

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.

Egyptian authorities should rescue migrants held for ransom and abused by human traffickers in the Sinai desert, Human Rights Watch said today. The government has neither prosecuted the traffickers nor closed down their detention sites, Human Rights Watch said.
According to media reports, in late November and early December 2010, traffickers shot or beat to death six Eritrean nationals who were among hundreds of asylum seekers and migrants held at one location near the Israeli border since late October. Two migrants held by traffickers confirmed to Human Rights Watch that traffickers are holding 105 Eritreans, including nine women, for ransom in about 10 underground rooms.
"Egyptian authorities frequently say they are cracking down on organized crime in the Sinai," said Joe Stork, deputy Middle East director at Human Rights Watch. "But the government is slow to react when human traffickers are holding hundreds of migrants for ransom."
Responding to media reports, on December 8 Egyptian security officials told the Egyptian daily Al-Shurouq that police were interrogating individuals connected to smugglers or traffickers in Sinai who may be detaining up to 300 Eritreans.
A sizable network smuggling sub-Saharan migrants through Egypt to Israel has been operating in Sinai since at least 2007. In addition to smugglers who guide people across borders unlawfully for money but who do not otherwise exploit and abuse them, there are also human traffickers operating in Sinai who abuse the migrants under their control and hold them for ransom.
Throughout 2010, Human Rights Watch has obtained numerous credible reports - including detailed statements by Eritreans apprehended by Israel near Egypt's Sinai border - of a well-established trafficking network. Traffickers regularly hold hostage hundreds of mostly Eritrean and other sub-Saharan asylum seekers and migrants, including children, in various locations for weeks or months until their relatives abroad pay thousands of dollars to secure their release.
In 30 statements that Human Rights Watch reviewed, migrants described how traffickers shackled their legs and chained three or four men or women together at a time, in some cases for as long as four months. Dozens of migrant women told medical staff in Israel that traffickers had repeatedly raped them, and both men and women said they had been burned with hot iron bars, whipped with electrical cords, beaten, and forced to do work for the traffickers while awaiting ransom payments or even after payments had been made.
Egypt's 240-kilometer border with Israel in the Sinai is a restricted military zone to which Egypt prohibits unauthorized entry. Egyptian border security forces have arrested thousands of asylum seekers and migrants in recent years and prosecuted many of them before military tribunals.
Security sources told Reuters that, in the most recent mass arrests on December 8, police arrested 83 asylum seekers and migrants - 63 Ethiopians and 20 Eritreans - 10 kilometers outside the town of Suez. The Egyptian authorities do not allow the United Nations refugee agency (UNHCR) access to asylum seekers and migrants arrested in Sinai and do not attempt to identify potential trafficking victims among them.
Since July 2007, Egyptian border guards have also shot and killed at least 85 people trying to cross into Israel - 28 of them since the beginning of 2010, including some who appear to have been seeking asylum. The vast majority were killed at the border in circumstances where smugglers were not present. Human Rights Watch is not aware of any Egyptian government investigations into these incidents.
"The authorities cannot justify shootings of migrants on the grounds that they are trying to halt smugglers or traffickers," Stork said. "Law enforcers may only use lethal force when absolutely necessary to protect lives."
Numerous migrants reported that smugglers ask for US$2,500 to $3,000 to guide them to the border with Israel. But once these migrants arrived in Sinai, they found themselves in the hands of traffickers who shackled them and demanded additional money - ranging from $500 to $10,000. They threatened to kill or otherwise harm the migrants - in several cases, to remove and sell their kidneys for a large illegal market in Egypt - if they did not pay. In dozens of cases asylum seekers and migrants said that to coerce relatives to make payments, traffickers would make them call their relatives by mobile phone and then shoot in the air or physically abuse them so the relatives would hear their screams.
Some migrants said that once their relatives paid the additional money, the traffickers handed them over to other traffickers who asked for more money. In other cases, Eritrean asylum seekers said they were kidnapped in Sudan, brought to Sinai against their will, and then forced to call their relatives to demand money in exchange for their release.
Local and international organizations working with refugees and migrants in Israel have interviewed dozens of women who said that traffickers raped them. Some women said they were repeatedly raped, often by many men, including Eritrean men forced to work with the traffickers, often at gunpoint and in some cases repeatedly for days or weeks. At times the women were raped close to where other migrants were being held hostage; at other times traffickers drove the women to an isolated area.
