Breaking AI & Tech News Analyzed

The Shift in Democratic Voter Opinion A new poll from New York Times/Siena has found that nearly three-quarters of voters aligned with the Democratic Party oppose US military aid to Israel, up from 45 percent three years ago, as support for Israel continues to drop among US voters. Key Findings of the Poll Nearly half of Democratic voters said that their party was too supportive of Israel. 95 percent opposed the US-Israel war on Iran. 60 percent of Democratic voters said they were more sympathetic to the Palestinians than to Israel, while just 15 percent said they were more sympathetic to Israel. The Impact of Shifting Public Opinion The survey is the latest to underscore a shifting political landscape on Israel-Palestine in the United States, driven by anger over Israel's genocidal war on Gaza and aggressive military campaigns across the Middle East. While Israel has long been able to rely on the US for strong military, economic, and diplomatic support, Israel has seen its popularity plummet across numerous segments of US society, especially among Democrats and progressives, in recent years. The Future of US-Israel Relations Support for Israel among US voters is now largely concentrated among older voters. A Pew Research Center poll released in April found that 84 percent of Democrats and 57 percent of Republicans between the ages of 18-49 had an unfavourable view of Israel, compared with 76 percent and 24 percent, respectively, among those aged 50 and up. But shifting public opinion has yet to be reflected in policy change at the higher levels of the Democratic Party, which continues to be led by stalwart supporters of Israel such as House Leader Hakeem Jeffries and Senate Leader Chuck Schumer.

The Call for a College Sports Boycott Hakeem Jeffries, the top US House Democrat, has amplified calls for Black athletes to boycott public universities in states that have moved to limit voting rights, saying an “unprecedented moment, featuring an unprecedented attack on Black political representation” requires an “unprecedented response”. The NAACP's 'Out of Bounds' Campaign Jeffries’s comments came Tuesday as the NAACP launched its “Out of Bounds” campaign. The campaign targets universities in eight states – Tennessee, Louisiana, Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas and Georgia – whose athletic programs generate more than $100m in revenue. Those eight states have moved to draw new voter maps after the supreme court’s Louisiana v Callais decision severely weakened the Voting Rights Act. The Southeastern Conference in the Spotlight The minority leader specifically called out the powerhouse Southeastern Conference. Twelve of the SEC’s 16 member schools are in the eight targeted states. The Boycott's Objectives The campaign calls on football and basketball players being recruited by programs in those states to withhold their commitments until the states “restore fair congressional maps and meaningful Black representation”. It also urges athletes and coaches already enrolled at those universities to use their platforms to elevate voting rights causes. It asks fans, alumni and donors to stop financially supporting those programs. The Impact on High-Valued Athletic Programs The SEC is home to nine of the 15 highest-valued athletic programs in the country, according to CNBC, including leader Texas ($1.48bn), Georgia, Alabama and Florida. A Legacy of Activism Athletes at Missouri and Mississippi, both SEC schools, have led successful campaigns in recent years putting pressure on universities and state governments for social justice causes. Jeffries referenced Bill Russell, Muhammad Ali and Jackie Robinson in his remarks, calling on this generation to carry on the legacies of previous activist athletes. The Congressional Response Jeffries and members of the Congressional Black Caucus earlier this week voiced their opposition to the Score act, a bill intended to set national standards for college athletes’ compensation. The bipartisan proposal, which has support from the NCAA, was to be brought to the House floor for a vote this week, but the CBC opposed the bill to protest the silence of the universities on voting rights. House Republicans decided on Tuesday to postpone a vote on bill, the second time in less than a year that it has been stalled.

Lead: Trump Seeks to End $10 Billion IRS ClaimDonald Trump moved on May 18, 2026 to dismiss a massive $10 billion lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service, citing the lack of a judicial controversy. The request comes amid reports that the administration is negotiating a $1.776 billion “Truth and Justice Commission” fund to compensate allies allegedly persecuted by the government. Trump Files Motion to Dismiss $10 Billion IRS LawsuitThe motion was filed two days before a court‑ordered briefing deadline of May 20, where the judge asked parties to address whether a legitimate controversy exists.Trump’s lawyers argued that “no judicial analysis is appropriate” without such a controversy.The underlying suit stems from a leak of Trump’s tax returns by IRS contractor Charles Littlejohn to ProPublica and the New York Times. Financial Stakes: $10 Billion Claim and $1.776 Billion Settlement FundClaimed damages: $10 billion for alleged IRS misconduct.Proposed settlement: a $1.776 billion fund dubbed the “Truth and Justice Commission.”The fund would be overseen by five commissioners, four appointed by the Attorney General and removable by Trump; Trump himself would be barred from receiving payments. Political Fallout and Legal ImplicationsDemocratic leaders, including Hakeem Jeffries, filed an amicus brief labeling the settlement as illegal and a “slush fund” for the president’s allies.Deputy legal director Andrew Warren of the Democracy Defenders Fund called the alleged deal “corruption in plain sight.”U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams, an Obama appointee, has convened a panel of lawyers to assess the existence of a genuine controversy. What May Come After the Dismissal RequestIf the court grants the dismissal, the $10 billion claim would be extinguished, potentially clearing the way for the settlement fund to be established.A denial could force the parties to prove a concrete controversy, extending litigation and possibly prompting a judicial review of the settlement’s legality.Congressional scrutiny is likely to intensify, especially given the amicus brief from 93 Democratic lawmakers and public criticism of the fund’s opacity.

