SCROLL NEWS / DISCOVERY
Search headlines
Find the stories shaping the conversation.
Results for " muslim " 125 found 🔀 AI-powered Shuffle
Republican 'Muslim Brotherhood' attacks on El-Sayed in Michigan seek to exploit Democratic fault lines
Pollsters, political strategists say the approach is aimed at dissuading Jewish and Black voters who backed El-Sayed's primary opponent, Haley Stevens
In brief: Fleetwood Mac documentary coming to Apple TV and more
The landslide is bringing them to Apple TV. Fleetwood Mac is telling their story in their own words in the Apple Original Films documentary Fleetwood Mac: The Chain. Apple announced the “unprecedented look” is the first fully authorized documentary about the award-winning, culture-defining band. It brings together the voices and memories of Fleetwood members Mick Fleetwood, John McVie, Lindsey Buckingham, Stevie Nicks and the late Christine McVie. Fleetwood Mac: The Chain will debut Jan. 29 ...Ramy Youssef’s feature directorial debut has added some more star power to the cast. Amanda Seyfried will join Youssef and Sharon Stone in Martha & Muhammad, a new comedy for A24, according to Deadline. Youssef will direct from his own script, in addition to starring. Plot and character details are being kept under wraps, though The Hollywood Reporter previously described the project as telling the story of “a white widowed socialite in New York who develops a relationship with a young Muslim man” ... TNCMS.AdManager.render({region: 'fixed-big-ad-top-asset', slot: 1, fold: "above"}); Another book adaptation is coming to Prime Video. Amazon MGM Studios confirmed Thursday it has picked up Butcher & Blackbird, the bestselling thriller novel by Brynne Weaver. Emma Laird and Thomas Doherty are signed on to star in the new film, which follows vigilante serial killers who fall in love as they compete to take out the most targets ... Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved. Thank you for reading kmaland.comAt KMA, we attempt to be accurate in our reporting. If you see a typo or mistake in a story, please contact us by emailing kmaradio@kmaland.com.
Muslims have always had to prove our Americanness. Enter Abdul El-Sayed
Michigan’s Democratic candidate for the U.S. Senate, Abdul El-Sayed, is many things to many people.
Macron slams as ‘stupid’ claims by Trump and others blaming Muslim migrants for French riots
PARIS (AP) — French President Emmanuel Macron said Wednesday that foreign leaders — including those “on the other side of the Atlantic” — are trying to exploit France's tense social climate for their ...
Abdul El-Sayed leans into faith in new political ad
Michigan Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed embraces faith as a core part of his identity after months of Republican criticism centered on his Muslim background.
Why the Muslim Brotherhood has become a flashpoint in the Michigan Senate race
The Muslim Brotherhood has become a flashpoint in Michigan’s Senate race, with Republicans trying to cast Democratic nominee Abdul El-Sayed as sympathetic to interests connected to Islamic terror and El-Sayed arguing that he is being unfairly accused of the same “dual loyalties” that former Presidents John F. Kennedy and Barack Obama once were.
A bitter Michigan Senate race rattles Jewish and Muslim voters already on edge over the war in Gaza
Michigan’s closely contested Senate race has become deeply personal for some voters.
El-Sayed gets into testy exchange with man who presses him on Muslim Brotherhood
“I think it’s you who needs to understand the Constitution, not me,” El-Sayed told the man, who identified himself as “Tommy.”
Abdul El-Sayed disavows Muslim Brotherhood and criticizes implications that he has ‘dual loyalty’
Michigan Democratic Senate nominee Abdul El-Sayed on Saturday disavowed the Muslim Brotherhood, an Islamist political movement, during a heated exchange at a town hall.
A bitter Michigan Senate race rattles Jewish and Muslim voters already on edge over the war in Gaza
Michigan’s closely contested Senate race has become deeply personal for some voters | WWJ Newsradio 950
A bitter Michigan Senate race rattles Jewish and Muslim voters already on edge over the war in Gaza
Michigan’s closely contested Senate race has become deeply personal for some voters.
El-Sayed again denies ties to Muslim Brotherhood
“I wasn’t raised by my mother,” El-Sayed said in response to past social media posts that allege his mother was active in the Islamist movement in the 1970s.
Indonesia’s top Muslim council opposes upcoming Andrea Bocelli concerts over Israel ties
Indonesia’s top Muslim clerical body has opposed upcoming concerts by Italian tenor Andrea Bocelli at Borobudur Temple and Jakarta | Talk 1370
Indonesia’s top Muslim council opposes upcoming Andrea Bocelli concerts over Israel ties
Indonesia’s top Muslim clerical body has opposed upcoming concerts by Italian tenor Andrea Bocelli at Borobudur Temple and Jakarta | WWL
Indonesia’s sweeping new halal rules spark business backlash
World’s largest majority-Muslim country to force companies to explain how products from clothes to toilet paper are permissible under Islam
North Carolina Muslims have spent decades building political power. What has it produced?
In recent years, Muslim organizers in North Carolina have been working to build a political infrastructure to register voters, engage candidates and give the state's growing Muslim population a more organized voice in government.
Brazil: Lessons from a Disaster
By Antonio Martins (Outras Palavras) Defeats become deeper and more prolonged when we misunderstand what caused them, avoid correcting course, and embrace “solutions” that only compound our mistakes. Lula’s government and the Brazilian left suffered a disaster in Sunday’s election. Contrary to every poll, the president finished the first round 2.2 million votes behind Flávio Bolsonaro—and, more significantly, 3.4 million votes below his total four years ago, when the machinery of the state was working against him and in favor of his opponent. His vote share declined in 98 percent of Brazil’s municipalities. The PL, the main party of the far right, elected 121 deputies and 28 senators, becoming the largest caucus in both houses of Congress. The parties aligned with the Centrão—Brazil’s bloc of transactional center-right parties—were somewhat diminished, but will still hold roughly 250 seats in the Chamber of Deputies and 35 in the Senate. That will make it easier to assemble the majorities needed to amend the Constitution or impeach Supreme Federal Court justices. If elected, Flávio Bolsonaro could appoint four members of the Court, substantially altering its internal balance of power. What produced these results? How can the far right be prevented from consolidating them into a prolonged political hegemony? And what is the essential change of direction the left now needs? Explaining the Disaster Across the commercial media and the exuberant chaos of digital platforms, interpretations are multiplying. Some focus on specific episodes: Lula’s absence from the Globo debate, his very close relationship with Alexandre de Moraes, or his emphasis on issues supposedly remote from most people’s everyday concerns, such as rare earth minerals. Among the more systemic interpretations, three seem especially questionable. One argues that the principal defeat was not the left’s, since its congressional representation declined only slightly. The decisive movement captured at the ballot box, according to this view, was a shift within the right itself—from the more moderate and transactional forces of the Centrão toward the more ideological and radicalized forces of the PL and Novo. A second interpretation holds that the nature of electoral and political processes has changed. The material interests and aspirations of society, it argues, no longer play the central role they once did; they have given way to forms of subjective self-identification that the left has yet to understand. And a third concludes that, because of these two developments, we should expect a political winter: a prolonged period in which the far right and the broader right dominate Brazilian political life. There are important elements in all three interpretations. The problem lies in what they deny or leave out: Lula’s third government was a small-bore government. It offered the majorities that elected it neither a clearly better life nor reasons to believe again in politics and its power to transform society. These failures flowed from two fatal accommodations, which I will examine below. As a result, the government suffered a slow but steady erosion of support. And, as has happened in so many Western countries, it gave the far right the opportunity to present itself as anti-system and to benefit from popular frustration and distress. The interpretation that emphasizes the migration of votes from the center-right and traditional right toward the far right has been advanced, among others, by the courageous journalist Leonardo Sakamoto. In his UOL column on Monday, October 5, he highlights the miserable behavior of the traditional conservative parties. Over the past four years, they repeatedly joined forces with the “neo”-fascists, helping to “normalize” them—a criticism that could equally be directed at almost the entire corporate media. Believing they could use the far right as a stepping stone, they instead ended up partly devoured by it. This was especially true in the Senate, where the PL’s gain of 13 senators and Novo’s gain of two came at the expense of the PSD, which lost nine; the MDB, which lost two; the PSDB, which lost two; and the PP, which