Connect with us

World

Can Biden afford to lose the Arab and Muslim vote?

Published

on

Can Biden afford to lose the Arab and Muslim vote?

In 2020, Joe Biden won the state of Michigan by a much closer margin over then-incumbent President Donald Trump than the polls and pundits had predicted: just more than 150,000 votes.

Two partly overlapping sets of voters helped tip Biden over the line in Michigan and other vital swing states, including Pennsylvania and Wisconsin: Muslim Americans and Arab Americans.

Now, four years later, as Biden and Trump head towards a rematch in November, the current Democratic Party incumbent faces the mounting prospects of a backlash from those very same voters, many of whom are seeking to bleed his re-election bid.

Growing outrage over Washington’s support for Israel in its unprecedented bombardment of Gaza is many prompting Arab-American and Muslim voters to declare that they intend to stay away from the polls. As the US continues military funding for Tel Aviv, the number of Palestinians killed in the war on Gaza has risen to nearly 30,000 since October 7, many of them children.

In Michigan, where early primaries begin this week, one-time Biden voters have promised to send his administration a strong message by sabotaging the elections, even as the president’s aides have scrambled to meet and mend broken ties with community leaders.

Advertisement

Here’s what American Arab and Muslim communities want, why the two voting blocs are important for Biden, and the parts of the US where they are most influential:

Residents of Detroit and the Arab Community of Dearborn march in support of Palestinians on October 14, 2023, in Dearborn, Michigan [Matthew Hatcher/Getty Images via AFP]

What are Arab Americans demanding?

Arab and Muslim communities say they’ve called on the Biden administration to speak up and halt the killings in Gaza with no results. Some are Palestinians with families and friends in the besieged strip.

These communities have diverse demands, the main ones being that:

  • The US support an immediate ceasefire in Gaza and work to see Palestinian political prisoners, as well as Israeli captives, freed.
  • Washington stops military funding to Israel.
  • The US pushes for sufficient aid to Palestinians and resumes paused humanitarian funding to UNRWA, the UN aid agency under investigation amid accusations its staff members took part in Hamas’s October 7 attacks when 1,200 Israelis were killed.
  • The US government do more to fight rising anti-Arab and anti-Palestinian hate.

However, many say they’re not being heard and that Washington’s stance is particularly painful because of how they’ve supported Biden in the past. Communities in Dearborn, Detroit, and other major cities with significant Arab-American populations have successfully lobbied their local council leaders to pass unilateral resolutions for a ceasefire in Gaza.

While the local laws do not weigh on US foreign policy, Mai El-Sadany, director of the DC-based Tahrir Institute for Middle East Policy (TIMEP) told Al Jazeera that local resolutions are symbolic and are pointers to the concerns and priorities of American citizens.

“These spaces provide a platform for citizens to explain why this issue matters and how it affects them and their families,” El-Sadany said.

Advertisement

“[Local councils] have the potential to be mobilising spaces to bring like-minded individuals together, to create a larger sense of urgency and pressure on policymakers who do have foreign policy influence to reconsider their approach.”

What’s the ‘uncommitted’ option some voters want to go with?

Some Arab-American voters are choosing to pull a no-show in state primaries, and – if Biden does not call for a ceasefire – at the November polls. Community leaders in Minnesota launched the #AbandonBiden campaign in October.

Others say they plan to write “Free Palestine” on their unticked ballot papers.

Still others, particularly in Michigan, are planning to turn out for the Democratic primaries — not to tick Biden’s name, but rather to choose the “uncommitted” option on ballots.

The option signifies that voters support the party but are not attached to any of the listed candidates. An uncommitted vote will not count for Biden. At the same time, since Trump is not on the Democratic Party ballot, it will not count for him either. While there won’t be an uncommitted option in November in the general ballots, no-show votes and ballot papers not properly ticked from former Democratic Party supporters could reduce the vote count for Biden.

Advertisement

Lexis Zeidan of Listen to Michigan, a group that has organised call-a-thons to get thousands of “uncommitted” Michigan voters on board, told Al Jazeera the effort was “to put President Biden on notice” after protests had failed to change the White House’s stance on Gaza.

“You can’t weaponise this whole notion that because you’re not Republican, you’re the better party especially when you’re aiding a genocide and even more when you’re taking our taxes that could be reinvested in the communities that are suffering and you claim to care about,” said Zeidan, a Palestinian Christian who promises not to vote for Biden in November. The group is aiming for at least 10,000 people to vote uncommitted in the primaries, the same number of votes that helped Trump win Michigan in the 2016 elections, over Hillary Clinton.

“For us, at the minimum, that’s the margin of votes that we can showcase that we are able to swing Michigan in any direction,” she said.

Some 30 elected state leaders in Michigan have joined the movement, including Rashida Tlaib, the only Palestinian American in the US Congress.