The 'Cotton Picking' Controversy: Racial Rhetoric Enters the Virginia Redistricting War The office of Hakeem Jeffries, the top-ranking Democrat in the US House of Representatives, has issued a scathing condemnation following a radio interview where a fellow lawmaker seemingly endorsed a racially charged remark targeting him. The incident highlights the increasingly volatile nature of the redistricting battle in Virginia and raises serious questions about the state of political discourse ahead of the 2026 midterm elections. The Incident: A Slip of the Tongue or a Reflection of Deeper Bias? The controversy erupted on a conservative radio show where host Rich Herrera criticized Jeffries, a New York Democrat, for his involvement in efforts to redraw Virginia’s congressional map. Herrera’s comment, "get your cotton-picking hands off of Virginia," was met with immediate agreement from Jen Kiggans, a Republican representative. The Comment: Herrera used the phrase "cotton picking," a term historically rooted in the oppression of enslaved Black people in the American South. The Response: Kiggans responded with "That’s right. Ditto," seemingly endorsing the sentiment. The Denial: Kiggans later clarified she did not condone the language but claimed she was agreeing with the broader political point that Jeffries should stay out of Virginia’s redistricting process. The Political Fallout: Resignation Calls and Party Divisions The backlash from the incident has been swift and severe, indicating that the comment has crossed a significant line within the political establishment. Official Condemnation: Christie Stephenson, a spokesperson for Jeffries, called the remark "disgusting, vile and racist," accusing Kiggans of craving a return to "Jim Crow racial oppression." Leadership Pressure: Top Democrats, including Katherine Clark (US Minority Whip) and Gavin Newsom (California Governor), have publicly called for Kiggans to resign. Black Caucus Action: The Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) posted the clip on X, stating unequivocally: "Did she agree with him? Yes. Is this racist? Yes. Should she resign? Yes to that, too." The Broader Context: Redistricting and the Erosion of Civil Rights This incident is not occurring in a vacuum; it is part of a larger, more dangerous trend in American politics involving gerrymandering and the weakening of civil rights protections. Weakened Voting Rights: The incident comes shortly after a US Supreme Court decision in April weakened the Voting Rights Act of 1973, making it harder to challenge racially discriminatory maps. Historical Precedent: The rhetoric echoes previous controversies, such as Donald Trump posting a racist video depicting Barack Obama and Michele Obama as primates in February, which Tim Scott, the only Black Republican senator, condemned as the "most racist thing I’ve ever seen." Partisan Gerrymandering: The battle over Virginia's map is part of a nationwide effort to redraw districts to favor one party, with the Trump administration previously pushing for maps in Texas to boost Republican chances. Future Outlook: The 2026 Midterm Battleground As the November 2026 midterms approach, the redistricting wars are set to intensify. The removal of legal barriers to challenging discriminatory maps suggests that partisan gerrymandering will become more aggressive. For Jen Kiggans, the controversy poses a significant risk to her political standing, potentially opening the door for primary challengers or eroding moderate support. The incident serves as a stark warning that the fight over the map is also a fight over the soul of American democracy.