lost one. Sakamoto’s observation is accurate and necessary, but it leaves uncomfortable questions unanswered. Why did the erosion of the Centrão benefit the far right rather than, for example, producing growth for the left—as has happened so many times before, both in Brazil and elsewhere? The answer is not difficult. Throughout its four years in office, Lula’s third government was almost invariably associated with the Centrão. Here lies its first accommodation: accepting the limits imposed by conservative institutions; avoiding, as much as possible, any attempt to strain those limits through popular pressure; and believing only in the modest changes that could be squeezed through openings in Congress. The failure of the campaign to end the six-day workweek is emblematic. Lula could have electrified the presidential race by pairing it with a popular campaign for passage of the measure. Instead, he chose to place his hopes in the hands of Senate president Rodrigo Alcolumbre. He generated no mass mobilization, did not force his opponents onto an uncomfortable defensive, and won no victory. In September 2025, the government squandered the greatest of its many opportunities to shake up conservative power in Congress. Popular opposition to the so-called Shielding Amendment—which, if approved, would have restricted criminal proceedings against members of Congress—brought crowds into the streets, mobilized primarily by artists and social movements. This opened the possibility for a broader political education: a campaign that could begin exposing the limits and dysfunctions of Brazil’s political system while putting Bolsonaro’s movement on the defensive for its predictable support of political privilege. The amendment was defeated. But the executive branch then backed away from the fight. It remained associated with an institutional world widely seen as corrupt, elitist, and indifferent to ordinary people’s struggles. In doing so, it forfeited its credibility as a vehicle for the protest vote. On Sunday, it reaped the bitter fruits. Are We Doomed? Taking a different approach from Sakamoto, the philosopher Moysés Pinto Neto and other writers have drawn attention, in their first analyses of October 4, to the fragmentation of the public sphere produced by Big Tech platforms. Through their algorithms, these platforms present each person with a different view of social reality. As a consequence, it becomes much harder to identify common material problems and demands—for example, the fight for labor rights or for a properly funded public health system. Voters no longer embrace such demands, these authors argue, because they no longer see themselves as part of a collective. Instead, they tend to value the identities assigned to them by neoliberal subjectivity—the role of the entrepreneur, for example. On this interpretation, the left’s possible error lies in clinging to outdated illusions. Moysés’s warning is highly relevant and resonates with arguments such as Naomi Klein and Astra Taylor’s “Apocalyptic Fascism and the Billionaires’ Bet.” Unlike a century ago, the far right no longer promises a radiant future. It concentrates instead on resentment—especially that of young men. “They belong to a generation that fears it may never own a home, but compensates with the pleasure it gets from constantly provoking progressives online. Convinced their future has been stolen, they share memes romanticizing historical authoritarian regimes,” the authors write. But Moysés seems to confuse this danger with inevitability. He fails to see that the left’s answer cannot be adaptation. On the contrary, it must strengthen the possibility of politics as collective action. Nor does he recognize that precisely such a reversal is already becoming possible in some of the most promising mobilizations of the twenty-first century: the election, at the end of 2025, of the young Muslim Zohran Mamdani as mayor of New York, on a platform centered on the intensely material fight for an affordable city; the Left Party’s victory in Berlin two weeks ago, built around the demand to expropriate private real-estate corporations; and the very recent wave of demonstrations in Spain—including an occupation of Madrid’s Puerta del Sol—in which tens of thousands of young people mobilized by the Tenants’ Union have demanded limits on rents. By putting itself in the straitjacket of the “fiscal framework” in the first months of 2022, Lula’s third government adopted the second fatal accommodation of its term. Faced with conservative institutions and a country devastated by four years of Bolsonaro, increased public investment was the government’s remaining weapon for offering a more dignified life to the majority and forging an anti-conservative pact with them. The same state that disburses 1 trillion reais a year to enrich a small class of rentiers could instead spend money to extend the Family Health Strategy to every Brazilian, at a cost of 30 billion reais; provide full-day public schooling and childcare to all adolescents and children—and, especially, relief to their mothers; achieve universal sanitation while cleaning up polluted urban rivers; multiply metro systems; begin transforming the urban peripheries; and undertake many other urgently needed projects. In April 2023, an article in Outras Palavras warned that the fiscal framework could “shrink the Lula government and preserve the forces that condemn the country to inequality and regression.” A year later, another article showed that restraints on public spending were strangling policies vital to ordinary people and undermining the president’s popularity. In November 2024 came a reality check, in the form of the government’s humiliating defeat in the municipal elections. Even then, the fiscal lock was neither removed nor loosened. On the contrary: throughout the government’s four years, fiscal restraint remained central to its political narrative. The administration proudly proclaimed that it had “put the state’s accounts in order,” without grasping either how misleading that phrase was—given the payment of 1 trillion reais in interest—or how badly the message was hurting it politically. Lula finally woke up in September 2026. The increase in Bolsa Família benefits, after four years of being frozen; the announcement that anti-obesity drugs would be offered through Brazil’s public health system; and the ban on online betting showed that the state has the power to act decisively on behalf of the majority when those in government are willing to confront obstacles. The huge marches that closed the campaign in Fortaleza, Salvador, Rio de Janeiro, and São Paulo on the eve of October 4 showed how such initiatives can mobilize activists and the broader public. But it was too late—and too little to change the outcome of the first round. History has not ended The possibility of a turnaround in the three weeks leading up to November 25 cannot be ruled out. It will not be simple or easy. Lula must not only make up a deficit of 2.2 million votes; he must also offset the movement of voters who backed other right-wing candidates in the first round, most of whom are likely to move toward Flávio Bolsonaro. Pulling that off will require a broad, grassroots effort to win over voters, potentially reinforced by new initiatives from Lula. The coming hours and days will be decisive. If Bolsonaro’s movement also wins the presidency, the result will create a high-risk situation for Brazilian sovereignty and democracy. The enormous challenges posed by such an outcome would require the left to reexamine, in depth and with a genuine willingness to engage in self-criticism, its political projects—or its lack of them—and its practices. But would that mean we are condemned to the long winter of far-right hegemony that some analyses are beginning to forecast? It is far too early to say, suggests a recent text by Álvaro García Linera, the thinker who served as vice president of Bolivia under Evo Morales. His central hypothesis is that this political current will prove short-lived. At a moment when the entire world is once again talking about sovereignty and protecting national economies, the far right offers a stale, recolonizing neoliberalism. Its submission to the United States is as blatant and pathetic as Flávio and Eduardo Bolsonaro’s overtures to Donald Trump. Its project amounts to something like every man for himself: greater inequality, capitalism without limits, devastation, and supremacism. Will it work? In the United States, just two years into his second term, Trump himself is reaching record levels of unpopularity and may be on the verge of losing Republican control of both the House and Senate in November. Every new beginning is difficult. Whatever the outcome of the second round, the defeats of October 4 show how profoundly the Brazilian left will have to rethink and rebuild. But just as it would be foolish to underestimate the seriousness of its mistakes, it would be equally foolish to conclude that rebuilding a political project is no longer possible. History has not ended. The times are moving faster than ever. Originally published in Portuguese by Outras Palavras. English translation by Eric Blanc; I’ve added the subtitles. More We can’t stop the far right at home or abroad without a revitalized labor movement, which is yet another reason why you should become a sustaining supporter of the Emergency Workplace Organizing Committee (EWOC) — one of US labor’s pivotal bright spots. Relatedly, Jacobin published a short piece of mine reflecting on a decade of Bernie Sanders inspiring a whole new generation of young worker organizers.
