

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.
Ala Stanford, who's running for Pennsylvania's 3rd district, has repeatedly claimed that using the term genocide to describe Israel's actions in Gaza is "hurtful" to those accused, even tantamount to using the "N-word."
As the Israel lobby's influence grows overwhelmingly toxic among Democratic voters, the current frontrunner for one of America's bluest congressional districts has been caught trying to hide financial backing from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.
The Philadelphia pediatric surgeon, Dr. Ala Stanford, who is running for the open seat in Pennsylvania's 3rd congressional district, has denied receiving any funds from AIPAC.
"That's not me... I did not accept money from AIPAC," Stanford said at an event in late March when confronted about previous reporting that the super political action committee (PAC) supporting her, the 314 Action Fund, had acted as a secret pass-through for AIPAC in previous elections.
But following a new report published by Drop Site News on Thursday, co-founder Ryan Grim said, "We now know this is a flat-out lie."
Using federal campaign filings, Grim and Capitol Hill correspondent Julian Andreone reported that AIPAC has been secretly directing money to back Stanford's campaign using the 314 Action Fund, which has spent more than $2.6 million supporting the candidate.
The PAC is billed as a fund to support “pro-science” candidates and recruits doctors to run for federal office. But its most recent monthly report revealed a $500,000 donation from the Kimbark Foundation, whose only other donation was another $500,000 to the EDW Action Fund, which has also been used as an AIPAC shell organization.
In 2024, AIPAC used EDW—which describes itself as an organization to elect pro-choice candidates—to secretly give money to a another pediatrician, Dr. Maxine Dexter, who is now a US representative for Oregon's 3rd district, helping her oust her rival, Susheela Jayapal, the older sister of Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), who has a similar record for supporting Palestinian rights amid Israel's genocide in Gaza.
In the first quarter of 2026, Stanford also received more than $27,000 from major AIPAC donors via the group Democracy Engine, which The Guardian has described as "a donation platform that allows unpopular PACs to obscure their donations" and which has been used by AIPAC to fundraise against incumbents like former Rep. Cori Bush (D-Mo.) and Jamal Bowman (D-NY).
That AIPAC would drop big money to back Stanford becomes less surprising given her opponent, Pennsylvania state Rep. Chris Rabb (D-200), who has called for an arms embargo against Israel and the right of return for Palestinian refugees.
According to a recent poll commissioned by the 314 Action Fund, Stanford leads the race with about 28% support compared with 23% for Rabb.
However, Rabb netted a major endorsement on Thursday from Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), one of the nation's most prominent progressive politicians and a potential 2028 presidential contender. He has racked up others from Justice Democrats and the Democratic Socialists of America, and other Democratic lawmakers, including Reps. Jamie Raskin (Md.) and Ro Khanna (Calif.).
While Rabb has condemned politicians who refuse to refer to Israel's destruction of Gaza and killing of more than 75,000 Palestinians as a "genocide"—a position shared by the vast majority of Democratic voters—Stanford has suggested that belief is tantamount to hate speech.
“I know when you use the G-word how hurtful it is to a group of people,” she said in a March interview with The Philadelphia Inquirer. “It’s like someone saying the N-word around me. I don’t want to hear that. And every time you shout that from the rooftops, how many people are you hurting?”
After those comments were met with backlash, she has struggled to respond when asked to clarify her beliefs on the topic. When voters pressed her to use the word "genocide" during a candidate forum earlier this week, her answer appeared to leave many dissatisfied.
A voter asked if Israel's actions in Gaza constituted genocide. Stanford stood in silence for around 30 seconds before deflecting to an anecdote about her work during the Covid-19 pandemic. "I don't owe anybody anything," she said.
She then responded, "I can say genocide if you'd like me to say it," not naming Israel specifically. When the voter asked her if Israel's actions constituted one, he was told to "be quiet" by another attendee. When the voter responded, Stanford asked him, “Can you please be respectful for her?”
“I am someone who took an oath to do no harm, so when I made the statement, I made it because for those who have been a victim of genocide, whose families are still suffering, it’s hurtful to them,” Stanford said, seeming to mean victims other than those in Gaza. “For Israelis who have been accused of committing it, it’s hurtful for them,” she continued.
After the comments prompted angry reactions from the crowd, Stanford shouted, "Excuse me! Excuse me!" before saying, "All I have ever done is to give. It's selfless." She then said she apologized if she "hurt" the voters who confronted her.
Erik Polyak, the executive director of 314 Action, did not answer specific questions about its support from AIPAC when asked by Drop Site, instead generally emphasizing its general mission to "elect doctors and scientists."
Polyak noted that the group had opposed AIPAC's preferred candidate, Laura Fine, in last month's race for Illinois' 9th congressional district in Chicago, instead backing the somewhat more Israel-critical Daniel Biss, who narrowly defeated the Palestinian-American Kat Abughazaleh for the Democratic nomination.
