House approves pair of resolutions condemning antisemitic attack in Colorado
The first resolution, led by Rep. Jeff Van Drew (R-N.J.), was adopted in a 400-0-2 vote, with just Reps. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) and Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) voting 'present.' The second measure, spearheaded by Rep. Gabe Evans (R-Colo.), cleared the chamber in a 280-113-6 vote, with 113 Republicans voting 'no.'
'Antisemitic violence will not be ignored, excused, or tolerated in the United States of America,' Van Drew wrote on X after the vote.
While both measures were adopted in a bipartisan fashion, the resolution sponsored by Evans drew Democratic ire. Lawmakers were frustrated that Rep. Joe Neguse (D-Colo.), who represents Boulder, was not included as a co-sponsor of the legislation. Some also took issue with the inclusion of details about the suspect, Mohamed Sabry Soliman's, immigration status.
Evans' resolution also said the attack 'demonstrates the dangers of not removing from the country aliens who fail to comply with the terms of their visas,' leaning into the politically polarizing issue of immigration. And it 'expresses gratitude' to the Immigration and Customs Enforcement 'for protecting the homeland.'
'In times like these I would have hoped that my colleagues would be willing to come together to properly honor the victims, to condemn antisemitism as I have said and as our resolution does. It's not hard to do the right thing, Mr. Speaker,' Neguse said on the House floor. 'And the question that Mr. Evans should answer is why? Why not join his two other Republican colleagues in Colorado and join the bipartisan resolution that thanks the Boulder Police Department, that thanks the FBI? The purpose of these resolutions is to unite the congress, not divide it.'
Neguse and other members of the Colorado congressional delegation — including two Republicans — introduced their own resolution condemning the attack last week.
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) said the Evans resolution was 'not a serious effort.'
'Who is this guy? He's not seriously concerned with combating antisemitism in America,' Jeffries said. 'This is not a serious effort. This guy is going to be a one-term member of Congress. He's a complete and total embarrassment.'
Soliman was charged with 118 counts of attempted murder after he threw Molotov cocktails at a group of people who were gathered peacefully and calling for the release of Israeli hostages taken by Hamas amid the Oct. 7, 2023, attack on Israel. He was also charged with a federal hate crime after acknowledging that he planned the attack for a year and said he 'walked to kill all Zionist people.'
In a statement on X after the vote, Greene said she voted 'present' on Van Drew's resolution because Congress has not condemned hate crimes against other groups of Americans.
'Antisemitic hate crimes are wrong, but so are all hate crimes. Yet Congress never votes on hate crimes committed against white people, Christians, men, the homeless, or countless others,' Greene wrote. 'Tonight, the House passed two more antisemitism-related resolutions, the 20th and 21st I've voted on since taking office. Meanwhile, Americans from every background are being murdered — even in the womb — and Congress stays silent. We don't vote on endless resolutions defending them.'
'Prioritizing one group of Americans and/or one foreign country above our own people is fueling resentment and actually driving more division, including antisemitism,' she added. 'These crimes are horrific and easy for me to denounce. But because of the reasons I stated above, I voted present.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
22 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump can't save Olympic sports through executive order, but he can by funding them
There is probably little good that can come from President Trump's executive order on college sports given that it's legally questionable, vaguely written in terms of enforcement and an unpredictable stick of dynamite thrown into the middle of legislative movement on the current SCORE Act making its way through the House of Representatives. But rather than trying to limit by presidential edict how and what college athletes get paid, there is something Trump could do that would address one of the major concerns for his administration. Much of the executive order focuses on protecting opportunities for Olympic sport athletes. With athletic budgets getting squeezed by up to $20.5 million going directly to athletes thanks to the House vs. NCAA settlement, there's widespread fear that non-revenue programs across the country will be on the chopping block. And given the NCAA's role as the de facto development system for much of America's success at the Olympics every four years, a significantly smaller allotment of scholarships could mean both fewer educational opportunities for young people and an erosion of America's standing on the medal table. So here's a suggestion for the Trump Administration: Want to leave a legacy for Olympic sports? Use government money to fund them. Dan Wolken: Attempts to curb payments to college athletes keep failing. There's only one way forward. In nearly every country around the world except the United States of America, federal dollars are funding Olympic sports programs. But here, it's the responsibility of the U.S. Olympic and Paralympic Committee and college athletic departments. The former