Connect with us

Politics

Metropolitan Water District board member censured for racist remark

Published

on

Metropolitan Water District board member censured for racist remark

A board member of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California has been censured for making a racist remark about an Arab American employee.

The MWD board of directors voted to censure John Morris, a member representing the city of San Marino, after an investigation found that he used a racist term when he referred to a staff member at a board event last year. The district said the investigation was conducted in response to an anonymous complaint and determined that Morris’ remark violated the MWD’s antidiscrimination policy.

Mohsen Mortada, the district’s chief of staff, said in a recent letter that during a December 2023 visit to Gene Camp, a facility in the desert, Mortada overheard an MWD director refer to him as a “camel jockey.” He did not name the board member who uttered the slur, but officials confirmed that the incident he described was the same that led to the public rebuke of Morris.

Mortada, an American citizen who emigrated from Syria in 1987, said in the letter that he did not file a formal complaint, but was later interviewed by an investigator.

As part of the action, the 38-member board voted to cease funding for Morris’ travel, bar him from representing the agency at events and require him to receive counseling.

Advertisement

“Metropolitan cannot and will not tolerate racist comments from its leaders,” said Adán Ortega Jr., chair of the MWD board. “While we are not able to directly remove a director from our board, we have taken the measures we can to demonstrate that we absolutely do not tolerate this type of behavior.”

John Morris, a board member of the Metropolitan Water District, listens to a discussion during a meeting in which the board voted to censure him.

(Kevin Mapp/Metropolitan Water District of Southern California)

The agency said it was notifying the city of San Marino of the decision.

Advertisement

The San Marino city manager’s office said in an email to The Times that it “strongly condemns the use of racially motivated speech and biases against any individual anywhere at any time.”

“The San Marino City Council will consider and take the appropriate course of action as soon as possible,” the email said.

Morris — who according to a biography on the MWD website has been a board member since 1990 — responded briefly to questions from other members, indicating he did not contest the findings of the investigation. He declined a request for comment from The Times.

The censure comes as the MWD investigates harassment allegations against Adel Hagekhalil, the water district’s first Arab American general manager.

Hagekhalil has denied wrongdoing, and his lawyer and others have said they are concerned that discriminatory anti-Arab sentiments among some board members could affect their handling of the investigation.

Advertisement

The investigation of Morris’ remark did not involve Hagekhalil, Ortega said. But as part of the censure, the board barred Morris from taking part in deliberations and votes regarding the Hagekhalil investigation.

Hagekhalil’s lawyer, Kerry Garvis Wright, claimed at Tuesday’s meeting that anti-Arab sentiment is a larger issue for the board.

“While Mr. Hagekhalil has always had a positive relationship with the board as a whole, we have recently learned that certain directors charged with deciding his fate have made overtly anti-Arab and Islamophobic statements,” Garvis Wright said.

“That such anti-Arab and Islamophobic sentiment is held by these directors is, of course, itself deeply disturbing and frankly sickening. Knowing that these same directors are being permitted to decide whether Mr. Hagekhalil will continue to serve the district, in the face of what are otherwise bogus complaints, is shocking and wrong,” she said. “The board must take immediate corrective action.”

Adan Ortega Jr., board chair of the Metropolitan Water District.

Adan Ortega Jr., board chair of the Metropolitan Water District, listens during a meeting on Dec. 10.

(Kevin Mapp/Metropolitan Water District of Southern California)

Advertisement

Garvis Wright did not mention any board members by name.

Mortada said in his recent letter that he was “writing to inform you of outrageous racist comments made by Metropolitan directors that bring bias and discrimination to the Board and its investigative process.”

Portions of Mortada’s letter were redacted in the version the MWD released to The Times. Rebecca Kimitch, a spokesperson, said the district determined that parts of the letter were exempt from disclosure because they included allegations that are either unsubstantiated, currently under investigation, or being considered for possible investigation.

Civil rights advocates have also voiced concerns about potential discrimination. The Council on American-Islamic Relations told the district earlier this year that Hagekhalil has been “subjected to discriminatory and racist actions and behaviors” by some board members.

Advertisement

Amr Shabaik, the council’s legal director in Los Angeles, told the MWD board in an October letter that board members have allegedly used “derogatory terms against immigrants, Muslims, and Arabs.”

“Such alleged statements include the following: ‘When are we going to get rid of those refugees?’ ‘When are we going to hire someone that we can pronounce their last name?’” Shabaik wrote. “These remarks are indicative of a strong animus and unlawful discriminatory intent by Board members.”