Hasan Piker’s politics risks setting Arab and Muslim Americans back
The self-described socialist is aggravating the Arab-American struggle for political relevance
Muslim Americans push back as Republican politicians stoke anti-Sharia rhetoric ahead of election
Muslim American civic leaders and scholars — in Texas and other states — are responding forcefully to this latest surge in anti-Sharia rhetoric that dates back more than 15 years.
Muslim Americans push back as Republican politicians stoke anti-Sharia rhetoric ahead of election
Senator Ted Cruz targeted Muslim Americans at the recent Republican midterm convention, declaring that Sharia law “has no place in America.” It was part of a broader surge of GOP rhetoric condemning the religious code followed by Muslims in the U.S. and around the world. Muslim American leaders a...
Muslim Americans rebut new wave of anti-Sharia rhetoric from GOP politicians
Senator Ted Cruz targeted Muslim Americans at the recent Republican midterm convention, declaring that Sharia law “has no place in America.”
Muslim Americans push back as Republican politicians stoke anti-Sharia rhetoric ahead of election
Senator Ted Cruz targeted Muslim Americans at the recent Republican midterm convention, declaring that Sharia law “has no place in America.” It was part of a broader surge of GOP
The Muslim Brotherhood Still Controls Jordan’s Rebranded Ummah Party
The political wing of the Jordanian Muslim Brotherhood (MB) elected a new leader over the weekend. The Ummah Party elected Muath al-Khawaldeh as secretary general at its seventh general conference, defeating...
Reform and the UAE – a threat to British politics
By Alex Carlen The United Arab Emirates likes to present itself as part of the solution to the climate crisis. The oil-rich Gulf state has committed to Net Zero by 2050, hosted COP 28, and even declared “championing climate action” as one of three strategic objectives for this week’s session of the United Nations General Assembly. But behind the scenes the UAE has quietly built one of its closest political relationships in Europe with the party most hostile to climate action in Britain: Nigel Farage’s Reform UK. There is no evidence that the UAE is funding Reform. But a new FairSquare report, Petro-populism: the UAE–Reform threat, published today, documents a growing political relationship that should concern anyone interested in the integrity of British democracy. Reform’s leaders have embraced the UAE’s political model and promoted positions that align closely with the Emirati government’s priorities, while the UAE has given Farage and his party unusually warm access and public backing. What is emerging is not simply a relationship between British politicians and a wealthy Gulf state, but a channel through which an authoritarian government can cultivate political influence here, and abroad. Democracy for Sale relies on its readers. If you already support us, thanks so much. If you don’t, sign up to support fearless independent investigative journalism. Subscribe Back in January, Nigel Farage appeared at a GB News event in Dubai. On the 50th floor of a tower overlooking the luxury resorts and upscale residences of Palm Jumeirah, the Reform leader declared: “I want Clacton to look like this.” At the event – which Farage never declared on his official register of interests – senior Emirati officials mixed with British expats. Farage was keen to flatter. “We recognise you are our friends”, he said, assuring them that “a Brexit London, a Reform London, will remember you.” Controversy surrounding Reform’s finances and its susceptibility to foreign influence have centred around high-profile donations from billionaire crypto donors, and the jailing of Nathan Gill, Reform’s former leader in Wales, for accepting bribes to give pro-Russia speeches. Far less attention has been paid to Reform’s blossoming new alliance with the UAE, an oil-rich authoritarian state with a track record of ruinous anti-democratic interventions. Farage wasn’t always so fond of the UAE. Back in 2023 he called it an “absolute monarchy with an abysmal human rights record.” Now Reform’s hierarchy calls the UAE home. Deputy leader Richard Tice splits his time between his constituency and Dubai and has called on the UK to learn from the UAE. The party’s treasurer Nick Candy runs a firm which has been in partnership with a UAE-state linked firm since 2024. Nadhim Zahawi sits on the board of an Abu Dhabi think tank alongside an array of the most senior UAE officials and is reportedly close to three brothers of the country’s despotic ruler Mohammed Bin Zayed. Reform’s leading lights have effusively praised the UAE’s governance model, defended it from criticism, and advanced its political agenda in the UK. GB News, whose two major shareholders – the Legatum Foundation and Paul Marshall – have strong links to the UAE, has been more than happy to broadcast UAE propaganda and was forced to pay damages in 2025 after airing a false claim about a UK charity by the UAE “disinfluencer” Amjad Taha. The UAE has responded in kind. When the UAE Minister for Foreign Affairs conducted an official visit to the UK in May, Farage was the only non-government figure granted an audience. UAE state media publicised the meeting, and said that they discussed “the strategic relations between the two countries and ways to enhance them in a manner that serves mutual interests.” For the UAE these ‘mutual interests’ largely concern its paranoia over political Islam, and in this regard the UAE-Reform alliance is part of a broad and troubling pattern. Following a crackdown on dissent at home in the aftermath of the Arab Spring, the UAE has offered material and political support to a range of violent and authoritarian actors willing to oppose the Muslim Brotherhood with no regard for the consequences. Its meddling in Egypt, Tunisia, Yemen, and most notably Sudan, have been devastating. The UAE’s strategy of seeking out partners on the political fringes who it believes will advance its interests is not unique to Britain – it extends beyond the Middle East to Europe and the US. In France, it has offered clandestine support to Marine Le Pen through secret meetings, as well allegedly funding trips to the region after which Le Pen returned with a renewed focus on the UAE’s perceived enemies – Qatar and the Muslim Brotherhood. Left-wing opposition leader Jean-Luc Mélenchon has accused the UAE of smearing him and of “encouraging discrimination, hatred or violence”. In the US, the UAE actively supported the rise of Donald Trump, establishing itself as a key ally during both his first and second terms. Around these relationships sits a wider ecosystem of figures willing to amplify UAE narratives, that even extends to Andrew Tate and Tommy Robinson. Subscribe In Britain, the UAE has used a combination of aggressive diplomacy and illicit, disruptive tactics to achieve its policy goal of eliminating any perceived threat from political Islam. In 2012, for instance, it threatened to block billion-pound arms deals with the UK and stop inward investment if David Cameron did not act against the Muslim Brotherhood and rein in the BBC’s coverage of the group – going so far as to suggest, with no supporting evidence, that the group had infiltrated the BBC. It has financed smear campaigns against a high-profile UK charity and funded a mercenary to secretly surveil, and possibly assassinate, a British national on British soil. In Reform UK, the UAE has finally found an ally willing to not only ban the Muslim Brotherhood, but to publicly vilify the group and repeat the UAE’s claims that dangerous Muslims are a fifth column in British society, a narrative that aligns with the Islamophobia and anti-immigration sentiments that underpin Reform’s populist politics. The Rycroft review into foreign interference concluded that “hostile states and non-state actors have a clear incentive to attempt to undermine UK democracy.” The UAE’s network and alliance with Reform must be understood within that framework. It is a powerful, disruptive and deeply authoritarian actor with the resources and networks to intervene in our politics, and a track-record of doing so in a multitude of other countries. The evidence of the threat the UAE poses is overwhelming. The question is whether parliamentarians are willing to call the UAE out and demand action using the tools that the government has to respond. Placing the UAE on the “Enhanced Tier” of the Foreign Registration scheme alongside Russia and Iran would send a powerful signal to the UAE that its meddling will no longer be tolerated, and would place Farage’s next trips to the UAE under the scrutiny they deserve. Alex Carlen is research and advocacy manager at London based human rights organisation FairSquare and author of its new report Petro-populism: the UAE–Reform threat. Subscribe
Italy to ban veils in schools, limit foreign students per class, Giorgia Meloni says
The integration of migrants, particularly those from Muslim-majority countries, remains contentious in Italian politics and society.
How anti-Muslim rhetoric is influencing the pivotal Michigan Senate race
Attacks aimed at Democrat Abdul El-Sayed have brought back painful memories for some in a contest that has raised questions about the acceptability of Islamophobia in politics.