is funded by corporate sponsorships and private donations. The latter is funded by college football. That system, imperfect as it may be, has worked for a long time. If it doesn't work anymore because the economics of college sports have changed, then we need to tweak the system. And if international domination of swimming, track and field and gymnastics is a priority for America, then what's the problem with taxpayers having a little skin in the game? It's not as if public dollars paying for sports is a new concept in this country. You can find the evidence by driving past nearly any pro stadium or arena if you live in a major city. Surely there are some smart people who can figure out how to build a federally funded joint partnership between the USOPC, various National Governing Bodies and the NCAA that coordinates and supports elite athlete development in a handful of Olympic sports that matter most, allowing schools to focus on providing opportunities and educating those who need athletic scholarships to attend college. Admittedly, this idea is a little radical, potentially impractical and rife with unintended consequences. But one way it could work, at least in theory, is that a certain percentage of the top American recruits in the key Olympic pipeline sports would go into a recruiting pool. When they choose a school, this government-funded organization would pay for the four-year scholarship, attach an NIL payment for the athlete to represent the organization and provide a grant to the school as reimbursement for the development cost. To make it more equitable, schools would be limited to a certain number of recruits every year from that elite pool of athletes. The rest of the roster would be filled with either foreign athletes or non-elite American recruits that they must pay for themselves. One obvious criticism of this plan is that smaller schools would get squeezed out even further, given that they're more likely to have a budget crisis than a Texas or an Ohio State and less likely to recruit elite athletes. This might require the NCAA to rethink how it stratifies schools into three divisions and instead move toward a two-tiered model where you either meet certain scholarship and funding standards to be in the Olympic development division or compete in the non-Olympic division, which would functionally be more like intramural or club sports. And maybe none of this is workable. But the point is, it's time to come up with some creative, bold solutions rather than just whining about how schools can't afford to pay for their non-revenue sports anymore. For many, many years, the USOPC has gotten a free ride on the back of the NCAA system, which has only been possible because universities illegally colluded not to share revenues with the athletes that played a significant role in generating them. But the good news is, all the systems are in place to keep Team USA's supremacy intact. There has to be a way for more formal collaboration between the USOPC and the NCAA that can save scholarships, development opportunities and teams from being cut. It just needs the funding. And the federal government can make that happen. Trump can make that happen. If he wants a real and lasting legacy as a president who kept the Olympic movement stable at a time of necessary change in college sports, that's how he can do it. Not an executive order destined to be picked apart and ultimately made irrelevant. This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Donald Trump can't save Olympic sports through EO, but could do this
Yahoo
22 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Faraday Future Hosts Successful Capitol Hill Club Reception Showcasing Commitment to American Manufacturing and Innovation
WASHINGTON, July 24, 2025--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Faraday Future Intelligent Electric Inc. (NASDAQ: FFAI) ("Faraday Future", "FF" or the "Company"), a California-based global shared intelligent electric mobility ecosystem company, held a well-attended and impactful reception at the Capitol Hill Club this week, drawing over a dozen members of Congress and key stakeholders from across the policy and business landscape. The event served as a platform to highlight Faraday Future's ongoing efforts to bring advanced electric vehicle innovation and manufacturing jobs back to American soil. "We at Faraday Future have expressed our desire to play a role in the great American comeback we are seeing under this Administration, particularly as it relates to the automotive industry, which has been the bedrock of American industry for ages," said John Schilling, Global Director of Communications and Public Relations at Faraday Future. The event featured both FF's cutting-edge FF 91 2.0 electric supercar as well as its recently unveiled FX Super One MPV model. Attendees got a firsthand look at both products and experienced the technology, craftsmanship, and vision driving FF's expansion strategy. FF leadership, including FX CEO Max Ma, also met with staff at the White House earlier this week, which included an open dialogue on a number of policy topics such as tariffs, U.S. manufacturing and innovation. FF looks forward to continuing to work closely with the White House in the near future to promote the long-term prosperity of America's high-end manufacturing sector, centered around the automotive industry and its broader ecosystem. "We were extremely honored by the attendance of numerous members of Congress who were