Politics
What Candidates in Tight House Races Are Saying About Abortion
22 Democrats say
restore Roe v. Wade.
4 Democrats say
it’s no place for government.
9 Democrats say
it’s between a woman and her doctor.
21 Republicans say
no federal ban.
10 Republicans say
it’s best left up to the states.
5 Republicans say
they’re pro-life.
Josh Riley, the Democratic challenger running for Congress in New York’s 19th District, has a clear message on abortion: “I believe that women’s health care decisions are women’s health care decisions and that politicians should stay the hell out of it.”
And his Republican opponent, the incumbent Representative Marc Molinaro, is saying nearly the same thing: “I believe health care decisions should be between a woman and her doctor, not Washington.”
Across the country’s most competitive House races, Republicans have spent months trying to redefine themselves on abortion, going so far as to borrow language that would not feel out of place at a rally of Vice President Kamala Harris. Many Republicans who until recently backed federal abortion restrictions are now saying the issue should be left to the states.
At least a half-dozen Republican candidates have put out direct-to-camera ads declaring their opposition to a federal abortion ban. Instead, they say, they support exceptions to existing state laws and back protections for reproductive health care, such as I.V.F.
Republican candidates address abortion head-on in campaign videos
Click on any video in the grid to play it.
Anthony D’Esposito
Republican, N.Y. 4
Mike Lawler
Republican, N.Y. 17
Marc Molinaro
Republican, N.Y. 19
Joe Kent Republican, Wash. 3
Michelle Steel
Republican, C.A. 45 Juan Ciscomani
Republican, Ariz. 6
Democrats have raised the possibility of a nationwide abortion ban should Republicans win in November, and they are framing the campaign as another referendum on the Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision, which overturned Roe v. Wade. They are hoping to continue their run of electoral successes since the 2022 decision to win back control of the House.
Any new federal legislation on abortion would have to pass both the House and the Senate and be signed by the president to become law. But whichever party emerges with a majority in the House will have the ability to dictate the legislative agenda, including whether measures to restrict or expand abortion access have the chance to pass.
Republicans in California and New York in particular, who are running in swing districts in blue states that favor abortion rights, have felt the most pressure to address the issue directly. “If we don’t talk about the issue, we become whatever the Democrats say we are,” said Will Reinert, the press secretary for the National Republican Congressional Committee.
To better understand how abortion is playing a role in these campaigns, The New York Times surveyed candidates from both parties in the most competitive House races about their support for federal limits on abortion. The Times also looked at voting records, issues listed on campaign websites, debate and media coverage, and endorsements from major abortion rights and anti-abortion groups.
The Times survey showed that while Republicans are notably focused on what they will not do on abortion at the federal level, their Democratic opponents are talking about what they will do to protect abortion rights. Nearly all the Democratic candidates said they supported restoring the protections of Roe v. Wade, which would allow access to abortion until fetal viability, or around 24 weeks, in every state.
In attack ads, Democrats are pointing to their opponents’ voting records or past statements as evidence of extremism — despite what they may be saying now.
Click on any video in the grid to play it.
Josh Riley campaign
Democrat, N.Y. 19
Will Rollins campaign Democrat, Calif. 41
Democratic candidates highlight Republicans’ records on abortion in campaign videos
More broadly, abortion rights groups said Republicans are misleading voters by claiming they do not support an outright abortion “ban,” when they might support a federal “limit” or “standard,” such as the 15-week proposal put forward by Senator Lindsey Graham in 2022.
“They are playing around with the semantics; they are clearly testing out different framing and messaging in an attempt to try and deceive voters because they realize how politically unpopular their policy stances are,” said Jessica Arons, a director of policy and government affairs at the American Civil Liberties Union.
Republicans in the Times survey almost universally declined to answer questions about gestational limits. Only one, Representative Don Bacon of Nebraska, said he supported a specific federal limit, in the third trimester.
“I do not support a federal abortion ban. The Dobbs decision decided this was an issue left to the states and that’s where I believe policy on the issue should be decided.”
David Valadao Republican, Calif. 22 “At the federal level, I would only support legislation to outlaw late-term abortion, with protections for the three exceptions. Otherwise, states must vote on this issue.”
Don Bacon Republican, Neb. 2
“I am pro-life, believe abortion stops a beating heart, and oppose taxpayer funded abortion. Since the U.S. Supreme Court has returned this issue to the states, I will not vote for a national abortion ban.”
Gabe Evans Republican, Colo. 8
What Republican candidates are saying about abortion
The Republican shift away from publicly supporting a federal ban follows the lead of former President Donald J. Trump, who has changed his own language on the issue after seeing the electoral backlash to the Dobbs decision.