Dearborn city mayor Abdullah Hammoud in a New York Times opinion confirmed that he’d vote ‘uncommitted’ in the primaries, saying that in doing so, he was choosing “hope that Mr. Biden will listen”.

Advertisement

Which states are Arab-American voting strongholds?

There are approximately 3.5 million Arab Americans according to the Arab American Institute, making up around 1 percent of the US population. About 65 percent are Christians, approximately 30 percent are Muslim, and a small number practise Judaism.

While these groups tend to vote based on varying interests, “there’s almost unanimous consensus on the need for a Gaza ceasefire,” said Youssef Chouhoud, a race and religion researcher with Virginia’s Christopher Newmark University (CNU).

Dearborn, Michigan, is home to the largest Arab-American community in the US — more than 40 percent of the city’s population. Georgia, Pennsylvania, Florida, and Virginia are also home to large Arab communities.

At least three of those states – Georgia, Michigan and Pennsylvania — are going to be battleground swing states in November, where the difference in support for Democrats and Republicans is marginal, and small shifts could swing outcomes.

Arab votes made the difference in the tight 2020 race. Biden pushed ahead of Trump by 154,000 votes in Michigan – credited majorly to the Arab-American community, which accounted for 5 percent of the vote. Michigan is home to an estimated 240,000 Arab Americans.

Advertisement

In Georgia, Biden won by fewer than 12,000 votes. The state is home to more than 57,000 Arab Americans.

However, soaring discontent in those communities means for the first time in 26 years, the Democratic Party is no longer a choice for many Arab voters, whether Christian or Muslim. Biden’s approval ratings among American Arabs went from 59 percent in 2020 to 17 percent in 2023.

How might non-Arab Muslims vote?

There are about 4.5 million American Muslims, and a majority — almost 3.5 million — of them are not of Arab ethnicity. Most are of Pakistani and Indian descent.

But non-Arab Muslim communities who’ve traditionally voted Democrat are losing faith in Biden, too.

In all, about one million Muslims voted in 2020, and 80 percent of them voted for Biden. According to the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), some two million Muslims are already registered to vote in the 2024 elections.

Advertisement

This time, though, only 5 percent of Muslim Americans say they’ll vote for Biden in November, according to a poll by Emgage, a Muslim civic engagement group.

American Muslims are concentrated in New York, California, Illinois, New Jersey, Texas, Florida, Ohio, Virginia, Georgia and Michigan.

What effects will no-show voting have?

Some analysts say that, whether they withhold their vote or go for Trump, the Muslim and Arab-American vote is not going to make a huge dent in Biden’s campaign as they only make up about 2 to 3 percent of the total voting population.

But no-shows or damaged votes, from those who will write on the ballot, for example, could put Biden at risk of losing tiny margins in swing states and could clear the ground for another Trump White House, Chouhoud of CNU said.

“It is well within the realm of reason that he will lose over 50 percent of the votes that he got in 2020 from Arabs and Muslims collectively, and that’s equivalent to the margin of victory that he got just from those two groups alone,” Chouhoud said. “He cannot count on their votes.”

Advertisement

Such a scenario, Chohoud added, would make it likelier for Trump to get elected. The former president has signalled he’d bring back a controversial ban on travel to the US from several Muslim-majority countries.

“That’s not to say that we should, quote-unquote, blame the Muslims,” Chouhoud said. “They’ve been telling you what they were going to do for months now. If the Democratic establishment really cared about a second Trump presidency as much as they say they do, they would have done something different. So, it’s really not on Arabs and Muslims, right?”

Other communities, too, might hurt Biden at the ballot box. Polls by the Pew Research Center show that 40 percent of Americans across party lines do not approve of Biden’s response to the war, particularly young people.

How well is Biden’s damage control working?

Biden’s campaign has tried to paint the president as frustrated with the situation in Gaza to appeal to Arab and Muslim communities, as well as other Americans across religious affiliations who support a ceasefire in Gaza.

According to an NBC news exclusive this month, Biden privately vented his frustrations with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s unwillingness to agree to a ceasefire, and called the prime minister an “a******”. The president also told reporters at a February 8 news conference in the White House that the Israeli response in Gaza “has been over the top”.

Advertisement

But in moves contradicting the president’s alleged private stance, Washington has so far continued to back Israel’s war. In mid-February, UN Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield was the sole hand to oppose, and veto, a resolution proposed by Algeria calling for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza. Thomas-Greenfield said that could jeopardise continuing negotiations aimed at freeing Israeli captives still held by Hamas and that an immediate ceasefire would derail US attempts to build a “lasting peace” in the region. It was one of several such vetoes blocking an end to the war since October 7.

In January, the US Senate also approved an additional $14bn package to fund Israel’s war on Gaza. Already, Israel receives the largest chunk of US aid, according to the Council on Foreign Relations – about $3.3bn a year. Nearly all of that funding goes to military operations.