interested in both our vehicles, because who wouldn't be, but more importantly, our story about building and employing American," continued Schilling. "We're committed to expanding production here at home and look forward to working with Congress and the Trump Administration to help make that vision a reality." Faraday Future's leadership emphasized that the company is aligning with the current Administration's vision to reindustrialize America and revitalize core manufacturing sectors. With plans to increase domestic production and invest in U.S. jobs, Faraday is proud to be a part of a new chapter in American innovation. ABOUT FARADAY FUTURE Faraday Future is a California-based global shared intelligent electric mobility ecosystem company. Founded in 2014, the Company's mission is to disrupt the automotive industry by creating a user-centric, technology-first, and smart driving experience. Faraday Future's flagship model, the FF 91, exemplifies its vision for luxury, innovation, and performance. The FX strategy aims to introduce mass production models equipped with state-of-the-art luxury technology similar to the FF 91, targeting a broader market with middle-to-low price range offerings. FF is committed to redefining mobility through AI innovation. Join us in shaping the future of intelligent transportation. For more information, please visit FORWARD LOOKING STATEMENTS This press release includes "forward looking statements" within the meaning of the safe harbor provisions of the United States Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. When used in this press release, the words "plan to," "can," "will," "should," "future," "potential," and variations of these words or similar expressions (or the negative versions of such words or expressions) are intended to identify forward-looking statements. These forward-looking statements are not guarantees of future performance, conditions or results, and involve a number of known and unknown risks, uncertainties, assumptions and other important factors, many of which are outside the Company's control, that could cause actual results or outcomes to differ materially from those discussed in the forward-looking statements. Important factors, among others, that may affect actual results or outcomes include, among others: the Company's ability to secure necessary agreements to license or produce FX vehicles in the U.S., the Middle East, or elsewhere, none of which have been secured; the Company's ability to homologate FX vehicles for sale in the U.S., the Middle East, or elsewhere; the Company's ability to secure the necessary funding to execute on its AI, EREV and Faraday X (FX) strategies, each of which will be substantial; the Company's ability to secure necessary permits at its Hanford, CA production facility; the Company's ability to secure regulatory approvals for the proposed Super One front grill; the potential impact of tariff policy; the Company's ability to continue as a going concern and improve its liquidity and financial position; the Company's ability to pay its outstanding obligations; the Company's ability to remediate its material weaknesses in internal control over financial reporting and the risks related to the restatement of previously issued consolidated financial statements; the Company's limited operating history and the significant barriers to growth it faces; the Company's history of losses and expectation of continued losses; the success of the Company's payroll expense reduction plan; the Company's ability to execute on its plans to develop and market its vehicles and the timing of these development programs; the Company's estimates of the size of the markets for its vehicles and cost to bring those vehicles to market; the rate and degree of market acceptance of the Company's vehicles; the Company's ability to cover future warranty claims; the success of other competing manufacturers; the performance and security of the Company's vehicles; current and potential litigation involving the Company; the Company's ability to receive funds from, satisfy the conditions precedent of and close on the various financings described elsewhere by the Company; the result of future financing efforts, the failure of any of which could result in the Company seeking protection under the Bankruptcy Code; the Company's indebtedness; the Company's ability to cover future warranty claims; the Company's ability to use its "at-the-market" program; insurance coverage; general economic and market conditions impacting demand for the Company's products; potential negative impacts of a reverse stock split; potential cost, headcount and salary reduction actions may not be sufficient or may not achieve their expected results; circumstances outside of the Company's control, such as natural disasters, climate change, health epidemics and pandemics, terrorist attacks, and civil unrest; risks related to the Company's operations in China; the success of the Company's remedial measures taken in response to the Special Committee findings; the Company's dependence on its suppliers and contract manufacturer; the Company's ability to develop and protect its technologies; the Company's ability to protect against cybersecurity risks; and the ability of the Company to attract and retain employees, any adverse developments in existing legal proceedings or the initiation of new legal proceedings, and volatility of the Company's stock price. You should carefully consider the foregoing factors and the other risks and uncertainties described in the "Risk Factors" section of the Company's Form 10-K filed with the SEC on March 31, 2025, and other documents filed by the Company from time to time with the SEC. View source version on Contacts Investors (English): ir@ Investors (Chinese): cn-ir@ Media:
USA Today
23 minutes ago
- USA Today
Trump can't save Olympic sports through executive order, but he can by funding them
There is probably little good that can come from President Trump's executive order on college sports given that it's legally questionable, vaguely written in terms of enforcement and an unpredictable stick of dynamite thrown into the middle of legislative movement on the current SCORE Act making its way through the House of Representatives. But rather than trying to limit by presidential edict how and what college athletes get paid, there is something Trump could do that would address one of the major concerns for his administration. Much of the executive order focuses on protecting opportunities for Olympic sport athletes. With athletic budgets getting squeezed by up to $20.5 million going directly to athletes thanks to the House vs. NCAA settlement, there's widespread fear that non-revenue programs across the country will be on the chopping block. And given the NCAA's role as the de facto development system for much of America's success at the Olympics every four years, a significantly smaller allotment of scholarships could mean both fewer educational opportunities for young people and an erosion of America's standing on the medal table. So here's a suggestion for the Trump Administration: Want to leave a legacy for Olympic sports? Use government money to fund them. Dan Wolken: Attempts to curb payments to college athletes keep failing. There's only one way forward. In nearly every country around the world except the United States of America, federal dollars are funding Olympic sports programs. But here, it's the responsibility of the U.S. Olympic and Paralympic Committee and college athletic departments. The former is funded by corporate sponsorships and private donations. The latter is funded by college football. That system, imperfect as it may be, has worked for a long time. If it doesn't work anymore because the economics of college sports have changed, then we need to tweak the system. And if international domination of swimming, track and field and gymnastics is a priority for America, then what's the problem with taxpayers having a little skin in the game? It's not as if public dollars paying for sports is a new concept in this country. You can find the evidence by driving past nearly any pro stadium or arena if you live in a major city. Surely there are some smart people who can figure out how to build a federally funded joint partnership between the USOPC, various National Governing Bodies and the NCAA that coordinates and supports elite athlete development in a handful of Olympic sports that matter most, allowing schools to focus on providing opportunities and educating those who need athletic scholarships to attend college. Admittedly, this idea is a little radical, potentially impractical and rife with unintended consequences. But one way it could work, at least in theory, is that a certain percentage of the top American recruits in the key Olympic pipeline sports would go into a recruiting pool. When they choose a school, this government-funded organization would pay for the four-year scholarship, attach an NIL payment for the athlete to represent the organization and provide a grant to the school as reimbursement for the development cost. To make it more equitable, schools would be limited to a certain number of recruits every year from that elite pool of athletes. The rest of the roster would be filled with either foreign athletes or non-elite American recruits that they must pay for themselves. One obvious criticism of this plan is that smaller schools would get squeezed out even further, given that they're more likely to have a budget crisis than a Texas or an Ohio State and less likely to recruit elite athletes. This might require the NCAA to rethink how it stratifies schools into three divisions and instead move toward a two-tiered model where you either meet certain scholarship and funding standards to be in the Olympic development division or compete in the non-Olympic division, which would functionally be more like intramural or club sports. And maybe none of this is workable. But the point is, it's time to come up with some creative, bold solutions rather than just whining about how schools can't afford to pay for their non-revenue sports anymore. For many, many years, the USOPC has gotten a free ride on the back of the NCAA system, which has only been possible because universities illegally colluded not to share revenues with the athletes that played a significant role in generating them. But the good news is, all the systems are in place to keep Team USA's supremacy intact. There has to be a way for more formal collaboration between the USOPC and the NCAA that can save scholarships, development opportunities and teams from being cut. It just needs the funding. And the federal government can make that happen. Trump can make that happen. If he wants a real and lasting legacy as a president who kept the Olympic movement stable at a time of necessary change in college sports, that's how he can do it. Not an executive order destined to be picked apart and ultimately made irrelevant.