As recently as 2021, a majority of House Republicans — including seven incumbents in this year’s tossup races — co-sponsored the Life at Conception Act, a bill that would have amounted to a nationwide abortion ban. This year, Representative Scott Perry of Pennsylvania’s 10th District was the only incumbent in a competitive race to stay on as a co-sponsor.
Two Republican incumbents who now say they oppose a national ban — Representatives Ken Calvert and David Valadao in California — voted in favor of a 20-week ban that passed the House in 2017. Representative Mariannette Miller-Meeks, an Iowa Republican, co-sponsored a 15-week ban on abortion in 2022. She did not respond to questions about whether she still supports it.
Other Republicans described themselves as personally “pro-life” but said they accepted the abortion laws in place in their states. Rob Bresnahan Jr., a challenger in Pennsylvania’s 8th District, said he supported the state’s current law, which allows abortion until 24 weeks.
Democrats, when they were not attacking Republicans, leaned into language about personal freedom, with many in the survey saying the government should not be involved in medical decisions.
Another common refrain was that the decision to have an abortion should be “between a woman and her doctor.” Two Democrats used similar language rather than explicitly calling for federal abortion protections.
“Abortion is health care. This is not a place for government interference. I trust every person I know and love, and any New Mexican to make that decision for themselves.”
Gabe Vasquez Democrat, N.M. 2
“I have always believed that this decision should be left between a woman, her doctor and within her own faith.” Rudy Salas Democrat, Calif. 22
“I believe the decisions a woman makes for her body and her family are deeply personal and politicians have no place telling her what she can and cannot do.”
Tony Vargas Democrat, Neb. 2
What Democratic candidates are saying about abortion
By appearing to moderate their stance on abortion, candidates have risked losing the backing of prominent advocacy groups. Only three Republicans in the tossup races received an endorsement from Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, and seven received one from National Right to Life.
Two major abortion rights groups, by contrast, endorsed nearly all the Democratic candidates. Planned Parenthood — whose political action fund is pouring $40 million into the campaign — endorsed all but six candidates, while Reproductive Freedom for All endorsed all but four.
Anderson
Va. 7
Bacon* Neb. 2
Buckhout
N.C. 1
Begich
Alaska At-Large Ciscomani*
Ariz. 6
Miller-Meeks*
Iowa 1
Nunn* Iowa 3
Perry*
Pa. 10
Schweikert*
Ariz. 1 Altman
N.J. 7
Baccam
Iowa 3 Bohannan
Iowa 1
Bynum
Ore. 5
Caraveo* Colo. 8
Cartwright*
Pa. 8
Davis*
N.C. 1 Engel
Ariz. 6
Gillen
N.Y. 4
Endorsements from major anti-abortion groups
Candidate
Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America
National Right to Life
Endorsements from major abortion rights groups
Candidate
Planned Parenthood
Repro. Freedom for All
Representative Jared Golden, the Democratic incumbent in Maine’s 2nd Congressional District — an area Mr. Trump won by six points in 2020 — did not get Planned Parenthood’s endorsement this year. He said the reason was his vote for the 2024 defense policy bill, which included an amendment blocking reimbursement for abortion travel costs for service members.
Mr. Golden said he was not concerned about the lack of support from the group, pointing instead to his co-sponsorship of the Women’s Health Protection Act, a bill to restore the protections of Roe.
“I’m quite confident that voters in Maine know where I stand,” he said.
Compare statements from House candidates on abortion policy
The New York Times asked candidates and their campaigns about support for a federal minimum standard on abortion. Statements have been lightly edited for length and clarity.