In a flurry of activity in recent weeks, Biden representatives have attempted to soothe Arab leaders in meetings, with limited success. Dearborn officials were set to meet Biden campaign manager Julie Chavez Rodriguez in a sit-down but cancelled at the last minute after pressure mounted from community members who were against any talks regarding the elections. At another meeting with Biden’s senior advisors in February, Dearborn Mayor Hammoud said the community was not shifting from its demands for a ceasefire.

Advertisement

World

Trump says he is directing federal agencies to cease use of Anthropic technology

Published

on

Trump says he is directing federal agencies to cease use of Anthropic technology
U.S. President Donald Trump on Friday said he was directing every federal agency to immediately cease all use of Anthropic’s technology, adding there would be a six-month phase out for agencies such as the Defense Department who use the company’s products.
Continue Reading

World

UN Human Rights Council chief cuts off speaker criticizing US-sanctioned official

Published

on

UN Human Rights Council chief cuts off speaker criticizing US-sanctioned official

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

The United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) abruptly cut off a video statement after the speaker began criticizing several United Nations officials, including one who has been sanctioned by the Trump administration. The video message was being played during a U.N. session in Geneva, Switzerland, Friday morning.

Anne Bayefsky, director of the Touro Institute on Human Rights and the and president of Human Rights, called out several U.N. officials in her message, including U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk and special rapporteur Francesca Albanese, who is the subject of U.S. sanctions.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced sanctions against Albanese July 9, 2025, saying that she “has spewed unabashed antisemitism, expressed support for terrorism and open contempt for the United States, Israel and the West.”

“That bias has been apparent across the span of her career, including recommending that the ICC, without a legitimate basis, issue arrest warrants targeting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant,” Rubio added.

Advertisement

Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Francesca Albanese  (Getty Images)

“I was the only American U.N.-accredited NGO with a speaking slot, and I wasn’t allowed even to conclude my 90 seconds of allotted time. Free speech is non-existent at the U.N. so-called ‘Human Rights Council,’” Bayefsky told Fox News Digital.

Bayefsky noted the irony of the council cutting off her video in a proceeding that was said to be an “interactive dialogue,” an event during which experts are allowed to speak to the council about human rights issues.

“I was cut off after naming Francesca Albanese, Navi Pillay and Chris Sidoti for covering up Palestinian use of rape as a weapon of war and trafficking in blatant antisemitism. I named the prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, Karim Khan, who is facing disturbing sexual assault allegations but still unaccountable almost two years later. Those are the people and the facts that the United Nations wants to protect and hide,” Bayefsky told Fox News Digital.

“It is an outrage that I am silenced and singled out for criticism on the basis of naming names.”

Advertisement

Bayefsky’s statement was cut off as she accused Albanese and Navi Pillay, the former chair of the U.N. Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory; and Chris Sidoti, a commissioner of the U.N. Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory. She also slammed Khan, who has faced rape allegations. Khan has denied the sexual misconduct allegations against him.

Had her video message been played in full, Bayefsky would have gone on to criticize Türk’s recent report for not demanding accountability for the “Palestinian policy to pay to kill Jews, including Hamas terror boss Yahya Sinwar who got half a million dollars in blood money.”

When the video was cut short, Human Rights Council President Ambassador Sidharto Reza Suryodipuro characterized Bayefsky’s remarks as “derogatory, insulting and inflammatory” and said that they were “not acceptable.”

“The language used by the speaker cannot be allowed as it has exceeded the limits of tolerance and respect within the framework of the council which we all in this room hold to,” Suryodipuro said.

The Human Rights Council at the United Nations in Geneva, Switzerland, Feb. 26, 2025. (Denis Balibouse/Reuters)

Advertisement

MELANIA TRUMP TO TAKE THE GAVEL AT UN SECURITY COUNCIL IN HISTORIC FIRST

In response to Fox News Digital’s request for comment, Human Rights Council Media Officer Pascal Sim said the council has had long-established rules on what it considers to be acceptable language.

“Rulings regarding the form and language of interventions in the Human Rights Council are established practices that have been in place throughout the existence of the council and used by all council presidents when it comes to ensuring respect, tolerance and dignity inherent to the discussion of human rights issues,” Sim told Fox News Digital.

When asked if the video had been reviewed ahead of time, Sim said it was assessed for length and audio quality to allow for interpretation, but that the speakers are ultimately “responsible for the content of their statement.”

“The video statement by the NGO ‘Touro Law Center, The Institute on Human Rights and The Holocaust’ was interrupted when it was deemed that the language exceeded the limits of tolerance and respect within the framework of the council and could not be tolerated,” Sim said.

