perhaps even impossible — for citizens to place measures on the ballot and seek a popular vote.

There can be issues with direct democracy, as Sean Morales-Doyle of the Brennan Center for Justice pointed out.

“There can be times when systems can be abused to confuse voters,” he said, “or where voters do things without maybe fully understanding what it is they’re doing, because of the way ballot measures are drafted or ballot summaries are offered.”

But it’s one thing to address those glitches, Morales-Doyle said, and “another thing to just basically say that we, as the representatives of voters, disagree with what voters think the best policy is and so we’re going to make it harder for them to enact the policy that they desire.”

In Texas, Republicans are wielding their lopsided power in hopes of erasing as many as five Democratic-leaning congressional seats, boosting the GOP’s chances of keeping control of the House in the 2026 midterm election. Trump, staring at the prospect of an emboldened, subpoena-wielding Democratic House majority, is backing the effort whole-hog.

That, Newsom said, is the fighting-fire-with-fire reason to tear up California’s congressional map and gerrymander the state for Democrats just as egregiously as Texas Republicans hope to do. “We can sit on the sidelines, talk about the way the world should be. Or, we can recognize the existential nature that is this moment,” the governor asserted.

It’s awfully hard to argue against corralling the errant Trump and his Republican enablers. Still, that’s no reason to ignore the express will of California voters when it comes to reining in their own lawmakers.

Taking Newsom’s gerrymander threat at face value, there are two ways he could possibly override Proposition 20.

He could break the law and win passage of legislation drawing new congressional districts, face an inevitable lawsuit and hope to win a favorable ruling from the California Supreme Court. Or he could call a costly special election and ask voters to reverse themselves and eliminate the state’s nonpartisan redistricting commission, at least for the time being.

It’s a hard sell. One presumes Newsom’s message to Californians would not be: “Let’s spend hundreds of millions of your tax dollars so you can surrender your power and return it to politicians working their will in the backrooms of Washington and Sacramento.”

But that’s the gist of what they would be asked to do, which bespeaks no small amount of hubris on Newsom’s part.

If elections are going to matter — especially at a time our democracy is teetering so — politicians have to accept the results, whether they like them or not.

Otherwise, what’s the point of having elections?

A former lawyer with the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) has published a whistleblower complaint accusing officials of intentionally ignoring court orders that might impede US President Donald Trump’s campaign for mass deportation.

On Tuesday, representatives for Erez Reuveni filed a 35-page letter of complaint detailing the lawyer’s allegations against the Trump administration.

It offers a look at the debates and divisions unfolding behind the scenes at the Justice Department, as it defends Trump’s efforts to arrest and rapidly deport non-citizens, a process that has spurred concern about rights violations.

Members of the Trump administration have “engaged in unlawful activity, abused their authority, [and] created substantial and specific threat to health and safety”, according to the letter.

As a result, it says, “Mr Reuveni is exercising his rights … to report wrongdoing”.

The letter was addressed to members of Congress, as well as the inspector general for the Justice Department, who investigates allegations of misconduct within the bureau. Reuveni was ultimately fired in April.

One administration official who features prominently in his allegations is Emil Bove, who formerly served as Trump’s personal lawyer. Bove helped to defend Trump against criminal charges last year in New York, where he was found guilty of 34 counts of falsifying business documents.

Trump has since named Bove to be part of his administration in his second term as president. For the first three months of Trump’s term, Bove was acting attorney general at the Justice Department. And this week, he faces a Senate confirmation hearing for his nomination to join the US Third Circuit Court of Appeals as a judge.

Scrutiny on deportation flights

One incident allegedly occurred on March 14, when Trump was weighing whether to use a wartime law — the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 — to pave the way for expedited removals from the country.

According to Reuveni’s account, Bove told Justice Department lawyers that Trump would soon sign an order to invoke the law, which had only been used three times in US history, all during periods of war.

Bove added that planes would imminently take off, deporting individuals under the law’s authority.

But as Reuveni recalled, Bove anticipated pushback from the courts. He said that Bove “stressed to all in attendance that the planes needed to take off no matter what” and that the Justice Department “would need to consider telling the courts ‘f*** you’”.

The room fell silent, according to Reuveni, who observed “awkward, nervous glances” among his colleagues.

“Mr Reuveni was stunned by Bove’s statement because, to Mr Reuveni’s knowledge, no one in DOJ leadership — in any Administration — had ever suggested the Department of Justice could blatantly ignore court orders, especially with a ‘f*** you’,” the complaint said.

It added that the Justice Department typically advises its government clients to follow court orders, not ignore them.