Europe’s political Islam debate moves beyond counter-terrorism |
Muslim and human-rights organisations have warned that an expansive definition of political Islam could blur the distinction between legitimate political participation and extremism.
Islamophobia is rising – and Britain’s politicians have been dangerously complacent in tackling it
Mainstream figures have been enabling anti-Muslim racism, creating the ideal conditions for the rise of hard-right political parties, says Arun Kundnani, editorial director of Monthly Review Press
The rising power of American Muslims
Is this a new era for American Muslims?American Muslims are building their own cultural institutions – New York Magazine and The Guardian have reported on flourishing ecosystems of cafes, magazines, dance nights, meetups and readings for Muslims and/or people with heritage from the SWANA region. And on a political level, Muslims like Minnesota Representative Ilhan Omar and New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani have become prominent faces of the left. On the one hand, this swell of Muslims coming up in politics and building cultural institutions is not surprising – there are over 4 million Muslims in America. On the other hand, this shift is pretty significant given how deeply Islamophobia and racism are rooted in our culture. So what's changed for American Muslims in recent years, and what’s stayed the same? What does it mean that Muslims are accruing a little more political and cultural capital now, and that non-Muslims are noticing?To get deeper into it, Brittany is joined by Dr. Donna Auston, cultural anthropologist, and Dr. Tazeen Ali, scholar of Islam in America and associate professor of religion and politics at Washington University in St. Louis.Support public media with NPR+ and enjoy perks for over 25 podcasts like this one. This show’s perks include sponsor-free listening. Learn more at plus.npr.org.
The US right still paints Muslims as the ‘enemy’. But they are fighting for a brighter future for Americans
Progressive politicians such as Zohran Mamdani offer answers to the bitter post-9/11 legacy of failures at home and abroad, says Guardian columnist Nesrine Malik
Top Texas Republicans target Islam in GOP midterm convention speeches
Texas Republicans took anti-Muslim remarks to the national stage during speeches at the GOP midterm convention.
9/11 entrenched Islamophobia in US politics. But it doesn’t work the way you think
Anti-Muslim sentiment is used as a political weapon. Meanwhile, Muslim American leaders are making a difference for all
Seattle’s Muz Fest celebrates Muslim culture and more
Muz Fest, a multicultural festival built around music, food, art and community, with a special focus on Muslim culture, takes place Sept. 12 at Victory Hall at The Boxyard.
11 things to do around the Seattle area this weekend
From late summer soft-serve to a multicultural celebration with a focus on Muslim culture, here are the latest local things to do around the Seattle area.
Abdul El-Sayed is the latest Muslim candidate to labeled an anti-American extremist.
The bigoted rhetoric against Muslim American politicians is backfiring
Appeals court rejects CDOT employee’s discrimination, retaliation claims
Colorado’s second-highest court agreed last week that a Colorado Department of Transportation employee had not shown that his employer discriminated and retaliated against him due to his religion and national origin. Ayman Salloum, who described himself as a 70-year-old Muslim immigrant from Jordan, was an environmental protection specialist at CDOT in December 2024. That month, […]
In Texas, ordinary Muslim religious practices are increasingly being treated as political threats
After 9/11, suspicion of Islam hardened into an assumption in Texas that Muslim identity itself signals danger, writes a scholar of constitutional law.
As public trust declines, Muslim politicians are rising to the occasion
Declining trust in institutions widens what political scientists call the representation gap.
The obscure documentary fueling Islamophobia in Texas
A documentary warns about a coming cultural conflict with Muslims in the US. It’s had surprising political influence.
Democrats rally behind progressive Aisha Wahab after win in California special election
First Muslim woman and Afghan American elected to California legislature held lead throughout race over main opponent Melissa Hernandez
Are Malaysian Muslims less corrupt? PAS leader skewered over divisive politics
Critics demand evidence from Abdul Hadi Awang as official bribery data shows mixed results.
Dearborn protest: Businesses respond to intense anti-Islam demonstration
A full day has passed since an anti-Muslim rally was held in Dearborn. However, on Wednesday the scene was much different, with businesses seeing an outpouring of love in response to all the hate.
CAIR calls Abbott’s DFW Airport criticism an ‘anti-Muslim political stunt’
CAIR-Texas blasted Gov. Greg Abbott’s criticism of proposed ablution stations at DFW Airport as an “anti-Muslim political stunt.”
Bill Maher rips left-wing lawmaker for sacrificing liberal values to appease Muslim voters
Bill Maher slammed Melissa Chaudhry, a progressive Democrat challenging Rep. Adam Smith in Seattle, for omitting LGBT rights to appeal to Muslims.
How Islamophobia Moved From the Fringe to the Mainstream in Texas
Muslim communities have been growing for decades, particularly around Dallas. Now, conservatives want to roll up the welcome mat.
As Abdul El-Sayed breaks a barrier, anti-Muslim vitriol surges on multiple fronts
Abdul El-Sayed made history this month in Michigan by becoming the first Muslim nominated by the Democratic Party to run for the U.S. Senate
The U.S. Healthcare System is Already Mostly Socialized
Now that Abdul El-Sayed is the Democratic nominee for Michigan’s open Senate seat, the outcome of this crucial race will depend mainly on two things: Whether Republicans succeed in demonizing El-Sayed because he’s brown and a Muslim, and whether they succeed in demonizing him as a left-wing radical. I will defer for the now the question of whether bigotry will be effective this year, although I will address it another day. What I want to address instead is El-Sayed’s signature issue — healthcare. Yes, El-Sayed advocates Medicare for All, a position the usual suspects denounce as “socialism.” I will get to the politics of his stance soon. Today, however, I want to talk about the substance. We should be clear that El-Sayed doesn’t even call himself a socialist. On the contrary, he explicitly disavows the label, saying “I’m a capitalist who just knows about capitalism”. In fact, as I explained in a previous post, the policies that El-Sayed advocates qualify him as a social democrat, not a socialist. Still, El-Sayed advocates a system under which the government would pay almost all medical expenses. Isn’t that socialism? Well, if that is the criterion then much of U.S. healthcare is already socialist. In fact, the government’s role is so large that U.S. healthcare is better described as partially privatized socialism than as anything resembling a free market. Let’s start with the raw numbers on health insurance, which pays the bulk of Americans’ medical expenses. Americans receive health insurance either from private companies or from public programs, overwhelmingly Medicare and Medicaid. Here’s what the breakdown of coverage and spending between private and public looked like in 2024: While a majority of Americans with health insurance get it from private companies, well over 100 million of us are covered by government programs instead. And these government programs pay more total dollars for medical bills than the private insurers do. Why do government programs that cover a minority of the population account for a majority of health insurers’ outlays? Mainly because Medicare covers seniors, and we’re expensive. Also, while Medicaid covers many younger Americans, disabled and elderly beneficiaries account for most of its spending. Even by the raw numbers, then, U.S. health insurance looks as much public as private. But that understates the government’s role: Private health insurance in the U.S. is both highly regulated and heavily subsidized. This is obviously true for the insurance coverage purchased by tens of millions of Americans through the exchanges established by the Affordable Care Act. But employment-based health insurance, which covers 161 million Americans, is far more of a government creation than most people realize. For employment-based insurance exists largely because of huge implicit government subsidies that come with major strings attached. Here’s how that works. If your employer pays you $10,000, that’s taxable income. But if your employer pays $10,000 toward a company health insurance plan that meets certain criteria, it isn’t taxable. That’s a huge effective subsidy, running at more than $300 billion a year. Take that subsidy into account, along with the more than $100 billion per year spent subsidizing policies purchased under the ACA, as well as the outlays on Medicare and Medicaid, and net effect is that the government pays for more than two-thirds of Americans’ health insurance. Granted, there are strings attached. Roughly speaking, employment-based health plans can’t discriminate based on medical history — that is, they can’t deny coverage to employees with pre-existing conditions — and they also can’t offer the plans only to highly compensated employees — a health plan that is only for the C-suite is considered taxable income. So given the restrictions of the federal tax code, employer-based health insurance is a lot like Obamacare, which also prohibits discrimination based on medical history and provides subsidies to make insurance affordable to lower-paid workers. The fact is that virtually all of private healthcare insurance is already well under some form of government control through regulation and tax subsidies. How should we think about this system? First of all, is Medicare socialist? Don’t tell anyone, but the way Medicare operates — it covers every senior’s medical expenses, whatever they turn out to be, while being funded by taxes that depend on one’s income — could be summarized by the old Marxist slogan “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.” And back in 1961, when Ronald Reagan was the face of a last-ditch effort by the American Medical Association to block the creation of Medicare, he denounced Medicare as “socialized medicine” and warned that it would destroy our freedom. In reality, American freedom survived until Jan. 20, 2025, while Medicare is immensely popular, with an 82 percent favorable rating in the most recent KFF survey. Medicaid, government health insurance for lower-income Americans, comes in at 73 percent. This is in sharp contrast to public views about private insurers, who are widely disliked if not hated and accused of denying essential care. Furthermore, if Medicare is socialism, then the whole U.S. health insurance system, with the government paying most of the bills and placing conditions on private insurers, is almost equally socialist. If you insist on calling any program the government pays for and regulates socialist, then U.S. healthcare would best be described as a partially privatized form of socialism. And one must ask, what is the point of the part that is privatized? Do private insurers add anything positive? Or are they simply parasites, skimming off money that could have been paying for care? The case for viewing insurers as parasites is strong. Many Medicare benefits are now delivered via Medicare Advantage, that is, plans paid for by the government but run through insurance companies. MedPAC, an independent advisory commission, estimates that last year Medicare Advantage plans were overpaid by $84 billion, thanks to practices such as “upcoding,” in which patients’ health problems are overstated to get larger sums from Medicare. Assessing the waste from employer-based insurance is harder, but most evidence suggests that private insurers have substantially higher administrative costs than Medicare does. Furthermore, the complexity of private insurance, with multiple payers all trying to deny care when they can, is a huge burden both on providers — doctors, nurses, and hospitals — and on patients. What do private insurers offer to compensate for these costs? One must go through intellectual contortions to avoid the conclusion that they are, in fact, parasites. Which brings me back to El-Sayed. In supporting Medicare for All, he’s basically calling for an end to the partial, parasitic privatization of a healthcare system that is already hugely dependent on public funding. When one looks at it that way, it’s not at all a radical proposal. Admittedly, the political lift requires overcoming the opposition to higher taxes to pay for Medicare for All. Political realism rather than economics was the reason I and many other progressives supported Obamacare, with all its complexities, rather than demanding an immediate move to Medicare for All. But the political calculus may very well have shifted since the 2000s, as Americans are fed up with a system of unaffordable premiums, rampant claim denials, and byzantine claim administration. Moreover, funding healthcare insurance through taxation would allow for a much more progressive distribution of the cost. That is, compared to the present system, middle-income households would pay less as high-income households would pay more. And the U.S. would stop wasting large sums on pointless administrative costs. So let’s be clear: El-Sayed’s healthcare platform is perfectly reasonable on the merits of cost, fairness and health efficacy. And with private insurers never more hated, while millions of Americans are losing their health insurance, 2026 may be its time. MUSICAL CODA
Trump Stokes Islamophobia by Calling Democratic Candidates ‘Jihadists’
Along with his comments about Muslim candidates, Mr. Trump spoke disparagingly of Somalis in the United States, saying “they’re not smart.”
How Abdul El-Sayed’s Muslim faith informs his politics
“We’re in an era of historical inequality,” El-Sayed said.
Neighbors line tables at Central Valley's first Muslim business convention
A packed room of vendors and community members gathered in Fresno for the Central Valley’s first Muslim business convention, an event aimed at spotlighting Musl
Trump’s racist politics BACKFIRE in Michigan GOP primary
Chris Hayes: Trump and his allies are unleashing a wave of anti-Muslim bigotry, and in Michigan, that hatred is already consuming candidates in their own party.
What an Abdul El-Sayed win means for Muslim voters
The mayor of Dearborn, a majority-Arab American city in Michigan, says his community feels hope, once again.
Left-wing political outsider Abdul El-Sayed wins Democratic Senate primary in Michigan
Abdul El-Sayed, the son of Egyptian immigrants, would be the first Muslim US senator if elected in November.
Malay nationalism surge threatens to end Malaysia’s reform experiment
Since becoming prime minister in 2022, Anwar has struggled to win over support from Malaysia’s Malay-Muslim majority.
Stevens knocks down Detroit parishioner's Muslim comment about El-Sayed
The Oakland County congressman immediately distanced herself from a Detroit church goer's comment about Abdul El-Sayed's Muslim faith.
As progressives seek to take on inequality, some cite religion as a motivating factor
Michigan Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed says his Muslim faith shapes his progressive views
Mamdani's politics linked to Muslim Brotherhood ideology as New York violence escalates: report
ISGAP research traces Zohran Mamdani's ties to Muslim Brotherhood-linked organizations as antisemitic violence escalates on Manhattan streets.
Why has Britain’s oldest political magazine become such a rabid cheerleader for Islamophobia?
A report on the Spectator’s coverage of Muslims makes for grim reading. Conservatism is now focused on this minority to the exclusion of everything else, says Guardian columnist Nesrine Malik
James responds to Islamophobia accusation, vowing to target Muslim org
GOP gubernatorial candidate U.S. Rep. John James, R-Shelby Township, drew condemnation for remarks he made about a Muslim procession in Dearborn.
Capital Region influencers support Muslim-owned businesses in light of hate
LATHAM, N.Y. (NEWS10) — In light of recent online hate, local community members have been banding together, using their platforms to support one another following the death of seven-year-old …
This Fourth of July, a quieter American story: Muslims in science, medicine and charity
This Fourth of July, a quieter American story: Muslims in science, medicine and charity
DeSantis announces plans to use new state law to target dozens of alleged terrorist groups
Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis designated more than 90 groups as terrorist organizations under a new state law, including CAIR, Muslim Brotherhood and Antifa.
Anti-Muslim politics is not patriotic
What did the Declaration mean when it said we’re all created equal?
New York’s primaries signal a new force in US politics
Progressive, Muslim and Arab American candidates are challenging old limits on debate over Israel and Palestine.
Moore links Maryland primary to Mamdani-backed wins; analysts disagree
Gov. Wes Moore says Maryland’s primary election showed voters rejected the status quo, but political analysts say the results reflect a more complicated picture.
Beyond politics, a well still needs water
Joint projects between Jews and Muslims may ultimately do more to advance understanding than a hundred conferences about understanding.
In Retrospect: Poland, Russia, Europe
In April I spent a few days with Zryw, a Polish non-profit organization that recruits young people to enter politics and public life. Their aim is to build a new generation of civic leaders in Poland. I’ve followed their evolution from the beginning; my son is one of the founders. (“Zryw” means “impulse” or “burst of speed” in Polish). Julie Chmielewska, one of Zryw’s leaders, interviewed me at the event. Here is the conversation, lightly edited for grammar and context: Julia Chmielewska: Assuming that culture shapes institutions, could we conclude that some cultures are more prone to authoritarianism? Anne Applebaum: I don’t think so. Every culture, every nation, and every country has the potential for change. When we look at history, we can see that nations do change. Poland has changed, for example, from the 1980s to today. There’s a completely different mentality here than the one I encountered when I first visited, in 1988. The current generation sees the world through a different frame. So no, I don’t believe that certain nations are doomed to authoritarianism, or to anything. Of course, there are political and cultural traditions, but they can always be challenged. JC: So do you think there’s something intrinsic in human nature that pushes people to democracy, freedom? AA: I think there is something in human nature, a deep instinct, that pushes people towards freedom, yes. People who live in authoritarian countries – and I’ve heard this from them over and over again – sooner or later find themselves angered by a feeling of helplessness. They can see the unfairness of crooked courts, irrational political decisions. They naturally dislike the fact that somebody has all the power while they have none. In those circumstances, people who have no political background at all sometimes are politicized just by that frustration. I’m thinking of Svetlana Tikhanovskaya, for example, who was a Belarusian housewife, until the circumstances of her husband’s arrest forced her to become a politician. I met a woman who is a Uyghur from China, and who had come to live in Turkey. After several of her family members were arrested, she too was propelled into a political role. These kinds of experiences make people interested in democracy or political reform, even if they thought they didn’t care. I also think that the opposite is true: some people instinctively prefer homogeneity, order, hierarchy. They don’t like the confrontation of opinions or the noise of debate, and they lean towards a single leader or a unified regime. I think that most of modern history is shaped by the clash between those two different sides of human nature. JC: Which force do you find more powerful today? AA: I think they both have a lot of power and there’s no way of predicting who wins. Even in countries that seem very shut off or stuck in an authoritarian system can change. We’ve seen that happen. And vice versa, I think democracies can also begin to fail and slide into authoritarianism. So it’s very important not to be complacent in either direction. JC: I want to go into your history and your experiences. You’ve lived in Russia during a time of incredible change in the late 80s, and then you came back to do research in post-Soviet Russia. AA: I was a student in Russia just before the collapse of the Soviet Union. I then traveled and worked there extensively in the 1990s, and I met people who really were full of hope. They hoped that Russia could become a democracy, or at least a place that guaranteed freedom of speech, freedom of the press. These weren’t ideas that came from Washington. Although now the narrative in the Kremlin is different, I met many people who were working towards exactly that kind of transformation. A friend of mine ran a series of seminars – once a year, and then later several times a year, in cities all over Russia – designed to get people to discuss politics in new ways. She invited young politicians and journalists, as well as foreigners. I went to many of them, in Moscow as well as Volgograd and Novosibirsk. Over two decades, hundreds of people came to these seminars, and all of them wanted Russia to be different. I remain convinced that many Russians still want Russia to be different. It’s just that the old system, in the form of Putin, a representative of that system, returned. The KGB reimposed their power. And this wasn’t because of something to do with culture, this was to do with money and politics, and who was in charge. JC: You’ve partially answered my question... I wanted to ask whether that excitement of the 1990s was an exception from the Russian historical norm which has been rather authoritarian? AA: Of course, if you look at the history of Russia since the 18th century, there have always been liberal groups, reformers and revolutionaries. There were the Decembrists, in the early 19th century, and the rural populists later on, who tried to organize the peasantry. A significant group of liberal Russians appeared at the turn of the 20th century, people like the father of the writer Vladimir Nabokov, who was a Russian politician before the revolution. These groups were small in number, but sometimes had a broader significance. The Russian dissident movement in the 1950s and 1960s actually invented the modern human rights movement. It was their idea to hold the leaders of the Soviet Union accountable for the language they used, to remind them of the treaties they had signed and the promised they had made. They created the Helsinki group, for example, that held Soviet leadership to the language of the Helsinki Treaty, which formally ended the Second World War and which contained guarantees of human rights, at least on paper. That idea spread to Eastern Europe, and similar tactics were used here in Poland. (Benjamin Nathans recently wrote a great book about the Soviet dissidents, To the Success of Our Hopeless Cause) JC: But seemingly, even if they do ever get power, they could never hold on to it. AA: We don’t know, because they have never really had power. But in any case, we also don’t know what will happen in the future. There is no reason to assume that Russia will forever be condemned to totalitarianism. Even during the first fifteen years of Putin’s regime there was some form of democratic politics. Only when the full-scale war began did he bring everything to an end: he shut down all remaining independent organizations and killed his most important opponent, Alexi Navalny. But does that mean he is popular, that he enjoys legitimacy? Even now, we don’t really know what Russians think about him, or about the war. There is no way of doing real polling in Russia because nobody will answer an independent pollster over the phone. JC: Do you think that the flock of young people, especially young men, who fled Russia after the start of the war represent a continuation of liberal movements that refuse to partake in the authoritarian state, or do you think they are moving for the sake of self-preservation – “I don’t want to go to the army, so I leave”? AA: I’m sure it’s both. I actually know many people who left Russia for political reasons either in the very last years before the war, or else just after the war began. JC: And do you see a change in the young generation versus the old one that have fled? AA: It’s hard for me to say because the people who I know were mostly already politicized. I do know some younger people who left, but most of them were already either active in the opposition, or working as journalists. Many of them very self-consciously think of themselves as maintaining Russian culture abroad, just as in the 20th century the Soviet dissidents or the anti-communist White Russians once thought of themselves as people who maintained the true Russian culture, outside of Bolshevik Russia. JC: Let’s move on to Poland. One of your first experiences with Poland was reporting on Margaret Thatcher’s first state visit, in the autumn of 1988. You followed her around the farmers’ market. AA: She was making a symbolic gesture. She wanted to welcome free markets, but the only one she could really visit was the farmers’ market at Hala Mirowska. JC: And I want to talk about this area because today you can look out of any window in that district, Mirów, and see rows and rows of skyscrapers. How does it feel to see a country built from the ground in such a short time, both politically and economically? AA: You know, when you’re living in a period of dramatic change, it’s always hard to know whether the change is positive or negative. The transformation in Poland created winners and losers, as well as new classes of people, new political movements of different kinds. At the time, it sometimes just felt like turbulence. Now, we can look back at the 1990s and early 2000s in Poland and see in retrospect that the country was headed in towards prosperity and European integration. In around 2009 or 2010, I remember speaking to a woman who worked cleaning government offices, and who asked me if her daughter should study in Amsterdam or in London. This seemed to me to be a real transformation, and it happened very fast: within a few years, Poles stopped feeling like second-class Europeans, and a generation of younger Poles appeared who had no qualms about crossing borders. JC: We again live in turbulent times. Do you think we’re heading towards positive outcomes? AA: I can’t make predictions, because everything that happens tomorrow depends on what people do today. Also, history doesn’t have a trajectory. It doesn’t move in a particular direction. You only think it does afterwards. As I said, you can look afterwards at Poland in the 1990s and you could say this was a period of great progress. But not everybody at the time saw that. Sometimes people are very wrong about a given country’s trajectory. I remember people writing about Ukraine in the 1990s, about how dangerous it was that Ukraine was independent, that this was going to be an anti-semitic state, that Ukrainian nationalism was going to come back... and although you can say many bad things about Ukraine, the country made many bad choices, actually it became a pretty tolerant state which now has a Jewish president and until recently a Muslim defense minister. JC: In the 1990s Poland’s and Ukraine’s GDP were roughly similar. Ukraine was even a bit richer. So the starting point was similar for both of these countries, but they’ve turned out very, very differently. Even if we stop in 2014. Why do you think Ukraine “chose East”? Was it external influence? AA: No, I think Ukraine was in a different position. First of all, central and eastern Ukraine had been part of the Soviet Union since the 1920s, and had therefore experienced a longer period of occupation, repression, Sovietization and even Russification. Ukraine did not have, as Poland did, an alternative elite: a large cadre of economists and politicians, who already had some experience in opposition politics and in independent thinking. In Poland, the transformative finance minister, Leszek Balcerowicz, had already thought about how an economy might be decentralized before he took office. We can argue about how successful he was, but at least he was prepared to try something new. In Ukraine, people weren’t prepared. For one, there hadn’t been much space even for an illegal opposition in the previous couple of decades. Ukraine was also in many ways still emerging from colonial occupation. For the previous couple of centuries, many of the most capable Ukrainians had moved to Russia, and the first generation of leaders in independent Ukraine tended to be former Soviet apparatchiks. They didn’t immediately seek to become closer to western Europe. Instead, they looked for some kind of economic and political “third way” and an accomodation with Russia. Ukraine became stuck in this position, half-in, half-out and became pretty profoundly corrupt. JC: The Polish alternative elite had a vision of where