Advertisement

“As the presiding officer explained at the time, all speakers are to remain within the appropriate framework and terminology used in the council’s work, which is well known by speakers who routinely participate in council proceedings. Following that ruling, none of the member states of the council have objected to it.”

Flag alley at the United Nations’ European headquarters during the Human Rights Council in Geneva, Switzerland, Sept. 11, 2023. (Denis Balibouse/File Photo/Reuters)

UNRWA OFFICIALS LOBBY CONGRESSIONAL STAFFERS AGAINST TRUMP TERRORIST DESIGNATION THREAT

While Bayefsky’s statement was cut off, other statements accusing Israel of genocide and ethnic cleansing were allowed to be played and read in full.

This is not the first time that Bayefsky was interrupted. Exactly one year ago, on Feb. 27, 2025, her video was cut off when she mentioned the fate of Ariel and Kfir Bibas. Jürg Lauber, president of the U.N. Human Rights Council at the time, stopped the video and declared that Bayefsky had used inappropriate language.

Advertisement

Bayefsky began the speech by saying, “The world now knows Palestinian savages murdered 9-month-old baby Kfir,” and she ws almost immediately cut off by Lauber.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

“Sorry, I have to interrupt,” Lauber abruptly said as the video of Bayefsky was paused. Lauber briefly objected to the “language” used in the video, but then allowed it to continue. After a few more seconds, the video was shut off entirely. 

Lauber reiterated that “the language that’s used by the speaker cannot be tolerated,” adding that it “exceeds clearly the limits of tolerance and respect.”

Last year, when the previous incident occurred, Bayefsky said she believed the whole thing was “stage-managed,” as the council had advanced access to her video and a transcript and knew what she would say.

Advertisement

Related Article

UN chief blasted as ‘abjectly tone-deaf’ over message to Iran marking revolution anniversary
Continue Reading

World

Did the EU bypass Hungary’s veto on Ukraine’s €90 billion loan?

Published

on

Did the EU bypass Hungary’s veto on Ukraine’s €90 billion loan?

A post on X by European Parliament President Roberta Metsola has triggered a wave of misinformation linked to the EU’s €90 billion support loan to Ukraine, which is designed to help Kyiv meet its general budget and defence needs amid Russia’s ongoing invasion.

ADVERTISEMENT


ADVERTISEMENT

Hungary said earlier this week that it would block both the loan — agreed by EU leaders in December — and a new EU sanctions package against Moscow amid a dispute over oil supplies.

Shortly afterwards, Metsola posted on X that she had signed the Ukraine support loan on behalf of the parliament.

She said the funds would be used to maintain essential public services, support Ukraine’s defence, protect shared European security, and anchor Ukraine’s future within Europe.

Advertisement

The announcement triggered a wave of reactions online, with some claiming Hungary’s veto had been ignored, but this is incorrect.

Metsola did sign the loan on behalf of the European Parliament, but that’s only one step in the EU’s legislative process. Her signature does not mean the loan has been definitively implemented.

How the process works

In December, after failing to reach an agreement on using frozen Russian assets to fund Ukraine’s war effort, the European Council agreed in principle to provide €90 billion to help Kyiv meet its budgetary and military needs over the next two years.

On 14 January, the European Commission put forward a package of legislative proposals to ensure continued financial support for Ukraine in 2026 and 2027.

These included a proposal to establish a €90 billion Ukraine support loan, amendments to the Ukraine Facility — the EU instrument used to deliver budgetary assistance — and changes to the EU’s multiannual financial framework so the loan could be backed by any unused budgetary “headroom”.

Advertisement

Under EU law, these proposals must be adopted by both the European Parliament and the European Council. Because the loan requires amendments to EU budgetary rules, it ultimately needs unanimous approval from all member states.

Metsola’s signature therefore does not amount to a final decision, nor does it override Hungary’s veto.

The oil dispute behind Hungary’s opposition

Budapest says its objections are linked to a dispute over the Druzhba pipeline, a Soviet-era route that carries Russian oil via Ukraine to Hungary and Slovakia.

According to the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air (CREA), Hungary and Slovakia imported an estimated €137 million worth of Russian crude through the pipeline in January alone, under a temporary EU exemption.

Oil flows reportedly stopped in late January after a Russian air strike that Kyiv says damaged the pipeline’s southern branch in western Ukraine. Hungary disputes this, with Prime Minister Viktor Orbán accusing Ukraine of blocking it from being used.

Advertisement

Speaking in Kyiv alongside European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and European Council President António Costa, Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said the pipeline had been damaged by Russia, not Kyiv.

He added that repairs were dangerous and could not be carried out quickly without putting Ukrainian servicemen in danger.

Tensions escalated further after reports that Ukraine struck a Russian pumping station serving the pipeline. Orbán responded by ordering increased security at critical infrastructure sites, claiming Kyiv was attempting to disrupt Hungary’s energy system.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending