Kansas community holds private memorial for Israeli Embassy staffer killed in DC ambush
Family and friends of Sarah Milgrim, one of two Israeli Embassy staffers fatally shot last week in an apparently politically motivated ambush in Washington, D.C., gathered for her funeral Tuesday in the Kansas community where she grew up.
Milgrim, a 26-year-old from the Kansas City suburb of Prairie Village, Kansas, was leaving a reception for young diplomats at the Capital Jewish Museum alongside 30-year-old Yaron Lischinsky on May 21 when they were shot to death. A suspect, 31-year-old Elias Rodriguez, was arrested and shouted 'Free Palestine' as he was led away. Charging documents said he later told police, 'I did it for Palestine, I did it for Gaza.'
Lischinsky had bought an engagement ring before the shooting and was planning to propose to Milgrim in the coming days, those who knew the couple have said.
Instead of an upcoming wedding, those close to Milgrim prepared to eulogize her at a private service Tuesday at Congregation Beth Torah in Overland Park, Kansas, the temple she attended through high school with her family.
Milgrim earned a bachelor's degree in environmental studies from the University of Kansas in 2021. She was remembered as a warm, uplifting presence at Shabbat dinners and holiday gatherings at the Chabad Center for Jewish Life on campus.
'She believed in connections, in building community and bringing people together,' Rabbi Zalman Tiechtel said in the days after her death. He also recalled that she 'was filled with so much love.'
After graduating, Milgrim worked at at a Tel Aviv-based organization centered on technology training and conflict dialogue for young Palestinians and Israelis, according to her LinkedIn profile. She had been trained in religious engagement and peacebuilding by the United States Institute of Peace, an organization that promotes conflict resolution and was created by the U.S. Congress.
After earning a master's degree in international affairs from American University in 2023, she went to work at the Israeli Embassy, where her job involved organizing events and missions to Israel.
A vigil held in her hometown last week drew a standing-room only crowd, including her college roommate, Amanda Birger. Birger described Milgrim as an animal lover and a passionate advocate for the environment.
'She was very tactful about how she used her voice, which sometimes came off as cautious,' Birger said. 'But when it looked like she wasn't speaking up, it's because she was trying to keep the peace.'
Milgrim would have been teenager when her Kansas community was rocked by another deadly antisemitic attack in 2014. Frazier Glenn Miller Jr., an avowed anti-Semite and white supremacist, fatally shot three people at two Jewish sites in Overland Park in April of that year. At his trial, Miller openly stated that he targeted Jews for death — though none of his victims were Jewish. Miller was convicted in August 2015 and later sentenced to death.
Sheila Katz, CEO of the National Council of Jewish Women, lauded Milgrim as a point person for her organization with women's groups, LGBTQ communities and multi-faith groups.
'She accomplished so much in her short life, and she deserves to be remembered for all the things she brought to this world,' she said.
Before her work at the embassy, Milgrim was studying whether friendships between Arabs and Israelis could promote peace, Katz said.
'We knew something like this could happen,' she said. 'I just don't think we thought it would happen to her.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
37 minutes ago
- Yahoo
She got into 5 colleges with mom's help. Now, who decides?
