News
Ilhan Omar won her primary after fellow ‘Squad’ members Cori Bush, Jamaal Bowman lost. Here’s why.
Ilhan Omar visits Columbia University protesters
US Representative Ilhan Omar visited pro-Palestinian protesters at Columbia University in New York calling for divestment and a ceasefire.
WASHINGTON – Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., beat back a primary challenger Tuesday in a closely watched race after two of her progressive colleagues lost their own primary bids earlier this year in the face of massive spending from pro-Israel groups.
The Minnesota lawmaker’s victory came after Reps. Jamaal Bowman, D-N.Y., and Cori Bush, D-Mo., all members of the informal group of House lawmakers known as the “Squad,” were booted by more moderate Democrats. Each have been vocal critics of Israel’s actions in Gaza as the Israel-Hamas war rages on, but Omar still entered Tuesday’s race on firmer footing than her fellow lawmakers.
One major factor: United Democracy Project, a super PAC with close ties to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, invested almost $24 million against Bush and Bowman, helping make them the only House Democrats to lose their 2024 primary elections so far.
Israel and the war in Gaza has defined race after race this year as the Democratic Party splits over how to address the conflict. The war has created a rift on the left, as Congress’ progressive members push the Biden administration and other Democratic leaders to come out more forcefully against the bombing campaign in the Gaza strip.
Omar has long voiced concerns over Israel’s policy, being one of the first lawmakers to publicly call for a cease-fire. She also faced significant backlash in April after she suggested while visiting protesters on Columbia University’s campus that some Jewish students supported “genocide.”
But the United Democracy Project didn’t invest in Omar’s race, a shift from her 2022 primary bid.
Back then, former Minneapolis City Council Member Don Samuels, who Omar again faced on Tuesday, lost by just over 2,400 votes. The United Democracy Project spent $350,000 in the days leading up to that election to boost Samuels.
But this year, Omar was on significantly different ground. Police reform dominated her last reelection in the wake of the murder of George Floyd in her home state. Omar was one of the most outspoken lawmakers and didn’t shy away from calling for police reform.
That debate has largely fallen to the wayside this election cycle though, and Omar enjoyed a significant fundraising advantage over Samuels. She also ran a much more active campaign this time around.
“In the last primary, it wasn’t close because we don’t have the support of the people that we represent,” Omar said last week at a rally in Minneapolis. “It was close because we did not remind every single person that there was a primary and they needed to get out and vote.”
But it wasn’t just debates over the Israel-Hamas war that set Omar’s election apart from her fellow “Squad” members this year. She also didn’t have the political baggage that came with Bowman and Bush. While the ousted pair’s vocal criticisms of Israel garnered nationwide attention, they each had their own scandals that dogged their campaigns.
Bowman infamously pulled a fire alarm in the Capitol complex last year during a high-stakes vote to avert a government shutdown. During the vote, Bowman could be seen on security camera footage removing warning signs for a door alarm and then proceeding to pull the alarm.
The New York Democrat claimed it was a mistake and pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge for “willfully” or knowingly” triggering the alarm. The Republican-controlled House (on a mostly party-line vote) censured him after the incident.
Bush is currently under federal investigation over using her campaign funds for security services. She said she hired her husband as part of her security detail in the face of threats to her personal safety since becoming a lawmaker, but she has maintained she has not used federal funds for her own security.
The combination of Bowman and Bush’s scandals paired with millions of dollars from pro-Israel groups made their primary contests among the fiercest in the country. United Democracy Project spent $14.5 million against Bowman leading up to his election, which became the most expensive House primary in history. The group also invested over $9 million in Bush’s race.
The two laid blame at AIPAC for their losses and called out the staggering sums of campaign spending against them in their concession speeches.
“We should be outraged when a super PAC of dark money can spend $20 million to brainwash people into believing something that isn’t true,” Bowman said in June right after he was projected to lose his primary.
Bush was much more upfront in her speech, telling her supporters earlier in August after she lost her race: “AIPAC, I’m coming to tear your kingdom down.”
News
Newsom declares State of Emergency for Boyle Heights warehouse fire
Gov. Gavin Newsom declared a State of Emergency Saturday night as plumes of black smoke continue to rise from the Lineage Logistics warehouse fire, still burning on the 1400 block of South Los Palos Street in Boyle Heights.
The fire started inside a freezer area at the cold storage facility Wednesday afternoon and was initially extinguished before reigniting on Thursday, according to officials.
Newsom’s declaration allows the state to use additional funding for firefighting efforts, public health services and disaster recovery as Los Angeles continues to deal with the emergency.
“California is mobilizing to support Los Angeles as firefighters and emergency personnel continue their work to contain this fire and protect surrounding communities,” Newsom said in a statement Saturday. “While local officials continue to lead this response, the State of California is prepared to help safeguard public health, support emergency operations, and assist impacted residents. We are coordinating closely with our local partners, deploying specialized expertise, and pre-positioning critical supplies so communities have the support they need both now and throughout recovery.”