In that race and others in Chicago, AIPAC used nearly identical tactics to those deployed in Philadelphia. It funneled $1.5 million through the group Elect Chicago Women to fund attack ads against Biss, and used another shadow group, the Chicago Progressive Partnership, to fund ads boosting another marginal left-wing candidate, Bushra Amiwala, which helped splinter the progressive bloc supporting Abughazaleh.
Similar tactics were less successful last week in New Jersey, where Analilia Mejía, a former aide to Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), clinched the Democratic nomination despite her primary opponent pulling in $350,000 from an AIPAC donor who had also bankrolled the effort to oust Jayapal.
As both Democratic and Republican candidates increasingly seek to prove their anti-establishment credibility by swearing off donations from AIPAC and other lobbying groups, Grim said that it'll be difficult for voters to take them seriously unless the parties adopt rules requiring greater transparency.
"One thing Democrats and Republicans, through the [Democratic National Committee] and [Republican National Committee], could actually do, if they don't want to ban AIPAC spending in primaries altogether, is say, fine: AIPAC can spend just like anybody else, but like everybody else, they have to do it through their regular super PAC and be transparent about it," he said. "Then let voters decide."
He called on party leaders to “stop making voters play forensic detective and chase money from some dark money foundation to a PAC to another PAC with all of them using names that have nothing to do with AIPAC or Israel, only to learn after the election that it was actually AIPAC money.”
A government agency "cannot arbitrarily decide what is true, based on its own whims or the whims of the new leadership, regardless of the evidence before it," said the Republican-appointed judge.
"Happy Presidents Day!" a journalist declared Monday in response to a federal judge's opinion that compares President Donald Trump's administration removing displays about slavery from a historical site in Philadelphia to the actions of the propaganda agency in George Orwell's dystopian novel 1984.
Judge Cynthia Rufe—appointed to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania by former Republican President George W. Bush—began by quoting the iconic 1949 critique of totalitarianism: "All history was a palimpsest, scraped clean, and reinscribed exactly as often as was necessary. In no case would it have been possible, once the deed was done, to prove that any falsification had taken place."
The judge then wrote that "as if the Ministry of Truth in George Orwell's 1984 now existed, with its motto 'Ignorance is Strength,' this court is now asked to determine whether the federal government has the power it claims—to dissemble and disassemble historical truths when it has some domain over historical facts. It does not."
"The President's House is a component of Independence National Historical Park that commemorates the site of the first official presidential residence and the people who lived there, including people enslaved by President George Washington," she explained on the federal holiday established to honor the first US president. "On January 22, 2026, the National Park Service (NPS) removed panels, displays, and video exhibits that referenced slavery and information about the individuals enslaved at the President's House."
The removal followed Trump's March executive order aimed at ensuring "federal sites dedicated to history, including parks and museums," are not subjected to what he called "ideological indoctrination or divisive narratives that distort our shared history," which is just one piece of the president's "war on history" and embrace of authoritarianism.
Relying on the Administrative Procedures Act, Philadelphia sued the NPS and acting Director Jessica Bowron, as well as the parent agency, the US Department of the Interior, and its secretary, Doug Burgum, over the removal of the slavery exhibits.
"In its argument, the government claims it alone has the power to erase, alter, remove, and hide historical accounts on taxpayer and local government-funded monuments within its control. Its claims in this regard echo Big Brother's domain in Orwell's 1984," Rufe wrote in her 40-page opinion. She cited the novel's description of the largest section in the fictional government's Records Department, which "consisted simply of persons whose duty it was to track down and collect all copies of books, newspapers, and other documents which had been superseded and were due for destruction."
According to Rufe, "The government here likewise asserts truth is no longer self-evident, but rather the property of the elected chief magistrate and his appointees and delegees, at his whim to be scraped clean, hidden, or overwritten. And why? Solely because, as defendants state, it has the power."
"An agency, whether the Department of the Interior, NPS, or any other agency, cannot arbitrarily decide what is true, based on its own whims or the whims of the new leadership, regardless of the evidence before it," Rufe stressed. She found that the federal defendants "completely ignored their legislatively imposed duties," took actions that "impede the separation of powers instituted by the Constitution," and "acted in excess of their authority as agencies authorized by Congress within the executive branch."
The judge determined that Philadelphia "is likely to prevail on its claims that the removal was arbitrary and capricious," and "met its burden to establish irreparable harm." She concluded that "the balance of harms and the public interest tip in the city's favor." Her preliminary injunction requires the reinstallation of "all panels, displays, and video exhibits that were previously in place," and bars defendants from "any additions, removals, destruction, or further changes of any kind to the President's House site."
Politico senior legal affairs reporter Kyle Cheney flagged the opinion on social media, highlighting the Orwell references. His posts gathered thousands of reposts and responses, including from observers who were alarmed by the administration's actions and welcomed the judge's decision.
"Federal judges continue to speak up and speak out. It is amazing to see one quote George Orwell, but it also feels appropriate at a time when we see so many attacks on the rule of law," said Lawyers Defending American Democracy.
Democratic Montgomery County Commissioner Neil Makhija wrote on Bluesky: "Proud of this result. The court cited Orwell's 1984 recognizing that we can't just erase hard truths from our history. Montgomery County was proud to join Bucks, Chester, and Delaware Counties in filing an amicus brief to support preserving the President's House slavery exhibits. Happy Presidents Day."
"The message is clear. American history no longer includes all Americans."
The city of Philadelphia has sued the US Department of the Interior and the National Park Service after officials were filmed dismantling exhibits on slavery at the President's House historical site at Independence Park on Thursday.
The lawsuit, filed in federal court by the office of Mayor Cherelle Parker, says “the National Park Service has removed artwork and informational displays" from the site, where George Washington lived as president from 1790 until 1797, in order to follow an executive order signed by President Donald Trump in March, which requires national parks, museums, and monuments to portray an "uplifting" message about American history.
The President's House monument, unveiled in 2010, contained information about nine enslaved people whom Washington brought with him to the nation's "first White House," and Washington's history as a slaveowner. By the time of his death in 1799, there were more than 300 enslaved people at his estate in Mount Vernon, Virginia.
Information about the President's House site and its ties to slavery still remains online. It states:
Washington brought some of his enslaved Africans to this site and they lived and toiled with other members of his household during the years that our first president was guiding the experimental development of the young nation toward modern, republican government...
The president's house in the 1790s was a mirror of the young republic, reflecting both the ideals and contradictions of the new nation. The house stood in the shadow of Independence Hall, where the words "All men are created equal" and "We the People" were adopted, but they did not apply to all who lived in the new United States of America.
A monument acknowledging this history, however, appears to have run afoul of the portion of Trump's order requiring the Interior Secretary to see that sites "do not contain descriptions, depictions, or other content that inappropriately disparage Americans past or living."
As BillyPenn.com reported:
Starting after 3 pm, placards were ripped from the wall around the site with crowbars as people walked by, some heading to the Liberty Bell Center. Signs were unbolted from the poles overlooking the dig site where America’s first “White House” had stood until 1832. They were stacked together alongside a wall, and then taken away around 4:30 pm in a park service truck. No indication was provided where the signs and exhibition parts will go
One of the employees, who did not give his name, told the Philadelphia Inquirer that his supervisor had instructed him to take down the monuments earlier that day.
“I’m just following my orders,” the employee repeatedly said.
In a statement to the Washington Post, Interior Department spokesperson Elizabeth Peace later confirmed that the placards were indeed removed in accordance with the order.
"The president has directed federal agencies to review interpretive materials to ensure accuracy, honesty, and alignment with shared national values,” she said. “Following completion of the required review, the National Park Service is now taking action to remove or revise interpretive materials in accordance with the order."
The city of Philadelphia says it was not given notice about the placards being removed. The lawsuit says their removal was "arbitrary and capricious" and says the “defendants have provided no explanation at all for their removal of the historical, educational displays at the President’s House site, let alone a reasoned one."
In a Facebook post, criminal defense attorney Michael Coard, who pushed for the monument's creation for nearly a decade, called its destruction "historically outrageous and blatantly racist."
It is the latest example of Trump's order being used to justify the removal of monuments related to slavery and Black history in the United States.
The infamous 1863 "Scourged Back" image—a picture of an enslaved man's back with severe whip scars that was used to promote the end of slavery during the Civil War—was removed from the Fort Pulaski National Monument in Georgia in September, along with other information about slavery.
The administration has also removed more than 20 displays at the Smithsonian Museum of American History, some of which dealt with slavery, civil rights, and race relations, a move that came after Trump lamented that the museum put so much focus on "how bad Slavery was."
The National Park Service also deleted information about abolitionist activist Harriet Tubman and many references to slavery from its webpage about the Underground Railroad for months last year, before restoring it following public backlash.
Pages on the Arlington Cemetery website that recognize the contributions of Black and Hispanic soldiers have also been removed.
The order has also led to the removal or alteration of numerous monuments, museum exhibits, and web pages recognizing the achievements or struggles of other racial minority groups, women, LGBTQ+ people, and Native Americans.
In a statement to NBC News, Philadelphia City Council President Kenyatta Johnson said, "Removing the exhibits is an effort to whitewash American history."
"History cannot be erased simply because it is uncomfortable," he added. "Removing items from the President’s House merely changes the landscape, not the historical record."
Daniel Pearson, a columnist for the Philadelphia Inquirer, said: "The message is clear. American history no longer includes all Americans."