The very next day, on March 15, the government’s use of the Alien Enemies Act was challenged in a US district court in Washington, DC, led by Judge James Boasberg.

When questioned by Boasberg, a high-ranking Justice Department lawyer denied knowing whether any deportation flights were taking off imminently. In his complaint, Reuveni said that statement was false.

Later that day, Boasberg issued a court injunction that barred any removals under the Alien Enemies Act and required any US planes carrying out such deportations to return to the country.

Reuveni said he emailed the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of State multiple times in the hours afterwards to ensure they complied with Boasberg’s order. But he said he received no reply.

The flights ultimately landed in El Salvador, where hundreds of deported immigrants were sent to a prison called the Terrorism Confinement Centre or CECOT.

“Mr Reuveni anticipated that the government would be held in contempt of court for deplaning those on the flight,” the complaint reads.

Boasberg has since indicated that he has found probable cause for contempt on the part of the Trump administration, though an appeals court has temporarily paused proceedings on the matter.

Inside the Abrego Garcia case

In a second instance detailed in the complaint, Reuveni said he tried to alert the Trump administration that it may be in violation of another court injunction — only to be “told to stop asking questions”.

Further, Reuveni alleged that he received advice to “communicate by phone only where possible”, presumably to avoid leaving a paper trail.

A third episode outlined in the complaint sheds light on Reuveni’s participation in the high-profile case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran man who had a protection order allowing him to remain in the US.

Abrego Garcia was nevertheless deported on March 15, in what officials admitted was an “administrative error”.

The Trump administration has nevertheless defended its actions by accusing Abrego Garcia of membership in a gang, MS-13.

Despite a court order, upheld by the Supreme Court, to “facilitate” Abrego Garcia’s return, the Trump administration left him in Salvadoran custody for more than two months. Only on June 6 did it return him to the US, on the premise that he would face criminal charges for human trafficking.

In the complaint, Reuveni said that, at first, he thought Abrego Garcia’s return to the US would be “straightforward”.

But then he said he was stonewalled and told to “cease making requests” and “stop asking for facts supporting any possible defence of the case”. He was also discouraged from making “asks” of El Salvador’s government.

Reuveni later made headlines for conceding in court that Abrego Garcia should not have been removed from the country. He also said he did not have “satisfactory” answers for questions from the judge in the case, Paula Xinis.

That incident was perceived as a black eye for the Trump administration.

Behind closed doors, Reuveni’s boss asked him why he did not accuse Abrego Garcia of being “a member of a terrorist organisation” during the court hearing, according to the complaint. Reuveni said he responded that the government had not provided evidence or submitted briefs to support that argument.

When the Trump administration circulated an appeal on April 4 advancing those arguments, Reuveni reportedly said he could not sign it because the allegations “were not supported by law or the record”.

“Mr Reuveni responded, ‘I didn’t sign up to lie,’” the complaint said.

Professional fallout

By April 11, Reuveni was fired from his position with the Justice Department, after nearly 15 years of service.

Attorney General Pam Bondi issued a statement at the time accusing him of failing to “zealously advocate on behalf of the United States”, as is expected of a government lawyer. But Reuveni’s complaint disputes that accusation.

“Discouraging clients from engaging in illegal conduct is an important part of the role of lawyer,” it reads. “Mr Reuveni tried to do so and was thwarted, threatened, fired and publicly disparaged for both doing his job and telling the truth to the court.”

The complaint notes that Reuveni had previously received “stellar” evaluations for his work on immigration policy, including during Trump’s first term.

Still, as the news of the complaint circulated on US media, members of the Trump administration sought to frame Reuveni’s claims as those of a “disgruntled former employee”.

“I was at the meeting described in the article and at no time did anyone suggest a court order should not be followed,” said Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche in a statement on social media.

He accused Reuveni and media outlets like The New York Times, which published a copy of Reuveni’s complaint, of attempting to sabotage Bove’s chances of being confirmed as a circuit court judge.

“This is disgusting journalism,” he wrote. “Planting a false hit piece the day before a confirmation hearing is something we have come to expect from the media, but it does not mean it should be tolerated.”

Democrats, meanwhile, seized the complaint as evidence of malfeasance in the Trump administration.

“Emil Bove has no respect for the rule of law and court orders. He does not belong on the federal bench,” Senator Cory Booker wrote on social media.

Senator Dick Durbin, meanwhile, released a statement praising Reuveni for coming forward as a whistleblower. He said the Senate had an obligation to act on the “serious allegations” raised about Bove.