they wanted the country to go. I think the general perception now is that this vision ends with the next election, right? Is this a natural process of gaining power? AA: Their vision, and it was shared by the time by politicians who now call themselves both left and right, was that Poland should join the EU and NATO, as fast as possible. My husband (Radek Sikorski) was in the very first government that said it wanted to join NATO. At the time this was taken very badly in Washington: the demand for NATO membership absolutely came from Poland, not from the US. But even then, in the early 1990s, many Poles already understood that the Russian sphere of influence would grow once again, that it was important to become part of the transatlantic alliance and an integrated Europe as fast as possible: NATO, the EU, the Council of Europe, all of the trading and security alliances. That consensus lasted through several different governments and over many years, even governments containing former communists. For twenty years, right, left and center disagreed about many things, but they all agreed on the direction that the country should go. In retrospect, that consensus created the basis for prosperity in Poland. JC: And regarding the Polish-Ukrainian relations. We know that antagonisms, e.g. the myth of Wołyń [a massacre of Poles that took place in what is now Western Ukraine, in 1943] are increasingly used in Polish political discourse today. In Ukraine, nationalist historians make heroes out of UPA, the Ukrainian revolutionary army, which is held responsible for this tragedy. Where do you see a start for burying the hatchet? Is the reconciliation of our nations possible? AA: So here’s a strange thing: For more than a decade after they both gained independence, Poland and Ukraine participated in a number of projects that were designed to solve exactly these kinds of Polish-Ukrainian differences. Books were published that were jointly written by Polish and Ukrainian historians, monuments were built. These projects were successful: If you’d asked me this question in 2010, I would have said that there are no real historical issues between Poland and Ukraine, that the two countries had mostly reconciled. For a number of reasons, this began to shift. In Poland, children and grandchildren of victims of the Wołyń massacre felt their tragedy hadn’t been fully recognized. In Ukraine, nationalist groups wanted the UPA partisans who had fought against the Soviet Union recognized for their heroism, despite the fact that some in this broad and not well-defined group were also linked to Wołyń. In both eastern Poland and western Ukraine, the memory of the ethnic cleansing that took place there in the late 1940s - Poles were moved West, Ukrainians East - to accomodate new borders has left feelings of displacement and bitterness. The wave of Ukrainian immigration, which started before the war, may have provoked some of this. But don’t underestimate the role played by Russia, which has always wanted to create discord between Poland and Ukraine, and pumps out propaganda to that effect in both countries. Vandalism on both sides of the border, damage done to cemeteries and monuments, is sometimes carried out by provacateurs working for Russia, just to create bad feelings. The Polish-Ukrainian conflict also hides a different reality: although there are real grievances and bad memories, the truth is that the biggest tragedies both nations experienced in the twentieth century were inflicted by the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany. That should unite these two countries, not divide them. JC: This week (19.04.2026 – Ed.) in Hungary we saw that using historical narratives to create grievance has no longer worked. Are you optimistic about the direction after Orban’s loss? AA: The Hungarian election was really important because it shows that people can actually resist powerful, dominant propaganda. The ruling party Fidesz controlled all of the TV, 90% of the newspapers, the constitutional court, the bureaucracy... and yet people had the nerve to vote against it and resist it. It’s also an important election because Hungary created a huge network of well-funded think tanks and foundations that were funding other far right groups and projects. So that loss is going to have a knock-on effect in other places too, maybe even in Poland. JC: What you’ve said about resisting propaganda reminds me of one of the interviews you did about talking to Russians in the post-Soviet era who claimed that people knew that the system was lying. Why do people choose to believe in these regimes anyway? AA: Because it’s useful. Stephen Kotkin, an American historian, once described how people would learn how to “speak Bolshevik”: It was just a language that you needed to use in order to get by in society. If you didn’t talk the way the regime wanted you to talk, then you might have problems, or lose your job, or your kids would not get into university. It was a way of getting along. Communist Poland was similar, at least in the early years. When I was writing a book about the Sovietization of Eastern Europe after World War II, I met a lot of people who wanted to talk a lot about the war, when many of them had done really heroic things. But almost nobody wanted to talk about the decade afterwards, between 1945 and 1956. This was when you had the short period of terror, violence and Polish Stalinism. To stay safe, people felt the need to just go along with what others were saying, or stay out of politics, or use communist jargon without necessarily believing it. I don’t judge them for it, and I wouldn’t describe all of those people as collaborators. It’s easy to feel moral certainty in retrospect, because we know that communism ended. But if you were living in 1949, it might not have been clear to you that communism was going to end. In very repressive societies, maybe about 10% of people who are really evil – collaborators, torturers. Maybe 10% of people are really brave and who find ways to resist. And then around 80% of people have kids, they have parents, they have to have jobs and they’ve had to get through it somehow. Strange though it may sound, I’ve found that the work I did on that book is now very useful in explaining some of what’s going on in the United States today. There are plenty of members of the Republican Party in Congress who know perfectly well that Donald Trump says many things that aren’t true. But they avoid criticizing him because it’s inconvenient, because they would get in trouble, because someone would attack them on the internet. So actually you don’t even need mass terror to get people to conform. JC: Is Gen Z reinventing agency? AA: We’ll see. In any generation you can find groups of people who want agency. If you live in a society that’s unfair, for example where a tiny number of people have captured most of the wealth, then at a certain point people rebel. This is always easier for younger people, who have you have less to lose. The question now is how the internet will affect the relationships between citizens and the state, and how it will change organizations. The “Twitter revolutions” people spoke about as early as 2008-9, mass protests organized online, have often proved to be very superficial. Although you can easily join something just by clicking, the work of creating a real movement requires physical participation. Successful mass movements of the past, for example the Civil Rights movement in the United States, were built by people who had spent many years together. They had participated in non-violent workshops together. They practiced and prepared. Just using the you can get everybody to show up at a certain moment, but then when the protest is broken up, nothing happens. It’s also true that the repressive regimes have more recently learned how to use the internet to undermine leaders and movements. Most of all, they now understand how to make people cynical. The form of propaganda that most modern authoritarians use - and I think the Russians really pioneered this - deploys sneering cynicism. Instead of praising the rulers, the regime propagandists mock the opposition movement leadership for being supposedly corrupt or sexually degenerate, with the goal of undermining any kind of idealism. JC: MAGA grew on the internet? AA: MAGA is a real grassroots movement. They had symbols, red hats, they showed up at rallies. But you’re right that the cynicism, the sarcasm and the distrust that the movement embodies came originally from the internet, and this is different. Fifty years ago, most European political parties had a social base in real organizations, in trade unions for Social Democrats, in church groups for Christian Democrats. As people stopped going to church and as the trade unions became smaller, the social base of these parties disappeared. Now people who wouldn’t have known one another in the past meet on the internet and create new movements, many of which don’t last. JC: Is history ending? Going in stale circles? AA: History never ends. In truth, human beings want contradictory things at the same time: order and freedom, stability and change. These things are never resolved, and when a society swings too far in one direction, people always push it the other way. But each time that happens, the result is different. Certainly it is true that we are now in a period when old philosophers and ideas from the 1930s are undergoing a revival. Carl Schmitt, who was a philosopher who was very influential on the Nazis, is back as an influence on both the far left and the far right, once again inspiring people to think that all politics has to be existential, that all politics is about defining and defeating enemies. In the US, some are also bringing back dominionism, the idea that we need a Christian and not a secular state. It’s also true that we are living through a more fundamental shift. The old left-right divide, which was mostly about the size of the state, is much less important now. Instead, we are arguing about more fundamental things: what are our rights, what protects our freedom. Or how much power do we want to give small elites, versus how much power to give ordinary people. In America a small group of very wealthy people now control information, because they control the social media platforms and AI, which means they determine what people will read and learn. Finding a way to preserve preserve zones of autonomy and independent thinking, this is going to be the main task for the next generation. JC: What is the one book that a person interested in Central Europe should read? AA: You could read my book “Iron Curtain: the Crushing of Eastern Europe” which tells the story of how the Soviet Union imposed its culture on the region. Or read Tim Snyder’s history of the region, “The Reconstruction of Nations: Poland, Ukraine, Lithuania, Belarus 1569-1999.” And everyone should read “The Captive Mind” by Czesław Miłosz, which describes exactly the phenomenon we were talking about: why do people collaborate? I joined Scott Galloway and the brilliant Fiona Hill in a discussion about the wars in Ukraine and Iran, the future of global power, and what these conflicts reveal about America's role in the world. Scott told us that this was the 400th edition of his podcast, which is quite a number: My friend Francesco Chiamulera runs a brilliant series of literary events, Una Colline di Libri, A Hill of Books, in the Prosecco Hills, a region of vineyards and elegant hill towns in the Veneto, north of Venice. We did an event in Vittorio Veneto and also drove and biked around the countryside. Buy Autocracy Inc Buy Iron Curtain Open Letters, from Anne Applebaum is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Subscribe
Frisco Mayor’s Race Tests Anti-Muslim Politics in Texas
A runoff in the Dallas suburb of Frisco is testing whether anti-Muslim rhetoric, prominent in G.O.P. primaries this year, can win over a broader set of voters.