Physicians for Human Rights-Israel told Human Rights Watch that about 80 abortions it carried out in the first 11 months of 2010 were for asylum seekers and migrant women whom the group believes had been sexually assaulted in the Sinai. It also said that out of 1,303 gynecological examinations conducted during the same period, a "large percentage" of the cases resulted from trauma experienced in Sinai.
Asylum seekers and migrants described traffickers abusing them by burning them with hot irons, using electric shocks, whipping with "metal whips" or electric cords on the back, feet, head or entire naked body, and beating the soles of the feet with "plastic objects" and the rest of the body with sticks. Some said they were abused in one or more of these ways every two to three days, sometimes for months. One woman said she watched her husband die of his burns, after which the traffickers raped her.
Human Rights Watch has been unable to establish the locations or structures in which traffickers hold the migrants. In reports reviewed by Human Rights Watch, migrants said they were held in rooms or buildings with other migrants. An account in the Israeli newspaper Haaretz described a situation in which 50 to 70 migrants were held in "metal containers," where some died of dehydration and a child burned his hands touching the hot walls. Some migrants say they were held in "purpose-built containers" or "underground cells."
Five migrants said that they were forced to urinate in bottles and that the traffickers then poured the contents over their heads. Almost all said they were allowed to wash their bodies only once or twice during their entire captivity. Migrants reported that traffickers gave them very little food, ranging from two pieces of bread a day to porridge once every three or four days. Migrants say they were only given "salty water" or water that contained residues of fuel from petrol jerrycans to drink, sometimes only once a day.
Migrants reported that traffickers forced them to engage in manual labor for 8 to 12 hours a day - mostly building houses - for periods ranging from 10 days to several months. Some said they were forced to work for weeks, even after their relatives had paid the ransom. Some men said they were forced to work at night because the traffickers said they did not want the police or military to see them. Women, including those who had been raped, said they were forced to prepare meals and clean for the traffickers. Both men and women said the traffickers referred to them as "slaves."
The Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children, which Egypt ratified in 2004, defines trafficking as the recruitment, transportation, transfer, harboring, or receipt of persons through "the threat or use of force or other forms of coercion...or of the giving or receiving of payments or benefits to achieve the consent of a person having control of another person, for the purpose of exploitation." Human Rights Watch said that the people in the Sinai controlling these migrants through force and threats and subjecting them to forced labor, rape, and extortion for money meet the definition of traffickers and should be brought to justice.
International law distinguishes traffickers, who depend on threats or force to exploit others, from smugglers, who take people across borders unlawfully without coercion.
According to UNHCR, about 85 percent of the migrants entering Israel through the Sinai desert in recent months have been Eritrean nationals fleeing an extremely repressive state. Most Eritreans reportedly begin their journey to Israel in refugee camps near the town of Kassala in Sudan and travel north - sometimes by boat from Port Sudan and sometimes overland - and into Sinai without passing through Egypt's capital, Cairo. Credible sources have told Human Rights Watch that some migrants die in the back of closed vehicles due to lack of water or oxygen and are simply thrown off the vehicles.
The second-largest group entering Israel is Sudanese nationals from Darfur, followed by smaller numbers of Ethiopians and other Africans. According to Israeli government figures, approximately 35,000 asylum seekers and migrants are in Israel, with about 1,100 having entered every month between August and October in 2010. Israeli officials frequently refer to them as "infiltrators."
Israel reviews very few individual asylum requests, but grants "temporary protection" to Eritrean and Sudanese nationals, which keeps them from being deported to their countries of origin. Israel's Interior Ministry recently announced it would revoke work permits of those with temporary protection.
The Israeli government also continues to implement a policy of forcibly returning to Egypt some migrants who enter Israel at the Sinai border without giving them a meaningful opportunity to lodge refugee claims, a practice Israel calls "hot returns." Israel's Supreme Court first heard Israeli rights groups' petitions against the "hot returns" procedure in 2007 but has not yet ruled on its legality. So far in 2010, the Israeli government is known to have sent back to Egypt 136 border-crossers. International refugee and human rights law prohibit refoulement, the forcible return of refugees to persecution or situations threatening their life or freedom, and of anyone to circumstances in which they face torture.