Shabaik said the decision to censure Morris is “a step in the right direction.” But he also said it “does not necessarily indicate that all the issues and all the concerns have been addressed.”

During Tuesday’s meeting, board members agreed that Morris’ remark was unacceptable.

“It’s not OK,” said Gail Goldberg, the board’s vice chair. “We have to think about the integrity of the organization and what our values are.”

Advertisement

Morris spoke briefly several times during the hourlong discussion, but he did not offer an apology. Some board members said that did not sit well with them.

Ortega said he had doubts about a provision of the sanctions against Morris that allows for a committee to consider after one year whether Morris could be allowed to again fully participate in the board’s activities.

“What is he rehabilitating for if he’s not accepting any responsibility?” Ortega asked his fellow board members.

Morris replied: “It was not my intent to say I’m not accepting any responsibility. That was not my intent.”

The vote was nearly unanimous. Board member Ardy Kassakhian abstained, saying he was troubled by Morris’ lack of contrition and a discussion among board members that he felt largely danced around the gravity of the issue. He said it’s deplorable how people of Middle Eastern descent continue to be “targeted and picked on.”

Advertisement

“I don’t know if Mr. Morris said what he said as a punchline to a joke, or if it was something he said in the passing moment, but the term itself applied to any other minority group, group of color, said in even the most innocuous way, would not be tolerated,” said Kassakhian, who represents Glendale.

After the vote, Kassakhian said he felt “stronger actions are essential to demonstrate that we as the Metropolitan leadership unequivocally embody these principles of equity and justice.”

“We need to address instances like this directly, openly and decisively,” Kassakhian said. “MWD has done a lot of work to try and address these types of issues, and I think this incident shows how fragile the work is and how much more we can do.”

Ortega said he shares the concerns Kassakhian raised. He said he is using his authority as board chair to remove Morris as vice chair of a subcommittee working on plans for a large water recycling facility, and will only appoint him to a minimal number of committees as required under the agency’s rules.

“Mr. Morris never verbalized an apology, and he was given multiple opportunities,” Ortega said. “We need to recognize that there were individuals here that were denigrated and that an apology is due to them.”

Advertisement

Politics

Trump-aligned House holdouts accused of holding ‘life-saving’ veterans bill ‘hostage’ over SAVE America Act

Published

on

Trump-aligned House holdouts accused of holding ‘life-saving’ veterans bill ‘hostage’ over SAVE America Act

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

A sweeping veterans package supporters describe as the largest expansion of veterans’ health care and benefits in more than a decade is expected to return to the House floor when lawmakers come back from the July recess, but backers warn the legislation could once again become collateral damage in the Republican standoff over the SAVE America Act.

The Take Care of America’s Veterans Act rolls roughly 60 veterans bills into a package that would dramatically expand veterans’ health care and benefits. At its core, the legislation would cement veterans’ access to community care outside the VA while increasing benefits for combat-wounded veterans, caregivers and Gold Star families, expanding mental health services and enacting dozens of additional reforms.

House Veterans’ Affairs Committee Chairman Mike Bost, R-Ill., told Fox News Digital he intends to bring the Take Care of America’s Veterans Act back for a vote as soon as the House reconvenes next week.

WASHINGTON, D.C. – MARCH 17: Eugene Simpson, 29, from Dale City, Virginia goes through physical therapy at the Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Washington, D.C. with Michael Minor, a kinesiotherapist with the United States Department of Veterans Affairs on March 17, 2006 in Washington, D.C., USA. (Photo by Jeff Hutchens/Getty Images) (Jeff Hutchens/Getty Images)

Advertisement

HOUSE CONSERVATIVES DERAIL GOP AGENDA IN SAVE AMERICA ACT SHOWDOWN

The legislation was held up last month after a group of House Republicans joined Democrats to defeat a procedural vote, stopping the House from taking up the bill.

“I’m feeling good as long as my members stay with us on the rule,” Bost said. “Right now, there’s some politics being played, not about this bill, but just in general.”

The bill became entangled in a broader House Republican fight over the SAVE America Act, legislation championed by President Donald Trump that would require proof of U.S. citizenship to register to vote in federal elections.

On June 30, the House voted on H. Res. 1398, the procedural rule governing floor consideration of several bills, including the National Defense Authorization Act and the Take Care of America’s Veterans Act. The rule failed after 14 Republicans joined Democrats in opposition, preventing the House from taking up the veterans package and bringing floor business to a standstill. Rep. Anna Paulina Luna, R-Fla., claimed to have voted against the rules vote in protest against House leadership’s handling of the SAVE America Act. As a result, Speaker of the House Mike Johnson sent the members home early.

Advertisement

Bost accused the holdouts of effectively putting veterans legislation on hold.

The US Department of Veterans Affairs building is seen in Washington, DC, on July 22, 2019. (Photo by Alastair Pike / AFP) (Photo credit should read ALASTAIR PIKE/AFP via Getty Images) (Photo credit should read ALASTAIR PIKE/AFP via Getty Image)

‘IT’S A MESS’: GOP TURNS ON HOUSE CONSERVATIVES AS VOTER ID BLOCKADE STALLS TRUMP’S AGENDA

“They’re holding all bills hostage,” Bost said. “They’re not voting for any rule. Any bill that has to pass a rule before it comes to the floor—which this bill does because of its size—can’t move.”

Although Bost said he supports the SAVE America Act and has voted for it three times, he argued the Senate’s failure to act should not stop the House from advancing unrelated legislation.

Advertisement

“I agree with that bill,” Bost said. “But the Senate still has to do their work. We don’t stop our work because the Senate isn’t doing it.”

With 23 legislative days left in the Congressional session, Concerned Veterans for America Strategic Director John Byrnes, a supporter of the bill, said time is of the essence.

“There are lots and lots of things that have to get done,” Byrnes told Fox News Digital. “There’s also the National Defense Authorization Act, which is a must pass every year, so these things eat up time. There’s requirements to have debate on these, which eat up session time.”

Byrnes argued that every procedural delay pushes other legislation further down the calendar.

“This bill will save lives in 2027,” Byrnes said. “If we lose veterans because they could have had faster, better access to health care, we’re never going to get those veterans back.”

Advertisement

Rep. Mike Bost, R-Ill. ( )

TRUMP’S SAVE AMERICA ACT SHOWS SIGNS OF LIFE IN THE SENATE DESPITE REPUBLICAN REVOLT

But Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas, who also voted no on the procedural vote, told Fox News Digital that he has concerns about how the bill is financed.

“I appreciate what the chairman’s trying to do in some respects, but there’s a few issues,” Roy said.

Among them, Roy pointed to provisions offsetting new spending through changes affecting other veterans.

Advertisement

“You’re taxing certain veterans to provide some sort of benefits and changes to other veterans,” Roy said. “There are concerns about some of the pay-fors.”

Veterans of Foreign Wars has also taken issue with Section 108 of the bill, warning that it would codify changes to future disability ratings for tinnitus and sleep apnea to help finance other veterans priorities.

But Bost said this is inaccurate.

“No veteran is going to have their benefits reduced,” Bost said. “If you’re receiving a benefit right now, that’s not going to be reduced at all.”

Roy, who previously served two years on the House Veterans’ Affairs Committee, said he supported a lot of what the bill was seeking to accomplish; but said other pieces of legislation are priorities, too.

Advertisement

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

“There is a block of us for whom border security, the SAVE Act and demonstrating our leadership on major issues is critical,” Roy said. “Some of these other bills may or may not get hung up based on a desire of many in the conference to see movement on other things.”

Fox News Digital reached out to Luna’s office and the White House for comment.

Continue Reading

Politics

Assassinations unleashed under Trump haunt Iran war endgame

Published

on

Assassinations unleashed under Trump haunt Iran war endgame

Shortly before President Trump ended a ceasefire with Iran this week, Israeli officials presented his team with intelligence indicating Tehran was hatching new plots to kill him.

It was not the first such warning. U.S. law enforcement and intelligence agencies have tracked evidence for years of Iranian efforts to target the president, with signals only increasing since the start of the war.

Their desire to target Trump and his top aides began six years ago, just outside Baghdad International Airport, when the president ordered a drone strike that killed Iran’s most powerful general. The assassination of Qassem Suleimani brought the two countries to the brink of war.

Yet even as full-scale war was averted, top Iranian officials vowed revenge for the strike, authorizing attempts on the lives not just of the president, but of his secretary of State and national security advisor, among others, even after they had left office.

Now, calls for revenge have reached a sharper pitch in Tehran, after a joint U.S.-Israeli operation killed Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, at the start of the war in February.

Advertisement

At Khamenei’s funeral ceremonies this week, red flags of vengeance flew throughout the capital as protesters explicitly called on their government to “kill Trump.” His son, Mojtaba, the new supreme leader, was absent from the commemorations, fearing assassination himself.

Mourners hold an anti-President Trump banner at the Imam Khomeini Grand Mosque during mass funeral prayers for Iran’s late Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and his family in Tehran on Sunday.