|
Mary Peltola* No response to survey. “Roe v. Wade set a precedent that was the law of the land for 50 years. She believes that standard was the right one — furthermore we know the importance of having strong exceptions for rape, incest, life of mother and health of mother throughout.” |
Nick Begich No response to survey. “While I strongly support efforts that defend the rights of those not yet born, the courts have made it clear, abortion is a state issue and not an issue for the federal government to decide.” |
|
Amish Shah No response to survey. “As a doctor, I understand that these personal decisions should be made by women and their physicians. That’s why we need to codify Roe v. Wade and give women across the country the right to control their own bodies and health care.” |
David Schweikert* No response to survey. “It’s pretty clear that it belongs to the states,” via Business Insider. |
|
Kirsten Engel No response to survey. “Protecting women’s reproductive freedoms at the federal level will be one of my top priorities when elected to Congress. Women had those protections for over 50 years when Roe v. Wade was the law of the land, and that is what I will advocate for us to return to.” |
Juan Ciscomani* No response to survey. “I’m pro-life, I reject the extremes, and I trust women. I’m against a federal ban on abortion. I’m for timetables and exceptions, including for rape, incest and the life of the mother,” via campaign site. |
|
Adam Gray No response to survey. “What I support and will vote for is restoring Roe v. Wade into federal law so that women regain the federal rights they had for generations.” |
John Duarte* No response to survey. “Congressman Duarte opposes federal abortion restrictions.” |
|
Rudy Salas No response to survey. “I have always believed that this decision should be left between a woman, her doctor and within her own faith. Women should have the freedom to choose what happens with their own bodies and to determine their own health care.” |
David Valadao* No response to survey. “I do not support a federal abortion ban. The Dobbs decision decided this was an issue left to the states and that’s where I believe policy on the issue should be decided.” |
|
George Whitesides No response to survey. “I strongly support a woman’s right to make her own health care decisions, and if elected to Congress, I will vote to codify Roe v. Wade to ensure reproductive freedom for all Americans.” |
Mike Garcia* No response to survey. “I oppose a national abortion ban — California’s law on abortion stays the law — and I support exceptions for rape, incest and life of the mother.” |
|
Will Rollins No response to survey. “I support a federal minimum standard for abortion. In Congress, I will advocate for legislation that restores Roe v. Wade, which prohibits states from banning abortions before fetal viability. It’s critical that we protect a woman’s right to choose nationwide.” |
Ken Calvert* No response to survey. “Congressman Calvert does not support a federal abortion ban and supports the right of Californians to determine this for themselves.” |
|
Derek Tran No response to survey. “Derek Tran supports enshrining reproductive rights into law as California voters did through Proposition 1 in 2022.” |
Michelle Steel* No response to survey. “Michelle’s position has always been, and remains, that this issue is best left up to the states, and she does not support a national ban on abortion.” |
|
Yadira Caraveo* No response to survey. “Rep. Caraveo believes we need to codify Roe v. Wade. This was the law of the land for decades, and since the Dobbs decision, the lives of far too many women have been at risk.” |
Gabe Evans No response to survey. “I am pro-life, believe abortion stops a beating heart, and oppose taxpayer-funded abortion. Since the U.S. Supreme Court has returned this issue to the states, I will not vote for a national abortion ban.” |
|
Christina Bohannan No response to survey. “On Day 1 in Congress, I will work to codify Roe v. Wade and ensure women in Iowa and across the country once again have the freedom to make their own health care decisions.” |
Mariannette Miller-Meeks* No response to survey. “The congresswoman has been clear that she is pro-life with the exceptions of rape, incest, and life of the mother.” |
|
Lanon Baccam No response to survey. “It’s more important than ever to restore the protections of Roe v. Wade, and that’s why I’ll support the Women’s Health Protection Act in Congress. I believe women’s health care decisions should be between her and her doctor — not politicians.” |
Zach Nunn* No response to survey. “He is pro-life, but has voted for exceptions. He opposes a national abortion ban.” |
|
Jared Golden* No response to survey. “I’m a cosponsor of the Women’s Health Protection Act, to restore Roe, and I would vote for it if it came to the floor again.” |
Austin Theriault No response to survey. “Austin opposes and will vote against a national abortion ban.” |
|
Curtis Hertel No response to survey. “When Roe was overturned and abortion rights came under attack in our state, I worked across the aisle to get rid of the 1931 abortion ban and fought to enshrine abortion rights in Michigan’s constitution. I’m running to make Roe the law of the land and protect reproductive freedom.” |
Tom Barrett No response to survey. “Tom does not support a federal ban. He has consistently argued this is a decision for the states and while he disagrees with Prop. 3, Michigan voters have made that decision.” |
|
Kristen McDonald Rivet No response to survey. “After Roe was overturned, I protected abortion rights in Michigan by helping to repeal our state’s 1931 ban without exceptions for rape or incest. In Congress, I’ll fight for a federal law restoring the Roe standard across America.” |
Paul Junge No response to survey. “I would never and have never supported a national abortion ban.” |
|