The Egyptian authorities regularly refer to organized criminal activity in Sinai involving the smuggling and trafficking of people, drugs, and weapons when justifying its prosecution before military tribunals of migrants charged with unlawful presence in Sinai, and also in explaining the scores of shooting deaths by Egyptian border security forces. In May, Egypt adopted a new anti-trafficking law and issued implementing regulations on December 6, which Human Rights Watch has yet to review. Egypt's penal code, its 2008 Child Law, and its Organ Transplant Law all criminalize trafficking.
"Egypt now has the laws but needs to take immediate and effective steps to combat trafficking and smuggling in the Sinai," Stork said. "Until it does, the terrible fate of some of the region's asylum seekers and migrants will only become more desperate."
Human Rights Watch is one of the world's leading independent organizations dedicated to defending and protecting human rights. By focusing international attention where human rights are violated, we give voice to the oppressed and hold oppressors accountable for their crimes. Our rigorous, objective investigations and strategic, targeted advocacy build intense pressure for action and raise the cost of human rights abuse. For 30 years, Human Rights Watch has worked tenaciously to lay the legal and moral groundwork for deep-rooted change and has fought to bring greater justice and security to people around the world.
"COP30 provides a stark reminder that the answers to the climate crisis do not lie inside the climate talks—they lie with the people and movements leading the way toward a just, equitable, fossil-free future," one campaigner said.
The United Nations Climate Change Conference, or COP30, concluded on Saturday in Belém, Brazil with a deal that does not even include the words "fossil fuels"—the burning of which scientists agree is the primary cause of the climate crisis.
Environmental and human rights advocates expressed disappointment in the final Global Mutirão decision, which they say failed to deliver road maps to transition away from oil, gas, and coal and to halt deforestation—another important driver of the rise in global temperatures since the preindustrial era.
“This is an empty deal," said Nikki Reisch, the Center for International Environmental Law's (CIEL) director of climate and energy program. "COP30 provides a stark reminder that the answers to the climate crisis do not lie inside the climate talks—they lie with the people and movements leading the way toward a just, equitable, fossil-free future. The science is settled and the law is clear: We must keep fossil fuels in the ground and make polluters pay."
COP30 was notable in that it was the first international climate conference to which the US did not send a formal delegation, following President Donald Trump's decision to withdraw the US from the Paris Agreement. Yet, even without a Trump administration presence, observers were disappointed in the power of fossil fuel-producing countries to derail ambition. The final document also failed to heed the warning of a fire that broke out in the final days of the talks, which many saw as a symbol for the rapid heating of the Earth.
“Rich polluting countries that caused this crisis have blocked the breakthrough that we needed at COP30."
“The venue bursting into flames couldn’t be a more apt metaphor for COP30’s catastrophic failure to take concrete action to implement a funded and fair fossil fuel phaseout,” said Jean Su, energy justice director at the Center for Biological Diversity, in a statement. “Even without the Trump administration there to bully and cajole, petrostates once again shut down meaningful progress at this COP. These negotiations keep hitting a wall because wealthy nations profiting off polluting fossil fuels fail to offer the needed financial support to developing countries and any meaningful commitment to move first.”
The talks on a final deal nearly broke down between Friday and Saturday as a coalition of more than 80 countries who favored more ambitious language faced off against fossil fuel-producing nations like Saudi Arabia, Russia, and India.
During the dispute, Colombia's delegate said the deal "falls far short of reflecting the magnitude of the challenges that parties—especially the most vulnerable—are confronting on the ground," according to BBC News.
Finally, a deal was struck around 1:35 pm local time, The Guardian reported. The deal circumvented the fossil fuel debate by affirming the "United Arab Emirates Consensus," referring to when nations agreed to transition away from fossil fuels at COP28 in the UAE. In addition, COP President André Corrêa do Lago said that stronger language on the fossil fuel transition could be negotiated at an interim COP in six months.
On deforestation, the deal similarly restated the COP26 pledge to halt tree felling by 2030 without making any new plans or commitments.
Climate justice advocates were also disappointed in the finance commitments from Global North to Global South countries. While wealthier countries pledged to triple adaptation funds to $120 billion per year, many saw the amount as insufficient, and the funds were promised by 2035, not 2030 as poorer countries had wanted.
