SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
For Immediate Release
June, 30 2020, 12:00am EDT
Contact:
Rewan Al-Haddad: rewan@sumofus.org, +1-617-894-0562
Plurality of Americans Oppose Israel's Annexation Plans
By 44-36 margin, Americans believe Trump should not support annexation, showing reckless land grab threatens re-election prospects.
WASHINGTON
A new poll by campaigning group SumOfUs with polling company Lucid shows that just 36% of Americans support Israel's plans to annex more areas in the West Bank. 44% believe Trump should not greenlight the plan.
The poll of over 4000 Americans shows that nearly a quarter of Republicans and 60% of Democrats oppose the annexation.
Support for Israel has been falling among Americans for some time now, and the new poll indicates that it has now been overtaken by opposition nationwide, across many demographics.
Among those who identify as Jewish, opposition was 43% against just 40% in favor; similarly, among those who identify as Christian, 42% oppose Trump giving the greenlight and just 38% support.
Far from galvanizing support, the Trump administration's "Deal of the Century" -- which would allow Israel to forcefully annex more West Bank territory -- appears to have led to unprecedented levels of opposition.
The Trump administration has been in discussions about how to respond, and one likely concern is how a greenlight would be received by voters so close to the election. With Trump's foreign policy in shambles, this new data suggests that Trump's blessing could be an election risk after all.
Emma Ruby-Sachs, the Executive Director of SumOfUs said: "Greenlighting this senseless plan is not just a betrayal of longstanding US foreign policy on Israel-Palestine, but would be a strategic disaster so close to the elections. Americans are tired of being the global bully and this could come through in the polls in November."
Stefanie Fox, the Executive Director of Jewish Voice for Peace also elaborated:
"It's fitting that this poll should come out the same day as Rep. Ocasio-Cortez led a congressional letter with 12 signers, breaking with decades of unconditional US support for the Israeli military. The debate in Congress reflects the choice we all have as Americans: support an apartheid system or fight for a future where all people of Palestine/Israel have full rights, equality, and freedom. A growing plurality of American Jews know there is only one right side of history. This polling reflects that we are an integral part of the movement fighting for Palestinian freedom."
Results of the poll can be found here.
SumOfUs is a community of people from around the world committed to curbing the growing power of corporations. We want to buy from, work for and invest in companies that respect the environment, treat their workers well and respect democracy. And we're not afraid to hold them to account when they don't. Barely a day goes by without a fresh corporate scandal making headlines. From polluting the environment to dodging taxes - when left unchecked, corporations don't let anything stand in the way of bigger profits. In an age of multinational companies that are bigger and richer than some countries, it can be easy to feel powerless. But there is a chink in their armor. The biggest corporations in the world rely on ordinary people to keep them in business. We are their customers, their employees, and often their investors. When we act together, we can be more powerful than they are. Together, our community of millions act as a global consumer watchdog - running and winning campaign
LATEST NEWS
Cuomo Appears to Hang Up on Interview After Being Asked About Trump Endorsement
Earlier on Monday, rival Zohran Mamdani sarcastically congratulated Cuomo for receiving a backhanded endorsement from the president.
Nov 03, 2025
Independent New York City mayoral candidate Andrew Cuomo does not appear to want President Donald Trump's endorsement.
During a Monday interview flagged by MeidasTouch, Cuomo was asked by WQHT morning show host Ebro Darden about Trump giving the former New York governor a backhanded endorsement over his top rival, Democratic nominee Zohran Mamdani.
"Your boy was just on '60 Minutes,' Cuomo, saying you're his guy," Darden informed Cuomo.
"No," Cuomo responded.
Darden, however, pressed the issue.
"Trump said you're his candidate!" he said. "If he had to pick a bad Democrat or a... communist, he's picking you!"
There were then several seconds of silence after this before Darden's co-host, Peter Rosenberg, concluded that he had left the interview.
Co-host Laura Stylez lamented that Cuomo never answered Darden's question about the Trump endorsement.
"I really wanted to hear that answer!" she said.
Rosenberg then said that he heard a "click" on Cuomo's end, which indicated that he had apparently ended the call.
"Wow!" exclaimed Stylez. "OK!"
"Oh well!" said Darden.
Ebro: Your boy was just on 60 Minutes, Cuomo, saying that you're his guy!
Cuomo: No.
Ebro: Trump said you're his candidate.