From Gayatri Patil's point of view, it wasn't an option for her daughter to attend college outside Arizona. The teenager, Mikiha Gadagkar, 17, had a different idea. Gadagkar spent her teenage years in Phoenix earning a 4.0 grade point average and loaded up on extracurricular activities, including speech, debate and photography. She wanted to make herself attractive for highly ranked economics and political science college programs – both near and far from home. Is college worth it? Here are the majors college grads say they regret the most The hard work paid off when she got into five schools, including Arizona State and the University of Virginia. And so began the tense conversation that rattles so many American households after the initial celebration of college acceptance letters: Who decides which college the student will attend? Get ready for frustration and emotional blackmail. More: Kids are ditching traditional college for career tech programs. Parents are concerned. Gadagkar told her mom she wanted to attend a college near Washington D.C. She wanted a"change of pace" and a new environment with opportunities to attend law school. But Arizona State University was still her mother's top choice. "I want her to stay close," she said. "I tried emotionally blackmailing her, saying 'I'll give you home cooked food, drive you and do your laundry' during the time of her acceptances." The family's discussions illuminate the tense and uncomfortable conversations that can arise when parents want a say in where their kids go to college. The Arizona family's story is one Matthew Riley's heard before. Often, wealthy parents pay Riley, a director and senior admissions consultant at Ivy Academic Prep, to help guide their kids when applying for college. They come from two types of families: One set of parents allows their kids to take the lead on where they attend college. Those families are better at acknowledging that it is the student's life and ultimately their decision, he said. The other type is more strict. They are "controlling helicopter types" who tell their children they must apply to a certain college or pursue a certain degree, he said. "They usually say 'You will study computer science and will apply to five or 10 schools," he said. "Those are always rough to see. Sometimes students say 'Ok, my parents understand me' and sometimes it's a bad ending.' It can get ugly." Sometimes those disagreements are harmful to a young person's well being, he said. He recalled a case from last year. The student wanted to to get a degree in business or political science at George Washington University or American University, but his parents insisted he attend a university with a prominent tech program, he said. "He was passionate about government and interned with the state representative in his home state." he said. "But his parents said 'No, we're computer scientists and programmers who work for a big corporation, and you will do the same.'" That student succumbed to his parent's wishes. But during his first year, he "felt out of control" and experienced anxiety and depression, Riley said. Is college worth it? Americans say they value higher education, but it's too expensive for many Parents who work in technology, engineering or medical fields are more likely to want to pressure their kids into a certain school "in hopes for them to follow in their footsteps," he said. "The parents are affluent, both are professionals, both are educated and they control the finances," he said. Traci Lowenthal, a licensed clinical psychologist, helps guide families through conversations about college. "There's a fine line between having these thoughtful and open conversations and creating pressure," she said. Creating realistic expectations and timing is important to avoid putting feelings of pressure on a child, she said. They should discuss whether a family can afford college and if the young person will have to fund school themselves with loans. And they should decide together whether a student can live with independence across the country or if they are better suited staying near home. Often, parents and students open up about their real feelings about college after it's too late and the student has been shoehorned into a school that's not right for them, Lowenthal said. Or parents reveal uncomfortable financial realities after a student has set their sights on a school they can't afford. That can cause a rift. But they can be avoided. Families should discuss college options during a high schooler's freshman and sophomore years when "tensions aren't already high," Lowenthal said. Earlier conversations offer young people a head's-up about their options, family finances and parental expectations − before they start applying to schools. It can help to alleviate potential feelings of disappointment or betrayal. "Sometimes I see a student get into an amazing school and there's literally no way they can go," she said. "So in the midst of getting rejections and acceptances, the parent tells them they can't go and the student asks: How come you kept this from me?" She encourages students to do their own research to share with their parents. "It's tough. Because if your parent is like 'You have to go to my alma mater or this prestigious school,' the student has to find a way to be really honest about that and say, 'I know this is a great school, but I think this would be a better fit," she said. Lowenthal advises parents to consider the needs and desires of their child ahead of their own. "It's really hard to not want them to do what they want you to do," she said. "But this is a unique individual and not an extension of us as people." One of the arguments Gadagkar used in trying to win her mom over to the University of Virginia was telling her how high school counselors had shown which programs might best align with her career ambitions. After learning she had guidance from other adults, Patil decided to hear her daughter out. More: Have student loans? This part of the Trump tax bill won't apply to you "My mom really let me take the lead in those conversations," Gadagkar said. "It was more of me saying, kind of, how I felt and her giving her thoughts on those. I'm really grateful for that because it made it a lot less stressful." But Patil was still not fully convinced Virginia was the right option. "I studied in India, so the process here was very new to me," she said. Gadagkar ultimately decided to attend her mother's first pick, Arizona State University, two hours from home. The teen received a scholarship that made ASU more affordable than the University of Virginia. And she'll be able to pursue economics and political science while honoring her mother's wishes. But she still thinks about what moving to Virginia would have been like. "It's definitely a change of pace since this entire year I had developed a mindset that I was going out of state," she said. "This is not what I necessarily expected. But after attending orientation, I'm feeling good." Patil, her mother, is elated Mikiha will be nearby. But she said she had warmed to the idea of sending Mikiha to the East Coast − if the option had been affordable. "I think we are happy with this decision," Patil said. Contact Kayla Jimenez at kjimenez@ Follow her on X at @kaylajjimenez. This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: She got into 5 colleges. Does teen or mom decide?