Democratic leaders in Washington announced a renewed push to stop President Donald Trump’s escalating confrontation with Iran following a brief two‑week cease‑fire that began Tuesday night. The party aims to reconvene Congress and pass a war‑powers resolution that would permanently end the conflict. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries told CNN that the House must be brought back into session immediately, stating, "We need a permanent end to Donald Trump’s reckless war of choice." He urged Speaker Mike Johnson to schedule a vote on legislation that would strip the president of unilateral war‑making authority. In the Senate, Minority Leader Chuck Schumer pledged that Democrats will force a vote as soon as Congress returns from recess. Schumer warned that the war has left the nation “worse off than before it started,” citing rising gas prices and the broader economic toll, and called the episode “one of the very worst military and foreign‑policy actions the United States has ever taken.” More than 70 Democratic lawmakers have publicly called for the 25th Amendment to be invoked, arguing that Trump’s recent Truth Social posts—threatening to wipe out an entire civilization if Iran does not comply—raise serious questions about his mental fitness and could constitute a violation of international law. Senator Chris Murphy (D‑CT) told CNN, "No president in control of his senses would publicly promise to eradicate an entire civilization." Representative Ro Khanna (D‑CA) echoed the sentiment on X, writing, "We need to invoke the 25th Amendment and remove Trump. Threatening war crimes is a blatant violation of our Constitution and the Geneva Conventions." Other Democrats, including Rep. Pramila Jayapal (WA), described the president’s threats as “unhinged” and “illegal,” while former MAGA ally Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene joined the chorus, posting, "25TH AMENDMENT!!! This is evil and madness." Even some Republican lawmakers expressed unease about the prospect of targeting civilian infrastructure, though the GOP overall has remained largely silent. The mounting pressure underscores a rare bipartisan concern that Trump’s rhetoric could cross the line into war‑crime territory, prompting calls for both constitutional removal and traditional impeachment proceedings.

Political leaders across Washington breathed a collective sigh of relief on Tuesday evening when President Donald Trump announced a provisional two‑week ceasefire with Iran, ending a 24‑hour standoff that had seen him threaten to annihilate Iran’s “whole civilization” if Tehran failed to reopen the Strait of Hormuz by his self‑imposed deadline.The ceasefire declaration arrived just 90 minutes before the 8 p.m. ET deadline at which Trump had pledged to bomb Iranian power plants and bridges – a move scholars warned would constitute a war crime. A last‑minute diplomatic push by Pakistan persuaded the president to suspend the ultimatum, buying a narrow window for de‑escalation.In a post on Tuesday night, Trump wrote: “Subject to the Islamic Republic of Iran agreeing to the COMPLETE, IMMEDIATE, and SAFE OPENING of the Strait of Hormuz, I agree to suspend the bombing and attack of Iran for a period of two weeks.”Iran’s foreign minister quickly responded, stating that the strait would remain open for the next fourteen days under Iranian military management, effectively meeting the condition set by the United States.The president’s earlier warning – that a “whole civilization will die tonight, never to be brought back again” – drew swift condemnation from Democrats, longtime allies who have broken with Trump over the crisis, and even Pope Francis, the first American pontiff.Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer labeled Trump’s retreat as “desperately searching for any sort of exit ramp from his ridiculous bluster,” adding that the president had previously been called “an extremely sick person” waging a “wanton war of choice.”House Democrats, including former Speaker Nancy Pelosi, called for Trump’s removal via impeachment or the 25th Amendment, arguing that his conduct amounted to a threat of genocide against the Iranian people. Progressive Representative Alexandria Ocasio‑Cortez echoed this sentiment, saying the two‑week deal “changes nothing” and urging Congress to act.House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries described Trump’s behavior as “unhinged, unpresidential and unconscionable,” and warned that the American public “strongly opposes this reckless war of choice.” He announced that Democrats would push Speaker Mike Johnson to reconvene the House and move a war‑powers resolution to secure a permanent end to hostilities.Republican reactions were more nuanced. Senator Rick Scott praised the ceasefire as “a strong first step toward holding Iran accountable,” while Senator Lindsey Graham expressed hope that diplomacy could “end the reign of terror of the Iranian regime,” cautioning that Iran should not be rewarded for its earlier attacks on the strait.Conversely, Rep. Dan Crenshaw, a Texas Republican known for breaking with Trump, dismissed critics as “pearl‑clutching,” arguing that the president’s “language of POWER” is what adversaries understand, and that diplomatic niceties alone achieve little.The episode underscores a volatile moment in US‑Iran relations, where a single diplomatic pivot averted an imminent escalation, yet left Congress divided over the president’s authority to wage war and the need for a lasting legislative solution.