(Morteza Nikoubazl / NurPhoto via Getty Images)

The prospect of foreign assassination plots targeting U.S. leaders puts the United States in dangerous new territory, where its embrace of political killings could ultimately place its own officials at unprecedented risk. And experts fear the existential threat of assassination has pushed peace further out of reach: When both sides believe their survival is at stake, the trust required for diplomacy becomes far harder to achieve.

Advertisement

Israeli news organizations have reported that Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, cited Iranian attempts to kill Trump in recent years as part of his case to go to war in the first place.

A U.S. official told The Times that a range of serious threats exist against the president, including from Iran, but that Israel’s intelligence pointed to a more specific plot. The official did not provide further details. Israeli officials did not respond to requests for comment.

Iran’s president, Masoud Pezeshkian, has said in recent months that the government sees vengeance against U.S. officials as “its legitimate duty and right,” and “will fulfill this great responsibility and duty with all its might.”

“The Suleimani killing accelerated a lifting of restraints on foreign assassinations — and the taboo on targeting and killing foreign leaders, with U.S. military assets, has been more or less lifted,” said Matt Dallek, a political professor at George Washington University.

“If the United States sets the example of how to conduct international relations, and it is using assassination of foreign leaders as a political weapon, it’s only logical that other countries will be more inclined to also engage in assassinations,” Dallek added. “It does seem likely that Trump will have a bigger target on his back.”

Advertisement

Returning from a NATO summit in Turkey on Wednesday, Trump was forced to switch back to an old model of Air Force One — equipped with specialized defensive technologies — from a new plane given as a gift by Qatar, after the Secret Service warned of potential threats to the aircraft from Iran.

“They want to take out the U.S. leader — me,” Trump told reporters aboard the plane. “I’m on whatever list. I saw this morning I’m on every single one of their lists. And so far, I guess I’ve been a bit lucky, but maybe that doesn’t last very long.”

The threat has remained on his mind in the days since. In an interview with the New York Post, Trump told the reporter, “I hope you’ll miss me,” adding that he has “been on their list for a long time.” And in a subsequent social media post Friday night, he warned of a catastrophic response he instructed the administration to pursue in the event Tehran succeeds.

“1000 Missiles are Locked and Loaded and aimed at the Islamic Republic of Iran,” he wrote, “with thousands of more to immediately follow, should the Iranian Government act on its threat, pronounced in many corners of the Globe, to assassinate, or attempt to assassinate, the sitting President of the United States of America, in this case, ME!”

The United States had a decades-old prohibition against assassinating foreign leaders before Trump’s presidency, codified in an executive order signed by President Ford in 1976 over concerns of a CIA plot to kill Fidel Castro.

Advertisement

The policy was only strengthened further by subsequent administrations, fearing a new international standard for targeted killings could result in unintended consequences in the halls of Washington.

Other administrations have been accused of targeting foreign leaders before. Under the Obama administration, an international coalition targeting the Libyan regime of Moammar Kadafi during the country’s 2011 civil war struck his fleeing convoy, leading to his capture and killing by rebel fighters.

But experts say Trump’s explicit targeting of Suleimani and Khamenei — and his public celebration of their deaths — marks a new paradigm.

“Through words and actions, President Trump has done more to normalize political violence than any other U.S. president, certainly in modern times,” said Robert Pape, a professor at the University of Chicago and author of “Our Own Worst Enemies: America in the Age of Violent Populism.”

“On the international front alone, the president routinely brags about killing Iranian leaders and seizing the leader of Venezuela, among others,” he added, “to the point that assassination is becoming the new normal in international politics.”

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

Trump takes unusual step, lets bipartisan housing bill become law unsigned amid SAVE pressure campaign

Published

on

Trump takes unusual step, lets bipartisan housing bill become law unsigned amid SAVE pressure campaign

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

A bipartisan housing bill became law Saturday at midnight after President Donald Trump declined to sign it, capping a weeks-long saga over whether the president would veto the measure amid frustrations with Congress over his stalled agenda.

Trump refused to sign the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act — legislation aimed at expanding the nation’s housing stock and lowering costs — in an attempt to pressure Congress to pass the SAVE America Act, despite the housing bill clearing both chambers with overwhelming majorities.

“I will not sign the Housing Bill, which has been fully approved by Congress and sent to the White House, in PROTEST over the fact that the United States Senate is not capable of passing THE SAVE AMERICA ACT, which is polling at 97% with the Republican Party, and very high with the non-politician Dumocrats,” he declared on Truth Social Friday morning. 