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Trump's Deportation Goals Are Unrealistic
The Atlantic Daily, a newsletter that guides you through the biggest stories of the day, helps you discover new ideas, and recommends the best in culture. Sign up for it here. This is an edition of The Atlantic Daily, a newsletter that guides you through the biggest stories of the day, helps you discover new ideas, and recommends the best in culture. Sign up for it here. In March, President Donald Trump was preparing to invoke the Alien Enemies Act to deport noncitizens. This use of the law, which was passed in 1798 and previously used to intern Japanese Americans during World War II, was unprecedented, and Emil Bove III, a top Justice Department official, was concerned that it was illegal. To be clear, Bove wasn't troubled that the administration might be breaking the law; rather, according to a new whistleblower complaint, he was concerned that the courts might try to block removals. In that case, 'DOJ would need to consider telling the courts 'fuck you' and ignore any such court order,' Bove said, according to the document. The complaint was made by Erez Reuveni, a fired DOJ lawyer, and first reported by The New York Times this week. The administration says that his allegations are falsehoods from a disgruntled former employee, but this is difficult to credit. A career lawyer, he was promoted by the Trump DOJ but says he was fired after he acknowledged in court that the deportation of Kilmar Abrego Garcia was an administrative error and refused to accuse him of being a terrorist. The complaint details Reuveni's 'attempts over the course of three weeks and affecting three separate cases to secure the government's compliance with court orders, and his resistance to the internal efforts of DOJ and White House leadership to defy them.' It also suggests that Reuveni has emails and texts to back up many of his claims. A top Justice Department official allegedly conspiring to defy court orders would be very dangerous; what makes it darkly amusing, too, is that senators are this week considering Bove's nomination to the federal bench that, according to Reuveni, he wanted to ignore. This led to a sharp exchange in a committee hearing yesterday between Bove and Democratic Senator Adam Schiff, two veteran federal prosecutors, in which Bove repeatedly insisted that he did not 'recall' making the comments that Reuveni alleged. 'Did you say anything of that kind in the meeting?' Schiff asked. 'Senator, I have no recollection of saying anything of that kind,' Bove said. 'Wouldn't you recall, Mr. Bove, if you said or suggested during a meeting with Justice Department lawyers maybe they should consider telling the court, 'Fuck you'?' Schiff replied. 'It seems to me that would be something you'd remember—unless that's the kind of thing you say frequently.' Because no Republicans have yet come out against Bove's nomination to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, he's likely to win confirmation. (By way of reminder, Bove got here by serving as one of Trump's personal lawyers in some of his many criminal cases.) This presents the grim parlor question of whether it's better to have Bove in a lifetime appointment on the bench, where his opinions can be appealed, or at the Justice Department, where he's reportedly been a one-man wrecking crew. The allegations against Bove are what my former colleague James Fallows took to describing during the first Trump administration as shocking but not surprising. Trump himself has said repeatedly that he will abide by court orders, but his deputies have been less circumspect, especially Vice President J. D. Vance, who is a lawyer, and the former DOGE leader and current Trump frenemy Elon Musk. Outside observers, including me, have fretted over what will happen if the White House actually crosses the rubicon of defiance. This is arguably beside the point. Even though the Trump administration continues to deny that it has refused to obey court orders, the reality is that it has already done so. Judge James Boasberg said in April that he'd concluded that probable cause existed to find the administration in contempt of court for removing certain Venezuelan immigrants. (An appeals court has temporarily stayed proceedings on the contempt charge.) In another instance, last month, the administration deported