Although local officials have not asked for additional state resources at this time, Newsom preemptively made the declaration to provide the region with resources as soon as they are needed, California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services Director Caroline Thomas Jacobs said.
“Cal OES is working side-by-side with the City and County of Los Angeles and our regional partners to ensure they have the resources, information, and support necessary to respond to this incident,” Jacobs said. “The State of Emergency allows us to further streamline coordination efforts and leverage additional state capabilities as needed. Our focus remains on protecting communities and supporting locally led response operations.”
Resources available to Los Angeles following the declaration include:
- 5.5 million N95 respirator masks available for distribution to impacted communities.
- Commercial-grade air purifiers available for deployment to evacuation centers, community facilities, and other public spaces.
- Bottled water and other emergency supplies available through the state’s logistics network.
- Enhanced air quality monitoring and technical support resources.
Cal OES Fire and Rescue Branch leaders with specialized technical expertise are also available to consult L.A. fire officials on how to deal with the warehouse fire, if necessary. The state provided similar expertise to officials during the chemical tank failure in Garden Grove.
Air quality remains unhealthy in parts of Los Angeles due to the large amount of smoke produced by the fire.
“The warehouse fire has produced significant smoke and particulate matter that may affect air quality in surrounding neighborhoods,” the governor’s office stated. “To support public health monitoring efforts, the California Air Resources Board is coordinating with local and regional partners to ensure access to air quality information and technical expertise. State agencies continue to monitor conditions and stand ready to deploy additional monitoring resources if requested.”
News
DOJ memo stokes fear among disability advocates of a return to institutionalization
The exterior of the Robert F. Kennedy Department of Justice building is pictured on May 4, 2021, in Washington, D.C.
Patrick Semansky/AP
hide caption
toggle caption
Patrick Semansky/AP
The Justice Department released a memo this week that quietly calls into question decades of civil rights protections for Americans with disabilities and stirred fear and anger among advocates and families.
The memo, an opinion from the Office of Legal Counsel, argues that states do not have to provide in-home or community-based care to people with disabilities who need support. These services allow many disabled Americans to continue to live, learn and work at home or in their own communities, among family and friends.
“It is now the position of the United States government that people with disabilities don’t have a right to be part of their communities,” says Alison Barkoff, a health law and policy professor at George Washington University who led disability law and policy efforts during both the Obama and Biden administrations. “I can’t overstate how significant this change in position is.“
Without the federal government requiring that states provide these services – to help disabled people integrate into their communities – advocates and legal experts warn that cash-strapped states could cut them and return to what was once common practice: de facto segregation of Americans with disabilities in nursing homes and large institutions.
Pushback from the disability community was swift.
“As America prepares to celebrate 250 years of independence, [this memo] threatens to drag our nation back to a dark and shameful era of ignorance and cruelty,” said the American Association of People with Disabilities. “This interpretation will open the doors for states to revert to warehousing people with disabilities out of sight and out of mind in institutions.”
“This opinion is a direct threat to decades of progress toward community living for people with disabilities,” said Shira Wakschlag of The Arc of the United States, a nonprofit disability advocacy group. “People with disabilities shouldn’t be forced into institutions because a state refuses to provide services in the community.”
The Justice Department did not respond to an NPR request that it explain its position as well as why it is changing course after decades of legal and bipartisan support for community services.
What the law says
This new memo calls into question what legal experts say has been settled law for decades.
Both Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act have long been interpreted to require that states provide services to Americans with disabilities in the most integrated setting appropriate. In short: Institutionalization should be a last resort.
In 1999, a case testing these protections made it to the U.S. Supreme Court. In Olmstead v. L.C., two women with mental disabilities sued Georgia, arguing that the state had failed its obligation to provide services that would allow them to return to their communities and that it had continued to institutionalize the women instead, thus violating their civil rights.
The court agreed that states have a legal responsibility to provide support that integrates disabled Americans into their communities, and for nearly three decades, courts across the country have embraced that interpretation.
By 2023, 8.4 million Americans were receiving home- and community-based services through Medicaid.
The new memo, written by Lanora Pettit, principal deputy assistant attorney general in the Office of Legal Counsel, argues that, while federal law prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability, it does not impose an “integration mandate” on states to provide these community services.
What’s more, the memo argues, the Supreme Court’s Olmstead decision “held only that a state cannot institutionalize such patients without justification.”
But, the memo adds: “What counts as adequate justification remains an open question.”
At one point, Pettit acknowledges the novelty of this reading: “We recognize that this view of Olmstead‘s import is out of step with the common understanding of that decision within the federal courts.”