Tony Vargas No response to survey. “I believe the decisions a woman makes for her body, and her family, are deeply personal and politicians have no place telling her what she can and cannot do. In Congress, I’ll vote to codify the protections earned from the Roe v. Wade decision into federal law.” |
Don Bacon* No response to survey. “I support the Nebraska law that puts a reasonable three-month restriction on abortions with exceptions for rape, incest and the health of the mother. At the federal level, I would only support legislation to outlaw late-term abortion, with protections for the three exceptions. Otherwise, states must vote on this issue.” |
|
Gabe Vasquez* No response to survey. “Abortion is health care. This is not a place for government interference. I trust every person I know and love, and any New Mexican, to make that decision for themselves.” |
Yvette Herrell No response to survey. “Yvette has been clear that since the Dobbs decision returned abortion policy to the states, she does not support a federal ban.” |
|
Sue Altman No response to survey. “Sue will work to protect access to contraception, reproductive choice, and women’s health,” via campaign site. |
Thomas Kean Jr.* No response to survey. “Tom is opposed to a national abortion ban. He has voted to protect access to mifepristone and believes any legislation should be left to the voters of each state to advocate for their positions to their legislatures.” |
|
Mondaire Jones No response to survey. “We must enshrine protections for abortion into federal law.” |
Mike Lawler* No response to survey. “He does not and never will support a national abortion ban.” |
|
Josh Riley No response to survey. “I believe that women’s health care decisions are women’s health care decisions and that politicians should stay the hell out of it. In Congress, I will codify the right to abortion as it existed under Roe v. Wade into law.” |
Marc Molinaro* No response to survey. “I believe health care decisions should be between a woman and her doctor, not Washington. I kept my promise to reject a national abortion ban — keeping New York’s laws in place.” |
|
Laura Gillen No response to survey. “The standard should be the same as it was the day before the disastrous Dobbs decision. It worked for a half a century, and we should return to it.” |
Anthony D’Esposito* No response to survey. “Congressman D’Esposito does not support a nationwide abortion ban and believes legislating on abortion should fall under the purview of state governments.” |
|
Don Davis* No response to survey. “Congress must take action and codify Roe v. Wade. He firmly believes that a woman’s health decisions should remain private between her and her doctor,” via campaign site. |
Laurie Buckhout No response to survey. “As the only candidate to be endorsed by the pro-life SBA (Susan B. Anthony) List, I believe every life is precious and would vote to preserve life, including the mother’s,” via The Perquimans Weekly. |
|
Emilia Sykes* No response to survey. “Congresswoman Sykes has a strong record of supporting the protections provided under Roe that give women across the country the right to make decisions about what is best for their bodies.” |
Kevin Coughlin No response to survey. “Issues related to abortion are best left to the states, and there should be no federal ban.” |
|
Janelle Bynum No response to survey. “Rep. Bynum supports codifying Roe v. Wade into federal law so that women across the country can have those rights back. This is a decision that should be kept between a woman and her doctors.” |
Lori Chavez-DeRemer* No response to survey. “The congresswoman doesn’t support any federal standard limiting Oregonians’ access to abortion.” |
|
Susan Wild* No response to survey. “I have always believed that private medical decisions, including whether or not to receive abortion care, should be made by a woman, her doctor, her partner and her faith if she so chooses.” |
Ryan Mackenzie No response to survey. “He’s opposed to a national abortion ban; he supports exceptions for rape, incest, and life of the mother.” |
|
Matt Cartwright* No response to survey. “I strongly support the Women’s Health Protection Act, which would restore Roe’s protections into federal law. We should trust women with their health care decisions, not politicians.” |
Rob Bresnahan Jr. No response to survey. “Rob Bresnahan does not support a national abortion ban and does support the current Pennsylvania protections of 24 weeks and exceptions for rape, incest, and the life of the mother. ” |
|
Janelle Stelson No response to survey. “I think these most intimate health care decisions should be made by women and their doctors … If elected, I will put those decisions back in the hands of women, where they belong.” |
Scott Perry* No response to survey. “Scott Perry believes firmly in the sanctity of Life — period. He makes exceptions for circumstances that involve rape, incest and danger to the life of the mother,” via campaign site. |
|
Eugene Vindman No response to survey. “In Congress, I will fight to make sure that the rights of women and girls in Virginia are never dependent on politicians in Richmond or Washington by voting to restore the protections of Roe nationwide.” |
Derrick Anderson No response to survey. “Derrick opposes and would vote against a national abortion ban.” |
|
Marie Gluesenkamp Perez* No response to survey. “Marie is an original co-sponsor of the Women’s Health Protection Act and supports codifying the abortion protections of Roe v. Wade in federal law, as well as ensuring women have continued access to contraception and I.V.F.” |
Joe Kent No response to survey. “Following the Supreme Court decision that made abortion a state issue, Joe Kent opposes any new federal legislation on the issue.” |
Methodology
The New York Times survey asked candidates or their campaigns two questions: 1) Do you support any federal minimum standard on abortion? 2) If so, until how many weeks in pregnancy (i.e. 6 weeks, 15 weeks, viability, etc.)?