Politics almost broke them. Instead, they found power in community.
Mo Turner — queer, Muslim and Black — faced discrimination and censure in the Oklahoma legislature. They have found healing through activism.
GOP leaders shunned Bo French for racist posts. Now they want him to regulate Texas’ oil and gas
After Bo French asked his social media followers whether Jews or Muslims were a "bigger threat to America," Republican Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick called for him to step down from his position at the Tarrant County GOP. Patrick is now backing French in his bid to be the next Texas railroad commissioner.
Moderate Muslim activist warns Mamdani promoting extremist politics
Anila Ali says New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani represents an extreme form of Islamism and is damaging both moderate Muslims and Jewish communities in New York ahead of a planned protest outside Gracie Mansion.
Trump calls on Arab nations to sign Abraham Accords
Trump says Muslim-majority nations should sign onto the Abraham Accords if they want to participate in a developing Iran agreement, per reports.
Exiled Muslim scholar warns far-left–Islamist alliance behind anti-Israel protests echoes Iran’s rise
Muslim scholar who fled Egypt warns America's far-left alliance with Islamist extremism could repeat Iran's 1979 revolution pattern in the U.S. today.
Muslim American groups say Republicans are weaponizing congressional hearings
There is no evidence that any mainstream U.S. Muslim group has advocated for imposing sharia on the United States.
CAIR Releases Analysis of Anti-Muslim Oklahoma Politics
The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the nation's largest Muslim civil rights and advocacy organization, today released a new analysis detailing a multi-front effort to push Oklahoma Muslims outside the circle of the state’s protected civic and religious life — through legislation, thro
In Mamdani’s Rise, Muslim Organizers See Political Opportunity
The Muslim Democratic Club was founded to increase political power among the city’s Muslims. Now some of its founders are the mayor’s top aides.
Embrace science, logic to counter misconceptions: Ahmadiyya leader
Qadian (Gurdaspur): Hazrat Mirza Masroor Ahmad, head of Ahmadiyya Muslim Community, headquartered in Qadian, has issued a strong call for greater focu.
A bitter political race turns Alabama Muslims into a target: ‘We are proud Americans’
Jay Mitchell and Katherine Robertson have both referred to Muslims in campaign ads.
Surge of Islamophobia in politics creates mental health crisis for Muslims
Research shows negative portrayals of Muslims shape public attitude toward them, leading to increased discrimination, hate crimes and psychological distress.
First-gen political science student named New College Outstanding Undergraduate
Emra Muslim, a first-generation college student graduating this spring with a bachelor’s degree in political science from Arizona State University’s New College of Interdisciplinary Arts and Sciences, has been named the college’s Outstanding Undergraduate.
GOP candidates revive anti-Islam attacks as midterms approach
Republican lawmakers and candidates across the country have escalated their anti-Islam rhetoric in recent months, warning their constituents that Islamic law could gain a foothold in the United States.
Deadly Rohingya sea crossings are enabled by a business built on misery
Nearly 900 Rohingya disappeared at sea in 2025 as they tried to reach Thailand, Malaysia or Indonesia. Human trafficking networks have thrived on the despair of this stateless and persecuted Muslim minority from Myanmar.
Muslim Southerners Face a Fresh Wave of Hateful Political Rhetoric
Some Muslim voters were once drawn to Republican positions on family values and individual liberty, but as Southern politicians stoke anti-Islamic sentiment, many feel threatened.
How Islamophobic rhetoric leaves an impact on the mental health of Muslim Americans
Negative portrayals of Muslims shape public attitudes and lead to increased discrimination, often resulting in hate crimes and psychological harm.
‘It’s solid gold’: Some Texas Republicans ramp up criticisms of Muslims to energize primary voters
Running in a contentious race to keep his seat, US Sen. John Cornyn put out an ad vowing to fight “radical Islam.”
TribCast: Anti-Muslim rhetoric in Texas politics
Rep. Salman Bhojani, one of the first Muslim state legislators, joins TribCast to talk about the backlash his community has experienced in state government.
Paul Renner seeks crackdown on Muslim immigration, Sharia law
'The long-term compatibility of Islam in this country does not exist.'
Why Mamdani’s faith matters
New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani takes his Muslim identity seriously — so should we.
How Muslim Businesses in New York Prepare to Celebrate Eid
From Fordham to Bay Ridge to Hollis, Muslim businesses get ready for Eid al-Fitr, the exultant celebration marking the end of the holy month of Ramadan.
Attorney general asks if Kemi Badenoch would object to Jewish public prayer
Exclusive: Richard Hermer, who is Jewish, says Tory leader and shadow minister seem ‘to only have an issue with Muslim events’
Republicans are ramping up attacks on Muslims
Past GOP leaders, including George W. Bush, spoke out against Islamophobia. Now it is going unchallenged.
House GOP leadership silent as more members post anti-Muslim statements
A growing number of Republicans in Congress are embracing rhetoric against Muslims. Their remarks have faced little public pushback from leadership.
Multiple House Republicans post openly anti-Muslim statements
At least four House Republicans have expressed anti-Islamic sentiments on social media in the wake of the Iran War and recent violent attacks in the U.S.
In anti-Muslim post, Tuberville suggests New York’s Mamdani is ‘the enemy’
The Alabama senator, who is running for governor of his state, has previously called for the mass expulsion of Muslims from the United States.
GOP Rep. Andy Ogles sparks backlash after saying Muslims 'don't belong' in America
The Tennessee congressman previously pushed for deporting New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani, the city's first Muslim mayor.
Tennessee Republican draws criticism from Democrats for Islamophobic rant
Andy Ogles posted ‘Muslims don’t belong in American society,’ among other statements, prompting Cair to call him an ‘anti-Muslim extremist’
GOP lawmaker says Muslims 'don't belong' in US, draws harsh criticism
Rep. Andy Ogles posted the statement the same day the Department of Justice indicted two men on federal charges of attempting to support ISIS.
Anti-Muslim backlash shadows Austin after downtown shooting
After a deadly downtown shooting, Texas Muslims report fear and backlash as political rhetoric intensifies and Austin’s first Muslim city council member responds.
The science of Ramadan fasting
The month of Ramadan, which began last week, is when many Muslims around the world fast from dawn to sunset, refraining from food, drink, and other physical needs as an act of worship and self-discipline.
Iranian Americans divided in reactions to US attacks
The US launched military strikes against Iran, sparking divided reactions among Iranian Americans and Muslim groups.