President Donald Trump issued a stark warning that the United States would eradicate Iran’s “civilisation” unless the regime reopens the Strait of Hormuz and complies with his demands. The statement, posted on his Truth Social account less than twelve hours before the self‑imposed deadline, declared that a whole civilisation could die “tonight, never to be brought back again.” Trump set the cutoff for compliance at 8 p.m. Washington time (00:00 GMT) on Tuesday, framing the moment as a decisive point in what he called a long‑standing struggle against Iranian extortion and corruption. For more than two weeks, the president has threatened to strike Iran’s civilian infrastructure—bridges, power stations, roads and other non‑military assets—if his terms are not met. Legal analysts have warned that such actions would constitute a war crime under international law. “It’s horrific. It’s pure evil. It’s disqualifying,” said Yasmine Taeb, legislative and political director of MPower Change Action Fund, condemning the president’s rhetoric as that of “a deranged, unstable madman.” She called for a stronger response from both U.S. lawmakers and the global community. Democratic leaders reacted forcefully. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer labeled Trump “an extremely sick person,” while House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries urged Republican colleagues to “put patriotic duty over party and stop the madness,” warning that the conflict could spiral into a world war. Representative Rashida Tlaib suggested invoking the 25th Amendment to remove Trump, citing the recent bombing of a school in Minab that killed over 170 children. Congressional attempts to curb the president’s war powers have stalled; a recent resolution to limit his authority failed to pass, leaving the legal basis for the campaign in question. Critics argue that launching a military operation without congressional approval violates the U.S. Constitution, which reserves the declaration of war to Congress. Republican reactions were muted. Representative Mike Lawler downplayed the threat, stating that any strikes would target only Iran’s energy and civilian infrastructure to cripple the regime’s economy, and affirmed that Trump is acting within his constitutional authority as commander‑in‑chief. The conflict, which began on February 28 when the United States and Israel allegedly killed Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and other senior officials, has already claimed more than 2,000 lives, including civilians in schools, residential blocks and medical facilities. Iran’s retaliatory rocket and drone attacks have hit Israeli and U.S. assets across the Middle East, while Iranian forces have blocked the Strait of Hormuz, driving global energy prices higher. Despite the heavy toll, Iran’s governing structure appears intact, bolstered by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, designated by the United States as a terrorist organization. No major defections or anti‑government protests have emerged, and Khamenei’s son, Mojtaba Khamenei, has assumed a leading role. Trump, while maintaining a hardline stance, left a narrow window for diplomacy, suggesting that “maybe something revolutionary wonderful can happen.” He framed the deadline as “one of the most important moments in the long and complex history of the world,” promising that “47 years of extortion, corruption, and death will finally end.” Vice President J.D. Vance echoed the president’s message, warning Iran that the United States possesses additional, undisclosed tools and will employ them if Tehran does not alter its conduct, emphasizing the U.S. desire for free flow of oil and gas.

Democrats have strongly condemned Donald Trump's recent threats to destroy Iran's civilian infrastructure, labeling them as potential war crimes and evidence of the president's mental instability.In a profanity-laden Easter Sunday message, Trump threatened to bomb Iran's power plants and bridges if Tehran did not open the Strait of Hormuz. This has prompted several Democratic lawmakers to call for Trump's removal from office, citing concerns over his fitness to serve.Congresswoman Yassamin Ansari, who is of Iranian descent, urged the invocation of the 25th Amendment to remove Trump from the presidency, describing him as a deranged lunatic and a national security threat.Other Democrats, including Hakeem Jeffries and Bernie Sanders, have also criticized Trump's threats, with Sanders calling on Congress to act to prevent the war.Legal experts have noted that attacks on civilian infrastructure would violate international humanitarian law, including the Geneva Conventions and the Pentagon's own Law of War Manual.Despite mounting criticism, Trump's Republican allies have largely supported him, with Lindsey Graham and Don Bacon defending the president's stance on Iran.The conflict has resulted in over 2,000 civilian casualties in Iran, according to Iranian officials, and has raised concerns about the humanitarian impact of the war.

The US government has initiated the deployment of hundreds of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents to airports across the country to address significant staffing shortages and security concerns. This move comes as a result of a prolonged federal funding battle that has led to long delays and congestion at airport security screening stations.According to reports, ICE and Homeland Security Investigations officers are being deployed to more than a dozen airports, including major hubs such as New York’s John F Kennedy International Airport and Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport. The deployment aims to support the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) workers, who have been working without pay due to the funding lapse.The funding crisis began on February 14, when some Department of Homeland Security (DHS) funding lapsed due to disagreements over reforms in the wake of President Donald Trump’s immigration policies. This has resulted in TSA agents working without pay and over 300 employees quitting since the shutdown began.While the deployment is intended to alleviate security concerns, it has raised serious concerns among Democrats and some Republicans. They argue that untrained ICE agents could fuel tensions and are not equipped to handle airport security duties. House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries and Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski have expressed opposition to the plan, emphasizing the need to resolve DHS funding issues and pay TSA agents.In response to the deployment, President Trump has requested that ICE agents remove their face masks while working at airports, citing concerns about their visibility. However, the move has been met with criticism, with some arguing that it could lead to additional tensions at already strained airport security checkpoints.