Those surveyed were major-party candidates for the U.S. House of Representatives whose races were rated “tossups” by the Cook Political Report at any point in October 2024. Alaska’s at-large congressional district includes four candidates and will be decided by ranked-choice voting; the two candidates who received the most votes in the primary were included in the survey. All but six candidates responded to emailed requests for comment. In these cases, position summaries were taken from campaign websites or from other public statements.
Note: Counts of candidate statements in the top graphic were taken from survey responses only.
Additional work by June Kim.
Politics
DOJ launches grand jury probe into Marxist mogul Neville Roy Singham’s funding of leftist groups
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
FIRST ON FOX: A federal grand jury is investigating alleged financial crimes by Neville Roy Singham, the China-based tech tycoon whose fortune has funded a sprawling network of socialist, communist and Marxist organizations across the U.S. over the last decade.
According to sources familiar with the matter, the grand jury in Manhattan has issued subpoenas as part of a probe launched by U.S. Attorney Jay Clayton for the Southern District of New York, one of the country’s most powerful districts for federal prosecutions. Acting U.S. Attorney General Todd Blanche authorized the investigation as the Trump administration seeks to crack down on fraud, money laundering and other financial crimes in the multibillion-dollar nonprofit industry.
The grand jury action follows a Fox News Digital investigation published in mid-March, documenting how Singham pumped $285 million from his base in Shanghai into a Goldman Sachs philanthropy fund and two shell corporations that then fed the money into a constellation of nonprofit organizations, media operations and activist groups pushing sectarian division, identity politics and support for socialist politicians.
The investigation is examining the movement of the money in Singham’s financial network and attempting to determine if Singham, the organizations he funded or their leaders committed wire fraud, bank fraud, money laundering or other financial crimes, according to sources familiar with the matter.
HOUSE OF SINGHAM: READ FOX NEWS DIGITAL’S 5-PART INVESTIGATION
On Feb. 14, 2018, Jodie Evans, co-founder founder of CodePink, and Neville Roy Singham, founder of Thoughtworks, attend V20: The Red Party, a 20th anniversary celebration of V-Day and The Vagina Monologues, featuring a performance by playwright Eve Ensler and an after-party at Carnegie Hall in New York City. (Dave Kotinsky/Getty Images)
Prosecutors have presented evidence to the grand jury, which has issued subpoenas seeking bank records and other financial documents from organizations in Singham’s network. Federal prosecutors use grand jury subpoenas as an investigative tool to compel the production of documents and testimony as they determine whether sufficient evidence exists to pursue criminal charges.
Nicholas Biase, spokesman for the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York, declined to comment.
Showdown with Goldman Sachs
According to sources, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent traveled to New York City earlier this year for a meeting with Goldman Sachs Chairman and CEO David Solomon. The men discussed the role of a Goldman Sachs philanthropic arm — GS Donor Advised Philanthropy Fund For Wealth Management Inc. — that facilitated the movement by Singham of millions of dollars into a network of U.S. nonprofits.
A Treasury Department spokesman declined to comment. A person familiar with the meeting confirmed that it occurred, saying that Bessent has regular meetings with business leaders, and declined to comment further on the substance of the meeting.
At that meeting, sources said, Bessent delivered a blunt ultimatum: Goldman Sachs could face scrutiny for alleged conspiracy in the funneling of the Singham money and urged Solomon to cooperate with federal investigators.
Like many U.S. companies, Goldman Sachs has had a long business relationship with the Chinese Communist Party, with Solomon participating in a meeting, for example, on Nov. 4, 2025, with He Lifeng, a member of the Political Bureau of the Communist Party of China Central Committee and director of the Office of the Central Commission for Financial and Economic Affairs.
Solomon pledged his cooperation, according to sources.
WALL STREET BANKS HELPED CHINESE MILITARY-LINKED FIRM RAISE BILLIONS DESPITE RED FLAGS, LAWMAKERS FIND
By mid-May, with the Southern District of New York investigation in full throttle, Solomon joined a delegation of powerful American business leaders who accompanied President Donald Trump, Bessent and other administration officials to China to meet with Chinese President Xi Jinping and other leaders of the Chinese Communist Party.