a Salvadoran man despite a court order forbidding it, then blamed 'a confluence of administrative errors.' (These errors seem to be a consistent issue for this presidency!) The administration also insisted in a court filing that Abrego Garcia simply could not be returned as ordered, because the United States 'does not have authority to forcibly extract an alien from the domestic custody of a foreign sovereign nation.' The DOJ proved that false not long afterward, when it brought Abrego Garcia back to the U.S. to face charges. In a bizarre move this week, the administration sued every federal judge in Maryland—an attempt to evade an order that bans the government from immediately deporting migrants who are challenging their removal. The fights with courts are ironic, because although Trump has fared poorly in lower courts, the Supreme Court has been willing to let him expand his powers once cases reach it. As Reuters reported earlier this month, the justices, using what's known as the 'shadow docket,' have repeatedly granted emergency requests to proceed, pending full consideration. This week, the Court temporarily lifted an order preventing the executive branch from quickly deporting migrants to countries to which they have no ties. The White House has been seeking to send people—including Laotian, Vietnamese, and Filipino nationals—to extremely perilous countries such as Libya and South Sudan. This would be callous and morally abhorrent under any circumstances, but given the notable cases of the Trump administration deporting people who are legally protected, including Abrego Garcia, it is especially terrifying. The desperation to sidestep court restrictions on deportations is evidence of the shortcomings of the White House's plans. Trump aims to remove 1 million people this year, but as my colleague Nick Miroff reported yesterday, ICE statistics show that the agency has carried out only about 125,000 deportations since Trump took office, with roughly half the year gone. But as Reuveni's story suggests, in this administration, to be honest is to risk being fired. Attacking the courts is much easier than admitting that the president's signature promise is unrealistic. Related: The self-deportation psyop Trump's legal strategy has a name. Here are three new stories from The Atlantic: Tom Nichols on the president's weapon Humanity is playing nuclear roulette, Jeffrey Goldberg argues. Three ways to find purpose and meaning in a job Today's News The Senate parliamentarian advised rejecting some Medicaid changes that would offset the costs of other key policies in President Donald Trump's tax bill. Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said that Iran's strike on a U.S. base in Qatar was a 'slap to America's face'; he also warned against further U.S. attacks on Iran. A new Supreme Court decision allows states to cut off Medicaid funding for Planned Parenthood. Dispatches Time-Travel Thursdays: Isabel Fattal on how sleeping less became an American value. Explore all of our newsletters here. Evening Read The Blockbuster That Captured a Growing American Rift By Tyler Austin Harper In a cramped, $50-a-month room above a New Jersey furnace-supply company, Peter Benchley set to work on what he once said, half-jokingly, might be 'a Ulysses for the 1970s.' A novel resulted from these efforts, one Benchley considered titling The Edge of Gloom or Infinite Evil before deciding on the less dramatic but more fitting Jaws. Its plot is exquisite in its simplicity. A shark menaces Amity, a fictional, gentrifying East Coast fishing village. Chaos ensues: People are eaten … In June 1975, 50 years ago this month, the movie version of Jaws was released in theaters and became the first-ever summer blockbuster. Though the film retains Benchley's basic storyline—shark eats people; shark dies a bloody death—it turns the book's politics upside down. Read the full article. More From The Atlantic Ahmed Fouad Alkhatib: Pro-Palestine activists fell for Iran's propaganda. Alexandra Petri: Pete Hegseth's guide to war Radio Atlantic: What does Khamenei do now? Culture Break Watch. Thank God for The Bear. Season 4 of the show (streaming on Hulu) is exactly what it—and we—needed, Sophie Gilbert writes. Lean on me. In everyday life, many people are reluctant to ask for and offer help. But milestones such as weddings lower the barriers to relying on other people, Julie Beck writes. Play our daily crossword. Stephanie Bai contributed to this newsletter. When you buy a book using a link in this newsletter, we receive a commission. Thank you for supporting The Atlantic. Article originally published at The Atlantic
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
A shadow Fed chief could lead to a ‘revolt' on the FOMC against Powell's successor, former vice chair warns
Former Federal Reserve Vice Chair Alan Blinder said naming a so-called shadow Fed chief well before Jerome Powell's term is up would sow confusion in financial markets and even set up a potential revolt against the eventual chair. Wall Street analysts also it is a self-defeating idea that would sink the U.S. dollar and Treasury bonds. Naming a so-called shadow chair for the Federal Reserve well before Jerome Powell is due to step down as the top central banker could blow up spectacularly. President Donald Trump said earlier this month his pick to replace Powell is coming 'very soon,' and on Friday even vowed to tap someone who will do what he has been pressuring the Fed to do for months. 'If I think somebody's going to keep the rates where they are or whatever, I'm not going to put them in,' Trump said. 'I'm going to put somebody that wants to cut rates.' That's after repeated insults and name-calling directed at Powell, who has held off on lowering rates, citing the resilient economy and the risk that Trump's own tariffs could reaccelerate inflation. Powell's term as chair expires in May 2026, and the typical transition to a new one is about three to four months, meaning a replacement pick would be named as soon as January under normal circumstances. By naming a new chair well before that, the nominee could in theory jawbone markets into easing financial conditions, such as lowering bond yields, before taking office and undermine Powell's messaging in his final months. But in practice, the result could be chaos. Princeton professor Alan Blinder, who served as the Fed's vice chair in the 1990s, told CNN that a shadow chair is 'an absolutely horrible idea' because markets would have to sort through potentially very different stances at the same time. 'If they're not singing from the same playbook, which seems likely, this is just going to cause confusion in markets,' he warned. Similarly, Michael Brown, senior research strategist at Pepperstone, said in a note that a shadow chair would be self-defeating and create 'chaotic policy rhetoric, thus further weakening policy transmission.' And the perception of greater political influence over the Fed is likely to result in accelerated outflows from both the U.S. dollar and Treasury bonds, pushing yields and other borrowing costs higher. 'Lastly, and probably of most annoyance for Trump, is that all of this nonsense actually makes the bar for the Fed to deliver a rate cut even higher, given mounting external pressure, and a desire to preserve policy independence,' Brown added. Fed officials make a point of sticking to central banking and not opining on politics, White House policies, or bills in Congress. On the flip side, they carefully guard the Fed's reputation for being independent from political pressure. Blinder flagged the risk that a shadow Fed chair would set up a big showdown in the usually consensus-driven Federal Open Market Committee, which sets rates. 'If he or she contradicts what Powell is saying, that will aggravate the FOMC, almost all of whose members will still be there when the new chair takes over,' he explained to CNN. 'It opens the door to an open or silent revolt against the chair, which is a rare thing in Fed history.' A schism is already emerging at the Fed. Trump-appointed governors Christopher Waller and Michelle Bowman have said a rate cut in July could be justified, while Powell and other policymakers have said more months of data are necessary to make such a call. Meanwhile, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent downplayed the idea of a shadow Fed chair in an interview on CNBC on Friday, but also pointed out that Adriana Kugler's term as Fed governor expires in early 2026. 'So there is a chance that the person who is going to become the chair could be appointed in January, which would probably mean an October, November nomination,' he said. This story was originally featured on Sign in to access your portfolio