"We must reflect on what was possible, and what is now missing: the road maps to end forest destruction, and fossil fuels, and an ongoing lack of finance," Greenpeace Brazil executive director Carolina Pasquali told The Guardian. "More than 80 countries supported a transition away from fossil fuels, but they were blocked from agreeing on this change by countries that refused to support this necessary and urgent step. More than 90 countries supported improved protection of forests. That too did not make it into the final agreement. Unfortunately, the text failed to deliver the scale of change needed.”
Climate campaigners did see hope in the final agreement's strong language on human rights and its commitment to a just transition through the Belém Action Mechanism, which aims to coordinate global cooperation toward protecting workers and shifting to clean energy.
“It’s a big win to have the Belém Action Mechanism established with the strongest-ever COP language around Indigenous and worker rights and biodiversity protection,” Su said. “The BAM agreement is in stark contrast to this COP’s total flameout on implementing a funded and fair fossil fuel phaseout.”
Oxfam Brasil executive director Viviana Santiago struck a similar note, saying: “COP30 offered a spark of hope but far more heartbreak, as the ambition of global leaders continues to fall short of what is needed for a livable planet. People from the Global South arrived in Belém with hope, seeking real progress on adaptation and finance, but rich nations refused to provide crucial adaptation finance. This failure leaves the communities at the frontlines of the climate crisis exposed to the worst impacts and with few options for their survival."
"The climate movement will be leaving Belém angry at the lack of progress, but with a clear plan to channel that anger into action."
Romain Ioualalen, global policy lead at Oil Change International, said: “Rich polluting countries that caused this crisis have blocked the breakthrough that we needed at COP30. The EU, UK, Australia, and other wealthy nations are to blame for COP’s failure to adopt a road map on fossil fuels by refusing to commit to phase out first or put real public money on the table for the crisis they have caused. Still, amid this flawed outcome, there are glimmers of real progress. The Belém Action Mechanism is a major win made possible by movements and Global South countries that puts people’s needs and rights at the center of climate action."
Indigenous leaders applauded language that recognized their land rights and traditional knowledge as climate solutions and recognized people of African descent for the first time. However, they still argued the COP process could do more to enable the full participation of Indigenous communities.
"Despite being referred to as an Indigenous COP and despite the historic achievement in the Just Transition Programme, it became clear that Indigenous Peoples continue to be excluded from the negotiations, and in many cases, we were not given the floor in negotiation rooms. Nor have most of our proposals been incorporated," said Emil Gualinga of the Kichwa Peoples of Sarayaku, Ecuador. "The militarization of the COP shows that Indigenous Peoples are viewed as threats, and the same happens in our territories: Militarization occurs when Indigenous Peoples defend their rights in the face of oil, mining, and other extractive projects."
Many campaigners saw hope in the alliances that emerged beyond the purview of the official UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) process, from a group of 24 countries who have agreed to collaborate on a plan to transition off fossil fuels in line with the Paris goals of limiting temperature increases to 1.5°C to the Indigenous and civil society activists who marched against fossil fuels in Belém.
“The barricade that rich countries built against progress and justice in the COP30 process stands in stark contrast to the momentum building outside the climate talks," Ioualalen said. "Countries and people from around the world loudly are demanding a fair and funded phaseout, and that is not going to stop. We didn’t win the full justice outcome we need in Belém, but we have new arenas to keep fighting."
In April 2026, Colombia and the Netherlands will cohost the First International Conference on Fossil Fuel Phaseout. At the same time, 18 countries have signed on in support of a treaty to phase out fossil fuels.
"However big polluters may try to insulate themselves from responsibility or edit out the science, it does not place them above the law," Reisch said. "That’s why governments committed to tackling the crisis at its source are uniting to move forward outside the UNFCCC—under the leadership of Colombia and Pacific Island states—to phase out fossil fuels rapidly, equitably, and in line with 1.5°C. The international conference on fossil fuel phaseout in Colombia next April is the first stop on the path to a livable future. A Fossil Fuel Treaty is the road map the world needs and leaders failed to deliver in Belém.”
These efforts must contend with the influence not only of fossil fuel-producing nations, but also the fossil fuel industry itself, which sent a record 1,602 lobbyists to COP30.
“COP30 witnessed a record number of lobbyists from the fossil fuel industry and carbon capture sector," said CIEL fossil economy director Lili Fuhr. "With 531 Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) lobbyists—surpassing the delegations of 62 nations—and over 1,600 fossil fuel lobbyists making up 1 in every 25 attendees, these industries deeply infiltrated the talks, pushing dangerous distractions like CCS and geoengineering. Yet, this unprecedented corporate capture has met fiercer resistance than ever with people and progressive governments—with science and law on their side—demanding a climate process that protects people and planet over profit."
Indeed, Jamie Henn of Make Polluters Pay told Common Dreams that the polluting nations and industries overplayed their hand, arguing that Big Oil and "petro states, including the United States, did their best to kill progress at COP30, stripping the final agreement of any mention of fossil fuels. But their opposition may have backfired: More countries than ever are now committed to pursuing a phaseout road map and this April's conference in Colombia on a potential 'Fossil Fuel Treaty' has been thrust into the spotlight, with support from Brazil, the European Union, and others."
Henn continued: "The COP negotiations are a consensus process, which means it's nearly impossible to get strong language on fossil fuels past blockers like Saudi Arabia, Russia, and the US, who skipped these talks, but clearly opposed any meaningful action. But you can't block reality: The transition from fossils to clean energy is accelerating every day."
"From Indigenous protests to the thunderous rain on the roof of the conference every afternoon, this COP in the heart of the Amazon was forced to confront realities that these negotiations so often try to ignore," he concluded. "I think the climate movement will be leaving Belém angry at the lack of progress, but with a clear plan to channel that anger into action. Climate has always been a fight against fossil fuels, and that battle is now fully underway."
Alito's order came in response to a ruling from a federal court in Texas on Tuesday, which blocked the new congressional maps on the basis that they were "racially gerrymandered."
Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito on Friday temporarily restored a controversial Trump-backed Texas redistricting plan that could grant Republicans an extra five seats in the House of Representatives.
Alito's order came in response to a ruling from a federal court in Texas on Tuesday, which blocked the redrawn congressional maps on the basis that they were "racially gerrymandered."
"It is ordered that the November 18, 2025 order of the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, case No. 3:21-cv-259 is hereby administratively stayed pending further order of the undersigned or of the Court," Alito wrote around one hour after Texas appealed the district court's ruling.
Alito was the justice to issue the stay because he handles emergency requests from the Fifth Circuit, which includes Texas.
"Well, the Supreme Court fucked us yet again."
Friday's ruling is not the final say on the fate of Texas' new maps, but allows the state to continue preparations for the 2026 midterm elections under the redistricting while the full Supreme Court considers the case. Texas has asked for a ruling by December 1, one week before the December 8 filling deadline for congressional races. The state is set to hold primary elections in March.
Alito has asked the civil rights organizations fighting to block the maps for more materials by Monday, November 24—a sign, according to Politico, that he planned to put the case "on a fast-track."
Texas was the first state to heed President Donald Trump's request to redraw its maps in order to give Republicans an advantage in the 2026 midterm elections and attempt to prevent the Democrats from retaking the House. In response, Missouri and North Carolina also redrew their maps to give the GOP one extra seat each. However, California voters then retaliated by approving a proposition to redistrict in a way that would see an additional five Democrats elected. All of these plans now face legal challenges.
As the fight for control of the House continues through maps and courts, Texas Democratic activists haven't given up on voters.
"Well, the Supreme Court fucked us yet again," said Allison Campolo, who chairs the Democratic Party of Tarrant County, Texas, on social media Friday, "but—We in Texas know the cavalry doesn't come for us. We save ourselves."
"100 people came out to our party headquarters tonight and we were absolutely PACKED with candidates running for every seat and bench from the top to the bottom of the ticket," Campolo continued. "Texas Democrats are here to save our county, our state, and our country. We'll be seeing you at the polls."
"I feel very confident that he can do a very good job," Trump said of Mamdani after their White House meeting. "I think he is going to surprise some conservative people, actually.”
While Gothamist's characterization of Friday's White House meeting between President Donald Trump and New York City Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani as "a surprising bromance" was likely an overstretch, the far-right US leader did offer copious praise for the democratic socialist during their amiable encounter.
Asked by a reporter if he would feel comfortable living in New York City under Mamdani, Trump—with Mamdani standing beside him in the Oval Office—replied: “Yeah, I would. I really would. Especially after the meeting."
“We agree on a lot more than I thought," the president continued. "I want him to do a great job, and we’ll help him do a great job.”
Asked by another reporter if he was standing next to a “jihadist"—as Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-NY) called Mamdani over his support for Palestinian liberation and opposition to Israel's genocide in Gaza—Trump said, “No... I met with a man who is a very rational person."