On Nov. 4, 2025, He Lifeng, a member of the Political Bureau of the Communist Party of China Central Committee and director of the Office of the Central Commission for Financial and Economic Affairs, meets in Beijing with David Solomon, chairman and CEO of Goldman Sachs Group. (Cai Yang/Xinhua News Agency via Getty Images)
In a five-part investigative series published earlier this year, Fox News Digital unearthed a four-minute-13-second speech in which Singham stood on a stage at the Golden Tulip Hotel on Nov. 13, 2025, for a conference of the “Global South Academic Forum,” coincidentally just days after the Goldman Sachs’ chief was in Beijing. Tricontinental Ltd., a Singham-funded nonprofit, co-sponsored the event with academic institutions administered by the Chinese Communist Party.
On stage, Singham openly supported a “new world order” promoted by Chinese President Jinping and the Chinese Communist Party. During the speech, he called the United States a “fascist” nation, echoing the propaganda of the Chinese Communist Party now also parroted on the streets by communist, socialist and Democratic Party activists.
WATCH THE NOVEMBER 2025 SINGHAM SPEECH:
The series revealed a 172-page report in which Singham outlined his theory of change, invoking 20th century Chinese communist leader Mao Zedong’s battle plan to wage a “people’s war” to spread communism. Mao was inspired by communist leaders Karl Marx and Vladimir Lenin.
LAWMAKERS RAISE ALARM OVER NEVILLE ROY SINGHAM’S $278M NETWORK SPREADING CCP PROPAGANDA IN THE U.S.
Singham’s rise as a global political financier accelerated after his February 2017 marriage to Jodie Evans, the co-founder of Code Pink, a far-left activist group that has aligned itself with authoritarian regimes including the Islamic Republic of Iran, the Communist Party of Cuba and the Chinese Communist Party. According to sources, Evans is also a target of the investigation, emerging as a board member in the U.S. on many of the organizations that Singham funded.
That same year, Singham sold his company, ThoughtWorks, for an estimated $785 million to a London-based private equity firm, Apax Partners. A spokeswoman for Apax Partners said the company wouldn’t disclose the names of the investors who pumped money into that sale, but sources told Fox News Digital that federal investigators are looking for potential ties to the Chinese Communist Party.
After that sale, Fox News Digital found, Singham began directing large sums of money into a network of organizations that now form part of a broader activist infrastructure in the United States and abroad.
In its investigation, Fox News Digital mapped 223 transactions from 2017 through 2025 that moved $591 million across five continents through 67 core groups in the Singham network. They partner with hundreds of groups worldwide, resulting in a network of about 2,000 groups, amplifying anti-U.S., pro-China messages.
Of that money, Fox News Digital established a documented $278 million flowed directly from Singham into organizations that “sow discord” in the U.S., as House Ways and Means Chair Jason Smith put it earlier this year at a hearing a dynamics called “foreign malign influence.”
Following the Money
In money-laundering investigations, prosecutors typically examine three stages of alleged impropriety called “placement,” “layering” and “integration.” Placement refers to the introduction of funds into the financial system. Layering involves moving money through multiple entities or transactions to allegedly obscure its origin. Integration is the point at which the money reemerges as apparently legitimate funding, grants, payments or organizational support.
Step 1: Alleged Placement
Singham allegedly funneled $278 million from Shanghai into the United States through three key channels — the philanthropic arm of Goldman Sachs and two shell corporations that have since gone defunct.
- $164,040,000 to Mutod LLC, a now-defunct shell corporation established in 2017, based in Chicago.
- $110,376,701 to GS Donor Advised Philanthropy Fund For Wealth Management Inc., a philanthropy arm of Goldman Sachs, based in New York City.
- $3,500,000 to Likewise Conceptions LLC, a now-defunct shell corporation established in 2017, based in Crystal Lake, Ill.
Step. 2: Alleged Layering
The three entities then pumped the $278 million into six nonprofits:
- $167,540,000 to People’s Support Foundation Ltd., a 501(c)(3) nonprofit established with a hotel address in 2017 in Chicago and Singham’s wife, Evans, on the board.
- $68,748,701 to Justice and Education Fund Inc., a 501(c)(3) established with a UPS Store address in 2018 in New York City with self-avowed communists, including Manola De Los Santos, on the board.
- $22,440,000 to People’s Forum Inc., a 501(c)(3) established in 2017 on W. 37th Street in New York City with Evans and De Los Santos on the board.
- $16,760,000 to Tricontinental Ltd., a 501(c)(3) established in North Hampton, Mass., in 2017 by Singham friend and fellow Marxist ideologue Vijay Prashad.
- $1,330,000 to CodePink Women For Peace, a 501(c)(3) established in 2009 in Marina Del Ray, Calif., by Singham’s wife, Evans, and her friend, Susan Medea Benjamin.
- $1,098,000 to Breakthrough BT Media Inc., a 501(c)(3) established in New York City in 2020 at the People’s Forum headquarters with longtime American communist leader Brian Becker’s son, Ben Becker, as editor-in-chief of its pro-communist propaganda outlet, Breakthrough News.
Step 3: Alleged Integration
The six nonprofits then funneled at least $223 million and other forms of support into a global network of organizations including:
- People’s Welfare Association, a 501(c)(4) established in 2019 with the address of a UPS store in Madison, Wisc., today reporting about $12 million in revenues transformed into grants to undisclosed groups around the world.
- Countless unidentified organizations in six regions around the world, including Subsaharan Africa, Central America and even North America, receiving tens of millions of dollars.
- The ANSWER Coalition, a communist organization whose Chicago address has been listed as the location of the Green Mill Restaurant, a regular haunt for 20th century gangster Al Capone, whom federal prosecutor Elliott Ness prosecuted and convicted for tax evasion.
- The Party for Socialism and Liberation, a loosely-structured organization with shared leadership from the House of Singham, like the Becker father-son duo.
FLASHBACK: INSIDE THE POLITICAL MOVEMENT THAT PUT A SOCIALIST IN CHARGE OF NEW YORK CITY
Socialist New York congressional nominees Darializa Avila Chevalier (L), Claire Valdez (C) and Brad Lander. (Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images; Michael Nagle/Bloomberg via Getty Images; Adam Gray/Bloomberg via Getty Images)
Singham and Evans haven’t responded to repeated requests for comment from Fox News Digital. In January, Becker and De Los Santos refused to respond to questions by Fox News Digital outside the People’s Forum headquarters. Benjamin refused to respond to questions during a protest in May.
The ANSWER Coalition, Breakthrough BT Media Inc., CodePink Women for Peace, Justice and Education Fund Inc., Party for Socialism and Liberation, People’s Forum Inc., People’s Welfare Association and Tricontinental Ltd. also haven’t responded to repeated requests for comment. Representatives for Mutod Ltd. and Likewise Conceptions LLC couldn’t be located.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
Politics
Gun owners may carry a weapon into stores, Supreme Court rules, rejecting a California law
WASHINGTON — Licensed gun owners have a right to carry a concealed firearm into stores and other private places unless the owner objects, the Supreme Court ruled Thursday.
The 6-3 decision extends gun rights and strikes down laws in Hawaii, California, New York, New Jersey and Maryland.
Those measures would prohibit carrying guns onto private property that is open to the public unless the owner has expressly authorized them.
“This regime hobbles what the 2nd Amendment protects: the right of Americans to carry arms for self-defense as they go about their daily lives. We hold that the law is unconstitutional,” Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. said for the court.
The new laws, if upheld, would “impose severe restrictions on the daily activities of residents who have satisfied the state’s rigorous requirements for the issuance of a carry permit. When these permit holders leave home in the morning, … they may also be barred from entering many places that people routinely visit in the course of their daily routines, such as gas stations, convenience stores, restaurants, coffee shops, drug stores, grocery stores, ‘big box’ stores, home improvement stores, barber shops or hair salons, dry cleaners, and laundromats.”
The three liberals dissented, saying the law would protect property owners who don’t want guns in their stores.
“There is no constitutional right to enter private property without the owner’s permission, let alone with a firearm,” said Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson.
Trump administration lawyers had joined a coalition of Hawaii gun owners in urging the court to strike down these blue state laws in the case of Wolford vs. Lopez.
They said the laws, if enforced, would mean “a person carrying a handgun for self-defense commits a crime by entering a mall, a gas station, a convenience store, a supermarket, a restaurant or a coffee shop.”
This litigation is part of much broader debate over where guns may be permitted or prohibited.
Four years ago, the justices ruled that law-abiding persons had a right to obtain a permit to carry a concealed gun when they left home. They also agreed there are “sensitive places” where guns may be prohibited, such as schools, courts and other government buildings.
In response, lawmakers in California and Hawaii adopted their own lists of “sensitive places.” They imposed restrictions on concealed weapons at parks, beaches, playgrounds, places of worship and public transit as well as bars and restaurants that serve alcohol.
Gun owners sued but the 9th Circuit Court refused to block most of those restrictions in a single 83-page opinion covering Hawaii and California. Both states would prohibit carrying guns onto private property open to the public without the owner’s consent.
The 9th Circuit upheld that measure in principle but said California went too far by requiring the owner to post a prominent sign expressly authorizing guns.