“I want to thank Mr Reuveni for exercising his right to speak up and bring accountability to Mr Bove,” Durbin wrote. “And I implore my Senate Republican colleagues: do not turn a blind eye to the dire consequences of confirming Mr Bove to a lifetime position as a circuit court judge.”

WASHINGTON — A top Justice Department official suggested the Trump administration might have to ignore court orders as it prepared to deport Venezuelan migrants it accused of being gang members, a fired department lawyer alleged in a whistleblower complaint made public Tuesday.

The whistleblower’s claims about Principal Assistant Deputy Atty. Gen. Emil Bove come a day before Bove is set to face lawmakers Wednesday for his confirmation hearing to become a federal appeals court judge.

In a letter seeking a congressional and Justice Department watchdog investigation, the former government lawyer, Erez Reuveni, alleges he was pushed out and publicly disparaged after resisting efforts to defy judges and make arguments in court that were false or had no legal basis.

The most explosive allegation in the letter from Reuveni’s lawyers centers on a Justice Department meeting in March concerning President Trump’s plans to invoke the Alien Enemies Act over what the president claimed was an invasion by the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua. Reuveni says Bove raised the possibility that a court might block the deportations before they could happen. Reuveni claims Bove used a profanity, saying the department would need to consider telling the courts “f— you,” and “ignore any such order,” according to the filing.

“Mr. Reuveni was stunned by Bove’s statement because, to Mr. Reuveni’s knowledge, no one in DOJ leadership — in any Administration — had ever suggested the Department of Justice could blatantly ignore court orders, especially with” an expletive, the filing says. In the weeks after the meeting, Reuveni says he raised concerns in several cases about efforts to violate court orders through “lack of candor, deliberate delay and disinformation.”

Reuveni’s claims were first reported Tuesday by the New York Times.

Deputy Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche called the allegations “utterly false,” saying that he was at the March meeting and “at no time did anyone suggest a court order should not be followed.”

“Planting a false hit piece the day before a confirmation hearing is something we have come to expect from the media, but it does not mean it should be tolerated,” Blanche wrote in a post on X.

Reuveni had been promoted under the Trump administration to serve as acting deputy director of the Office of Immigration Litigation after working for the Justice Department for nearly 15 years under both Republican and Democratic administrations.

Reuveni’s firing came after he acknowledged in an April court hearing that a Salvadoran man, Kilmar Abrego Garcia, should not have been deported to an El Salvador prison, and expressed frustration over a lack of information about the administration’s actions. After that hearing, Reuveni says, he refused to sign on to an appeal brief in Abrego Garcia’s case that included arguments that were “contrary to law, frivolous, and untrue.”

“The consequences of DOJ’s actions Mr. Reuveni reports have grave impacts not only for the safety of individuals removed from the country in violation of court orders, but also for the constitutional rights and protections of all persons — citizen and noncitizen alike — who are potential victims of flagrant deliberate disregard of due process and the rule of law by the agency charged with upholding it,” Reuveni’s lawyers wrote.

U.S. District Judge James E. Boasberg in April found probable cause to hold the Trump administration in criminal contempt for violating his order to not deport anyone in its custody under the Alien Enemies Act. Boasberg had told the administration to turn around any planes that already headed to El Salvador, but that did not happen.

The administration has argued it did not violate any orders, saying the court decision didn’t apply to planes that had lready left U.S. airspace by the time Boasberg’s command came down.

Trump nominated Bove last month to fill a vacancy on the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which hears cases from Delaware, New Jersey and Pennsylvania. He was already expected to face tough questioning before the Senate Judiciary Committee given his role in some of the department’s most scrutinized actions since Trump’s return to the White House in January.

The top Democrat on the committee, Sen. Dick Durbin, said Tuesday that the allegations from Reuveni are part of a “broader pattern by President Trump and his allies to undermine the Justice Department’s commitment to the rule of law.”

“I want to thank Mr. Reuveni for exercising his right to speak up and bring accountability to Mr. Bove,” Durbin said in a statement. “And I implore my Senate Republican colleagues: do not turn a blind eye to the dire consequences of confirming Mr. Bove to a lifetime position as a circuit court judge.”

Democrats have raised alarm about several other actions by Bove, including his order to dismiss New York Mayor Eric Adams’ corruption case that led to the resignation of a top New York federal prosecutor and other senior Justice Department officials. Bove also accused FBI officials of “insubordination” for refusing to hand over the names of agents who investigated the U.S. Capitol riot, and ordered the firings of a group of prosecutors involved in the Jan. 6 criminal cases.

Richer writes for the Associated Press.