Why it matters
“The United States government since 1977 has taken the position that [federal law] includes an integration mandate that requires services to be provided in the most integrated setting appropriate,” says professor Barkoff, who worked in the Obama Justice Department leading its Olmstead enforcement efforts.
For decades, Barkoff adds, both Republican and Democratic administrations, including the first Trump administration, proactively enforced federal disability law and repeatedly brought actions against states that relied too heavily on care in large, segregated settings that the law says should be a last resort.
The courts and Congress decided institutionalization should be a last resort because people’s personal liberty is at stake, says Jennifer Mathis of the Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law: “Who you can see, when you can go out, when you eat, what you eat. Who your roommate is, who you talk to, what your environment is. And for so many people who are institutionalized, their life is literally a hallway. I have been on those hallways with people. It is deadening.“
This memo signifies a dramatic change in the U.S. government’s official position.
“We are incredibly concerned that the message coming from the federal government in this memo is, ‘It’s fine to go back to the days that people were placed in institutions,’ even though they can be served in the community, even though they want to be and even though it’s more cost-effective,” Barkoff says.
The timing matters too. The memo arrives as a new case, Texas v. Kennedy, is making its way through the courts. The case, brought by Texas and several other states, is essentially a fresh challenge to the integration mandate on states.
With this memo, the federal government is aligning itself with the plaintiffs in the case. Though Mathis cautions: “It’s important to understand that [this memo] is not the law, that the Justice Department can’t change the law. Congress makes laws, not agencies.“
For now, it’s not clear what the immediate impact of the memo will be, though it seems the Justice Department will stop its enforcement efforts around Olmstead.
Why now?
The Justice Department memo appears to be the latest salvo in a broader effort that began on July 24, 2025, when President Trump issued an executive order intended to make it easier for state and local governments to police homelessness.
“Endemic vagrancy, disorderly behavior, sudden confrontations, and violent attacks have made our cities unsafe,” the order argues, going on to claim that “the overwhelming majority of these individuals are addicted to drugs, have a mental health condition, or both.”
The administration’s solution: Involuntary institutionalization. “Shifting homeless individuals into long-term institutional settings for humane treatment through the appropriate use of civil commitment will restore public order,” the order reads.
In a 2023 campaign video, President Trump himself pledged: “For those who are severely mentally ill and deeply disturbed, we will bring them back to mental institutions, where they belong.”
A conservative Texas think tank, the Cicero Institute, has been a driving force behind recent efforts to forcefully combat homelessness, including through institutionalization.
One serious obstacle to large-scale institutionalization of the unhoused is federal disability law that has long required home- or community-based services instead, when appropriate. A footnote in the Justice Department’s new memo appears to suggest these laws have contributed to the rise in chronic homelessness.
To the contrary, Barkoff says, the Olmstead decision “has been one of the most effective tools in providing services and stable housing to people who are homeless.”
NPR has previously reported that the Trump administration’s push for institutionalization faces another big obstacle: An acute shortage of beds at these specialized facilities.
The memo arrives as Republicans have also passed deep cuts to Medicaid, which is the primary source of funding for community-based services many disabled Americans rely on.
Multiple legal experts tell NPR that, in response to last year’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act, states must now make deep cuts to a whole range of services previously funded by Medicaid. The Trump administration’s memo, they add, essentially gives states permission to cut these localized supports and, instead, rely on institutionalization – even though research shows the latter is considerably more expensive for states to provide.
This comes as disability advocates were already pushing back against the Trump administration’s announcement on Tuesday that it would move federal administration of special education programs out of the Department of Education and into the Department of Health and Human Services – a change that, as with the new Justice Department memo, raised fears of a rollback of the enforcement of longstanding civil rights protections.
News
Video: The Sacred Catholic Site Where Trump Wants a Border Wall
new video loaded: The Sacred Catholic Site Where Trump Wants a Border Wall

By Reis Thebault, Christina Shaman, Jon Miller, June Kim and Melanie Bencosme
June 20, 2026
-
News22 minutes agoNewsom declares State of Emergency for Boyle Heights warehouse fire
-
Los Angeles, Ca2 hours agoKids, teens can enjoy free lunch at over 90 parks across Los Angeles
-
Detroit, MI2 hours agoMetro Detroit church hosts community event to support youth: “We’re here for you”
-
San Francisco, CA2 hours agoSan Francisco celebrates Black freedom at weekend Juneteenth parade: ‘We’re all people’
-
Dallas, TX2 hours agoRedesign debate intensifies as Dallas convention center faces costly delays
-
Miami, FL2 hours ago‘An insane memory’: New World Cup super hero plays in Miami but not with Messi
-
Boston, MA2 hours agoFAA investigates close call between two aircraft at intersecting runways at Boston Logan International Airport | CNN
-
Denver, CO3 hours agoProposed September 2026 Service Changes