“While today’s ruling in Wolford is disappointing, owners still have every right to decide whether firearms are allowed in their stores and businesses,” said Janet Carter, managing director of Second Amendment Litigation at Everytown Law. “The Supreme Court may have changed the default rule, but it cannot take away a private property owner’s authority over their own land.”
The Firearms Policy Coalition said the court had properly protected gun rights and barred states from carving out their “own regional version of the 2nd Amendment.”
“The historical record does not support forcing peaceable people to obtain advance permission before carrying for self-defense in places held open to them,” the group said.
Last week, the court upheld gun rights in a Texas case and said the government may not make it a crime for an “unlawful user” of a drug such as marijuana to own a gun.
Politics
Jacob Frey praises Somali community as Minnesota faces renewed scrutiny over fraud investigations
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey told members of the city’s Somali community over the weekend that they are “our family,” pledging solidarity and praising their contributions to the city during remarks celebrating Somali Independence Day.
Frey’s remarks came as Minnesota continues to face scrutiny over several high-profile fraud investigations and weeks after a Republican-led House Oversight Committee report alleged the Minnesota Governor Tim Walz’s administration failed to act on repeated warnings about widespread fraud in the state’s social services programs.
“Through the most difficult of times and through Operation Metro surge, we all saw that they tried to come for some of us,” Frey told members of the Somali community on Saturday. “And when that happens, we say that you’re coming for all of us.”
BLUE STATE’S ANTI-ICE PLEDGE COLLAPSES AS GOP WARNS OF NEW SANCTUARY ‘CONFEDERACY’
Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey speaks during a Somali Independence Day celebration in Minneapolis as attendees stand on stage holding Somali flags. (Credit: Mayor Jacob Frey X Post)
“In Minneapolis, we loved our neighbors. In Minneapolis, we do not see you as immigrants. We see you as our family,” he added. “You are our brothers. You’re our sisters. You have done so much for this incredible city, and for that, we stand with you.”
Frey appeared to reference Operation Metro Surge, the Trump administration’s immigration and public safety initiative in Minnesota.
The operation concluded in February after border czar Tom Homan announced it had resulted in the arrest of more than 4,000 people in the Minneapolis-St. Paul area and had reduced what he described as public safety threats.
BLUE STATE’S ANTI-ICE PLEDGE COLLAPSES AS GOP WARNS OF NEW SANCTUARY ‘CONFEDERACY’
Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey speaks to the media at City Hall on Jan. 9. (Aaron Lavinsky/The Minnesota Star Tribune via Getty Images)
Frey shared the video on X, writing, “Happy Somali Independence Day.”
“Here in Minnesota, home to one of the largest Somali communities in the United States, we celebrate the resilience, culture, and leadership that continue to enrich our city and community,” he said.
Earlier this month, a Republican-led House Oversight Committee report alleged Walz’s administration repeatedly failed to act on warnings about fraud involving state social services programs, including the Feeding Our Future scandal.
WALZ ADMINISTRATION IGNORED FRAUD WARNINGS AS BILLIONS VANISHED, HOUSE OVERSIGHT REPORT ALLEGES
Democratic Gov. Tim Walz speaks during a news conference on Tuesday, Jan. 6, 2026, in Minneapolis, Minnesota. (Alex Kormann/Star Tribune via AP)
The committee said more than 110 people have been charged in connection with various fraud schemes in Minnesota, including many defendants identified as members of Minnesota’s Somali immigrant community.
The report also alleged concerns about potential racial discrimination claims contributed to delays in addressing suspected fraud and estimated Minnesota lost roughly $300 million in stolen federal child nutrition funds during the COVID-19 pandemic.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
Walz administration officials have disputed the committee’s findings.
Fox News Digital’s Adam Pack contributed to this report.
-
Tennessee1 minute agoConstruction on state routes to be paused for 4th of July holiday: What to know
-
Texas8 minutes ago3 women charged in Texas killing; video shows suspects smiling
-
Utah11 minutes agoWhy a Utah couple is renovating a castle in Scotland – East Idaho News
-
Vermont16 minutes agoHere are the details from the Vermont-New Hampshire All-Star Hockey Classic!
-
Washington21 minutes agoSupreme Court rules states can count late-arriving mailed ballots, rejecting Trump-led challenge
-
Virginia23 minutes agoSpringfield Man Convicted After Deputies Find Explosives During Eviction
-
Wisconsin31 minutes ago2027 Wisconsin commit unexpectedly visits with prestigious SEC program
-
West Virginia38 minutes ago
E-News | Suggest topics for Mountain State Conference on Disabilities