The Trump-backed election measure, which would require proof of citizenship to vote in federal elections and impose voter ID requirements, has struggled to overcome the Senate’s 60-vote threshold. 

Advertisement

Meanwhile, the House has not passed a version of the bill that includes the president’s proposed crackdown on mail-in voting and banning men from women’s sports.

President Donald Trump speaks in the Oval Office of the White House, Wednesday, June 3, 2026, in Washington. (Alex Brandon/AP)

HOUSE CONSERVATIVES DERAIL GOP AGENDA IN SAVE AMERICA ACT SHOWDOWN

Under the U.S. Constitution, Trump had 10 days, not including Sundays, to sign or veto the housing measure after the House formally transmitted the legislation to the White House in late June. The president ultimately chose neither option, allowing the measure to become law without his signature.

Though Trump declined to veto the legislation, he sharply criticized elements of the bill and argued it should not have been a legislative priority in recent weeks.

Advertisement

“It’s so unimportant … compared to the SAVE America Act,” Trump told reporters in the Oval Office in late June. “I think the SAVE America Act is exactly what it says. It’s saving America from crooked elections.”

Trump went on to call the housing bill “a yawn,” adding, “compared to the SAVE America Act, just about everything is a big yawn.”

It would have taken a two-thirds majority in both chambers to override a veto — a margin the House and Senate exceeded when they passed the legislation. However, it remains unclear whether so many Republicans would have defied the president had he vetoed the bill.

Trump also appeared to criticize the bill over a provision restricting Wall Street investors from purchasing single-family homes — a policy he first proposed during his January State of the Union address and later urged Congress to pass. Trump previously argued the investor ban would give individual homebuyers a leg up against private equity firms in the housing market.

“I don’t want to hurt people that own houses, too,” Trump later told reporters, appearing to reference the provision. “These people, for the first time in their lives, they have valuable houses. They’ve become rich. I don’t want to hurt them either. What you want to do is what’s good for everyone, get the interest rates down.”

Advertisement

The law also aims to boost housing supply by streamlining federal environmental reviews, loosening rules around the construction of factory-built homes, and incentivizing local governments to modify their zoning laws to allow more housing, among roughly 60 provisions.

Trump’s souring on the legislation created headaches for Republicans, who touted the bill as an affordability win as voters grapple with high housing costs.

“It’s irresponsible to postpone signing the Housing bill due to the SAVE Act,” Sen. Bill Cassidy, R-La., a retiring lawmaker who lost re-election to a Trump-backed challenger, wrote on social media. “We need to start delivering relief to people for the high cost of housing ASAP!!”

Construction workers stand on the roof of homes under construction at a new housing development on June 24, 2026, in Valencia, Calif. (Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)

WARREN TELLS TRUMP TO ‘SIGN THE DAMN BILL’ AS BIPARTISAN HOUSING PACKAGE REMAINS STALLED IN WASHINGTON

Advertisement

Trump abruptly canceled a signing ceremony for the legislation at the U.S. Capitol in June with GOP leaders. The stage had already been set, with at least one senior Republican arriving unaware the president had called off the event shortly before it was scheduled to begin.

The president then declared he would not sign the legislation until Congress passed the SAVE America Act, despite Senate GOP leaders insisting the votes do not exist to advance the measure.

Trump has also expressed frustration with the Republican-controlled Senate for declining to weaken the legislative filibuster, which requires 60 votes to advance most legislation in the upper chamber.

“GET SMART REPUBLICANS, IF YOU DON’T, YOU WON’T BE IN OFFICE FOR LONG!” Trump wrote in a Truth Social post on Sunday.

Before Trump came out against the bill, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt called it “one of the most significant pieces of housing affordability legislation in American history” and said it included an array of policies “long championed” by Trump.

Advertisement

House Speaker Mike Johnson, a Republican from Louisiana, speaks during a news conference at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C., on Oct. 15, 2025. (Eric Lee/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

Meanwhile, Trump political operative James Blair touted the legislation for including the president’s Wall Street investor ban, which he referred to as a “signature commitment.”

House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., has argued that Republicans will still promote the landmark housing bill ahead of November.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

“We’ll still celebrate it, but he’s trying to make a point, and I think he’s making it very effectively,” the speaker recently told reporters, referring to Trump. “And the fact that you all ask me every three steps down the hallway illustrates that he has achieved the desired objective, and that is to make SAVE America the number one thing, because if we don’t get that right, everybody’s concerned about what happens next.”

Advertisement

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending