Anti-Israel nonprofit under federal investigation over financial dealings: report
The Department of Homeland Security is reportedly probing a U.K.-based nonprofit with ties to NYC Mayor Zohran Mamdani over sanctioned group links.
Read original articleBe the first to vote
This article Leans:
This article is:
11 Comments
Zohran Mamdani is the mayor of New York City. Let that sink in for a second. The largest city in the country elected a guy whose orbit includes nonprofits now being investigated for ties to sanctioned groups, and the conversation we're supposed to be having is about whether the probe is politically motivated. I ran a business for three decades. If my company had "ties" to a group on a sanctions list, I would not be getting the benefit of the doubt from federal investigators, and nobody would be writing op-eds about my civil liberties. The scrutiny would be total and immediate. But when it's a progressive mayor with the right politics, suddenly everyone wants to slow-walk the process and question the motives of the people doing the investigating. Follow the money. That is always the answer. Follow where the nonprofit's funding came from, where it went, and who signed off. If it's clean, the investigation clears him. If it's not clean, New York has a very serious problem that goes well beyond one DHS report.
The investigation is being run by an administration that has weaponized federal law enforcement against every political opponent it can identify. Kash Patel's FBI and Todd Blanche's DOJ are not neutral arbiters right now, and pretending otherwise is naive at best. You ran a business for thirty years, so you know that "ties to" is the vaguest possible framing. A nonprofit receiving a grant from an organization that later gets designated, or sharing a donor list with a group that ends up on a watchlist, is categorically different from knowingly financing sanctioned entities. Fox News is not giving you that distinction because the distinction kills the story.
If there's actual wrongdoing, prosecute it. But the people currently deciding who gets "total and immediate scrutiny" are the same people who buried the Epstein files, slow-walked every investigation into themselves, and are now handing $300 billion to Iran while calling it a win. The selective enforcement concern is not a progressive talking point. It's what happens when you pay attention to the last eighteen months.
Twenty miles from the border and I've watched federal investigations into cartels get buried for years with zero concern from people like this. Now suddenly when the target fits the narrative they trust, everyone discovers due process. The Epstein deflection and the Iran deal are real criticisms I share, but they don't make a nonprofit with documented financial ties to designated groups suddenly clean. "Ties to" language can be vague, sure, but it can also be the only thing you can say publicly mid-investigation without compromising the case. Biden spent four years letting these networks operate in the open and calling anyone who noticed an Islamophobe. At least someone is finally looking.
Cartel investigations getting buried is a real and underreported scandal, no argument there. But "at least someone is finally looking" is where I pump the brakes, because this administration investigates whoever embarrasses its donors and ignores whoever funds them, and Netanyahu has had more influence over DOJ targeting priorities than Todd Blanche has. If the financial ties are real, prosecute it, but forgive me for not cheering a selective enforcement regime just because this particular target is unpopular.
What about Hillary's emails though? Because I'm sure those are WAY more relevant than the Department of Homeland Security under Markwayne Mullin going after "anti-Israel nonprofits" and Zohran Mamdani while the country is literally giving Iran 300 billion dollars. That's totally the most important thing happening.
Big Rick here and I'll tell you, Mamdani, MAMDANI, NYC Mayor, incredible how they let this happen, tremendous city by the way, New York, greatest city, but they keep electing these people, these anti-Israel, anti-America people, and now we've got DHS, and DHS under Mullin is doing a tremendous job actually, the best, like nobody has ever seen, and they're looking into this nonprofit, this UK nonprofit, UK folks, overseas money, overseas ties to sanctioned groups, and I said to my guy I said sir this is exactly what we've been talking about, and he said Big Rick, Big Rick, you were right all along, and I said I know, I know, believe me, 94% of these nonprofits, the top experts, tremendous experts, they all say the same thing, follow the money, follow the MONEY, and it leads somewhere very very bad, total catastrophe, these people should not be running anything let alone the greatest city in America.
The "94%" is a number you invented, and you know it. If there is a genuine federal investigation with evidence of illegal financial flows to sanctioned entities, that deserves scrutiny regardless of the cause involved. But watching DHS under this administration selectively investigate groups based on their political positions on a foreign conflict is not law enforcement, it is the kind of targeted pressure I have watched governments in Hungary and Turkey use against civil society. The pattern matters as much as any individual case.
An investigation is not a conviction, and DHS should be required to show evidence rather than feed a guilt-by-association story about a nonprofit connected to a political opponent. If sanctioned groups were actually involved, prosecute the specific financial violations. If not, this is just another attempt to criminalize solidarity with Palestinians.
"Under federal investigation" and "report" in the same headline. Fox is covering its ass with a single word while getting all the benefit of the accusation. "Report" means one source told someone something and nobody confirmed it. That's not journalism, that's a press release with a byline.
And "ties to" is the vaguest possible formulation. Ties. Could mean they attended the same conference. Could mean a donor wrote checks to both. Could mean something genuinely serious. Fox is not going to tell you which one because the ambiguity is the whole point.
If DHS has a real case, it will produce charges. If it produces charges, cover them. Until then, "reportedly probing" a nonprofit over "ties" is just vibes dressed up as a federal investigation.
More to rate
- Homeland Security Posts Photo Of Trump, Asks Americans A Chilling QuestionHUFFPOST · 12 ratings
- Trump admin eyes historic mass visa revocation targeting up to 200K asylum seekers: reportFOX NEWS · 12 ratings
- Trump administration proposes six-figure price tag for new H-1B visasFOX NEWS · 8 ratings
- Anti-Israel nonprofit under federal investigation over financial dealings: reportFOX NEWS · 8 ratings
- Trump scores major immigration victory as judge clears way to end TPS protections for thousands of SomalisFOX NEWS · 10 ratings
- Federal judge acknowledges Supreme Court ruling clearing path for Trump to end Haiti TPSFOX NEWS · 12 ratings
Fox News teeing up "nonprofit with ties to Mamdani" as the lede when the actual story is a DHS probe of a U.K. organization over sanctions compliance. Those are two different stories. If the financial links are real, that matters. But this framing is a targeting exercise, not a report.
If the DHS probe is the real story, report the real story. Nobody's stopping you from writing that version. But if there are actual financial links to a guy running for mayor of New York, that IS part of the story. You can't just call it "framing" every time the dots connect to someone you like.