"I met with a man who really wants to see New York be great again," the president added. "I think you’re going to have, hopefully, a really great mayor. The better he does, the happier I am. And we’re going to be helping him to make everybody’s dream come true. Having a strong and very safe New York.”
Comparing Mamdani to another prominent democratic socialist, who represents Vermont in the US Senate, Trump added that "Bernie Sanders and I agreed on much more than people thought."
The pair reportedly discussed contentious issues including Trump's anti-immigrant crackdown and federal invasion of several US cities including Los Angeles; Washington, DC; Portland, Maine; Chicago; and Memphis.
However, they also discussed common-ground issues including the affordability crisis, which has hit New Yorkers particularly hard.
"It was a productive meeting focused on a place of shared admiration and love, which is New York City and the need to deliver affordability to New Yorkers," Mamdani told reporters.
Friday's friendly meeting was a stark departure from previous acrimonious exchanges between Trump and Mamdani. The president has called Mamdani a "communist lunatic” and a “total nut job," and repeatedly threatened to cut off federal funding to the nation's largest city if the leftist was elected. Trump also threatened to arrest Mamdani after the then-mayoral candidate said he would refuse to cooperate with his administration's mass deportation campaign.
Asked Friday about calling Mamdani a communist, Trump said: “He’s got views that are a little out there, but who knows. I mean, we’re going to see what works. He’s going to change, also. I changed a lot."
"I feel very confident that he can do a very good job," the president added. "I think he is going to surprise some conservative people, actually.”
For his part, Mamdani has called Trump a "despot" and the embodiment of New York City's problems, decried his "authoritarian" administration, and called himself the president's "worst nightmare." He also called Trump a "fascist" on numerous occasions.
"I've been called much worse than a despot,” Trump quipped Friday.
After their meeting, a reporter asked Mamdani if he still thought Trump is a fascist. The president interrupted as Mamdani began to respond, patting him on the arm and saying, “That’s OK, you can just say yes."
Mamdani did not compliment Trump nearly as much as the president—who posted several photos in which he posed with the mayor-elect before a portrait of President Franklin D. Roosevelt—lavished praise upon him.
Let’s be clear. @zohrankmamdani.bsky.social got Trump so charmed that Trump posted two photos of the two of them with Franklin Roosevelt’s portrait behind them AND one of just Mamdani and FDR’s portrait.
[image or embed]
— Chris Geidner (@chrisgeidner.bsky.social) November 21, 2025 at 4:52 PM
Mamdani called the meeting "cordial and productive," and said that he looked forward to working with Trump to "improve life in New York," highlighting their agreement on issues like housing affordability, food and energy costs, and reducing the cost of living—issues which he said motivated voters to support both men.
Observers expressed surprise over the affable meeting, with Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.)—one of Trump's staunchest congressional critics—asking on social media, "What the heck just happened?"
The meeting proceeded far differently than previewed by Fox News:
Numerous far-right figures were furious at Trump's genial reception of a man they've spent much of the year demonizing. Leftists mocked their angst, with the popular X account @_iamblakeley asking, "Has anyone checked in on Laura Loomer?"
The rabidly Islamophobic conspiracy theorist and staunch Trump loyalist was, in fact, having a social media meltdown.
Referring to the Republican congresswoman from Georgia who made a surprise retirement announcement on Friday, journalist Aaron Rupar wrote on Bluesky that "Trump feuding with Marjorie Taylor Greene but being in love with Zohran Mamdani was not on my November 2025 bingo card."
Some social media users noted that Trump offered Mamdani a more ringing endorsement than even some prominent Democrats.
"Trump is being nicer to Mamdani than Democratic leadership," journalist Ken Klippenstein wrote on Bluesky.
Another Bluesky account posted, "Donald Trump endorsed Zohran Mamdani before Chuck Schumer," a reference to the Senate majority leader—who never endorsed his party's nominee to lead the city they both call home.
Corporate Democrats' disdain for leftist candidates and ideology was on full display Thursday as the House of Representatives voted 285-98 in favor of a resolution "denouncing the horrors of socialism" in "all its forms," presumably including the variety that has been a dominant political force across Western democracies since shortly after World War II.
Eighty-six Democrats joined their Republican colleagues in voting for the resolution. The vote took place as Mamdani was en route to the White House.