Cuomo: *ends call* pic.twitter.com/GuwgIId5hU
— MeidasTouch (@MeidasTouch) November 3, 2025
During an interview that aired Sunday on CBS News' "60 Minutes," Trump said that he was "not a fan of Cuomo one way or the other," before adding that he would nonetheless prefer him to Mamdani.
Mamdani, a Democratic state Assembly member who has represented District 36 since 2021, immediately pounced on Trump’s remarks and sarcastically congratulated his rival for winning the endorsement of a Republican president who is deeply unpopular in New York City.
“Congratulations, Andrew Cuomo!” he wrote in a social media post. “I know how hard you worked for this.”
A leaked audio recording from a Cuomo fundraiser in the Hamptons in August included comments from the former governor about help he expected to receive from Trump as he ran as an independent in the mayoral race, following his loss to Mamdani in the Democratic primary. Cuomo and Trump have reportedly spoken about the race, which will be decided at the ballot box on Tuesday.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Not Good Enough': Trump to Pay Partial November SNAP Benefits After Court Rulings
"Trump needs to stop weaponizing hunger. They have the authority to fully fund SNAP," said Rep. Rashida Tlaib. "It shouldn't take a court order to get the president to stop starving families and release the funds."
Nov 03, 2025
On the verge of the longest government shutdown in US history and in the wake of two losses in district courts, President Donald Trump's administration announced Monday that it would only partially fund Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits for 42 million Americans this month.
In response to lawsuits filed by state attorneys general, municipalities, nonprofits, and labor groups, federal judges in Massachusetts and Rhode Island on Friday ruled against the US Department of Agriculture's (USDA) refusal to use a contingency fund for at least some of November's $8 billion in SNAP benefits, often called food stamps.
Judge John McConnell, appointed to the District of Rhode Island by former President Barack Obama, gave the USDA two options: Fully cover the November SNAP benefits with the emergency funding and money pulled from other sources by the end of Monday, or make a partial payment of the total amount of the contingency fund by the end of Wednesday.
In a pair of Monday filings, the Trump administration chose the latter, explaining that there is "a total of $4.65 billion in the contingency fund for November SNAP benefits that will all be obligated to cover 50% of eligible households' current allotments."
While the development means millions of low-income families will at least get some benefits this month, a hunger crisis still looms. As one of the filings notes, "This means that no funds will remain for new SNAP applicants certified in November disaster assistance, or as a cushion against the potential catastrophic consequences of shutting down SNAP entirely."
In a Monday statement, Skye Perryman, president and CEO of Democracy Forward, which is representing the municipalities, nonprofits, and labor groups that sued in Rhode Island, welcomed that McConnell's order "means SNAP beneficiaries—including children and seniors—whose money ran out at the end of last month should be receiving funds for essential nutrition." However, she also called out the Trump administration for "still trying to deprive people of their full benefits," which "will not only prevent people from getting the full sustenance they need but also delay payments going out altogether."
"We are reviewing the administration's submission to the court and considering all legal options to secure payment of full funds," she pledged. "It shouldn't take a court order to force our president to provide essential nutrition that Congress has made clear needs to be provided. But since that is what it takes, we will continue to use the courts to protect the rights of people. For now, we are pleased to have forced the administration to release money it had been withholding from 42 million people in America who rely on their benefits. Rest assured, we will continue to fight so that people have the full benefits they are entitled to under SNAP."
Democratic Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell—who co-led the case in her state with over two dozen other AGs—noted Monday that "never in the history of the SNAP program—including during government shutdowns—has SNAP funding ever been suspended or only partially funded."
"While some funding is better than no funding, the federal government has made it clear that they are only willing to do the bare minimum to help our residents, and only after they were required to do so by our lawsuit and the courts," she said. "The Trump administration has the means to fund this program in full, and their decision not to will leave millions of Americans hungry and waiting even longer for relief as government takes the additional steps needed to partially fund this program."
Democrats in Congress—who have refused to vote for the GOP majorities' funding legislation to end the shutdown unless they reverse devastating cuts to Medicaid and extend expiring Affordable Care Act tax credits—also criticized the USDA's plan.
"USDA has the authority to fully fund SNAP and needs to do so immediately. Anything else is unacceptable," Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said on social media. "Trump's 'decision' to follow the court order and only send partial SNAP benefits to 42 million hungry Americans as Thanksgiving approaches is cruel and callous. Trump should focus less on his ballroom and his bathroom and more on the American people."
Senate Appropriations Committee Vice Chair Patty Murray (D-Wash.) similarly said: "The letter of the law is as plain as day. Trump should have paid SNAP benefits all along. Just now paying the bare minimum to partially fund SNAP is not enough, and it is not acceptable. Trump should immediately work to fully fund benefits under the law."
Both Senate Democrats from Massachusetts, Ed Markey and Elizabeth Warren, also took aim at the president on Monday. Markey said: "Two federal courts confirm what we already knew: Trump must use contingency funds to fund SNAP this month. But millions will still see their benefits delayed because Trump tried to hold SNAP hostage. No more games. Use all available resources to ensure no one goes hungry."
While it's the Senate where Republicans need some Democratic votes to send a government spending bill to Trump's desk, House Democrats also blasted the administration's decision to only partially fund SNAP benefits in November.
"This is a very temporary Band-Aid," stressed Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), adding that "42 million hardworking Americans are trying to figure out how they will keep food on the table. Partial is not good enough. End this Republican shutdown now so we can fully fund SNAP."
Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) declared: "Trump needs to stop weaponizing hunger. They have the authority to fully fund SNAP for 42 million Americans—including 1.4 million Michiganders. Anything less is unacceptable. It shouldn't take a court order to get the president to stop starving families and release the funds."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Report Details Massive Federal Contracts, Enforcement Actions Against Trump's Ballroom Donors
"These are not random donations," said Public Citizen. "It's a clear-as-day effort to kiss up to the Trump administration."
Nov 03, 2025
As President Donald Trump has embarked on the $300 million demolition of the East Wing of the White House—a project he insists has been "longed for" for more than a century—he has openly said that he and "some of [his] friends" are paying for the ballroom he is building.
But an analysis on Monday detailed just how "massive, inescapable, and irremediable" the donors' conflicts of interest are, as more than a dozen of the presidents' "friends" have major government contracts and are facing federal enforcement actions.
The White House has denied that corporate donors to Trump's ballroom construction project have any conflicts of interest, but Public Citizen found that 16 out of 24 publicly disclosed contributors—including three identified by CBS News but not by the White House—have government contracts.
The companies, including Amazon, Google, Lockheed Martin, and Palantir Technologies, have received $279 billion in government contracts over the last five years and nearly $43 billion in the last year. Lockheed is by far the biggest recipient, having received $191 billion in defense contracts over the last five years. The amount the companies have each donated to the ballroom construction has not been disclosed, but Lockheed spent more than $76 million in political donations from 2021-25.
The money the corporations have spent to build Trump's ballroom, said Public Citizen, "are not random donations. It's a clear-as-day effort to kiss up to the Trump administration."
Lockheed is among at least 14 ballroom contributors that are facing federal enforcement actions, including labor rights cases, Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) enforcement, and antitrust actions.
The National Labor Relations Board has before it cases alleging unfair labor practices by Lockheed as well as Google and Amazon.
The big tech firm Nvidia, another donor, has previously been accused of entering into a "quid pro quo" arrangement with the White House when it said it would give 15% of its revenue from exports to China directly to the Trump administration. The company has spent more than $6 million on political donations since 2021 and more than $4 million on lobbying, and faces a Department of Justice antitrust investigation into whether it abused its market dominance in artificial intelligence computer chips.
While Trump has sought to portray the ballroom fundraising drive as one in which his wealthy "friends" have simply joined the effort to beautify a cherished public building, Public Citizen co-president Robert Weissman said the companies are not acting "out of a sense of civic pride."
"They have massive interests before the federal government and they undoubtedly hope to curry favor with, and receive favorable treatment from, the Trump administration," said Weissman. "Millions to fund Trump’s architectural whims are nothing compared to the billions at stake in procurement, regulatory, and enforcement decisions."
In total, the 24 companies identified as ballroom donors spent more than $960 million in lobbying and political contributions in the last election cycle and $1.6 billion over the last five years.
Weissman said the companies' contributions to the president's pet project amount to corporate America "paying tribute" to the White House in order to stave off unfavorable labor rights and antitrust rulings, energy and financial regulations, and SEC actions and oversight, like an investigation into the cryptocurrency firm Gemini over alleged sales of unregistered securities.
"This is more than everyday corporate influence seeking. Paying tribute is a mark of authoritarianism and in making these payments, these corporations are aiding Trump’s authoritarian project," said Weissman. "They should withdraw their contributions.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular