Follow us on social

google cta
Shutterstock_2108197583-scaled

When it comes to foreign policy, Hakeem Jeffries will bring more of the same

Despite his trail-blazing role as the first Black leader of a major party’s caucus, Jeffries’ foreign-policy views don’t veer from the status quo.

Reporting | North America
google cta
google cta

On Wednesday, House Democrats unanimously elected Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) to serve as their party’s new leader following Rep. Nancy Pelosi’s (D-Calif.) recent decision to step down from her leadership role.

Jeffries, who served as an impeachment manager for House Democrats in former President Donald Trump’s second Senate trial, is widely expected to follow in Pelosi’s centrist footsteps. Though he has stayed relatively quiet about his policy views during his decade in Congress, his election will likely draw blowback from progressive activists given his role in founding Team Blue PAC, an election fund aimed at blocking progressive primary challenges of centrist Democrats.

Jeffries has never given much attention to foreign policy, but available evidence suggests that his views line up closely with those of other establishment Democrats.

When it comes to Ukraine, the lawmaker has called on President Joe Biden to emphasize that “this is really a battle between democracy and autocracy, between freedom and repressive government.”

“An attack on any democracy is an attack on every democracy,” he tweeted shortly after Russia’s invasion in February.

He has even expressed sympathy for the idea of establishing a NATO-enforced no-fly zone in Ukraine, arguing in March that such a move wasn’t “off the table” despite the fact that it would likely involve direct combat between U.S. and Russian forces.

Jeffries has rarely weighed in on issues related to defense spending. However, it is worth noting that he voted in favor of a $740 billion defense bill in 2020, a proposal that received a “no” vote from all nine other members of New York City’s congressional delegation.

Despite his generally hawkish views, Jeffries has sided with progressives and anti-war advocates on a few issues, including a vote to require congressional authorization for the U.S. military mission in Syria. As Erik Sperling of Just Foreign Policy noted on Twitter, Jeffries also signed onto a congressional letter last year in which progressive lawmakers called for a review of the humanitarian impact of American sanctions.

As for the war in Yemen, the Brooklyn-based lawmaker voted in favor of the 2019 War Powers Resolution that would have forced the United States to withdraw its support for Saudi Arabia’s devastating campaign against the Houthi-led insurgency. (Trump quickly vetoed the measure, which never earned enough support in Congress to overturn the block.)

Notably, Jeffries supported the Israel Anti-Boycott Act, a measure that would criminalize efforts to boycott Israeli goods in protest of Tel Aviv’s treatment of Palestinians, which critics say violates the First Amendment. In his most recent election, he received more than $270,000 in donations from hawkish pro-Israel groups, including AIPAC.

He has also rankled progressives with his steadfast support for Israeli military operations. When Tel Aviv launched an attack on Gaza in 2014, Jeffries applauded the move, likening Israel’s situation to living in a dangerous city.

“But when you live in a tough neighborhood Israel should not be made to apologize for its strength,” he wrote in a statement. “You know why? Because the only thing that neighbors respect in a tough neighborhood is strength.”

Despite his emphatic support for Israel, Jeffries broke with Tel Aviv in 2015 by supporting the Iran nuclear deal, arguing that the agreement is the “most preferable vehicle to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon.”

Notably, the centrist congressman has said little about the brewing cold war between the United States and China. He did, however, support the CHIPS Act, which will provide over $50 billion in funding aimed at developing the U.S. semiconductor industry in an effort to compete with Chinese manufacturers.

Updated with additional details at 11:05 a.m. on December 1.


Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.). (Shutterstock/ Lev Radin)
google cta
Reporting | North America
Did the US only attack Iran because of Israel?
Top image credit: President Donald J. Trump holds a joint news conference at the White House with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Feb. 4, 2025. (Shutterstock/ Joshua Sukoff)

Did the US only attack Iran because of Israel?

QiOSK

In the months that led up to the Iraq War, the Bush administration went to extraordinary lengths to convince the world of the need to oust Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein. Leading officials laid out their case in public, sharing what they claimed was evidence that Iraq was moving rapidly toward the deployment of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. When U.S. tanks rolled across the border, everyone knew the justification: the U.S. was determined to thwart Iraq’s development of weapons of mass destruction, however fictitious that threat would later prove to be.

In the months that led up to the Iran War, the Trump administration took a different tack. President Trump spoke only occasionally of Iran, offering a smattering of justifications for growing U.S. tensions with the country. He claimed without evidence that Iran was rebuilding its nuclear program after the U.S.-Israeli attack last June and even developing missiles that could strike the United States. But he insisted that Tehran could make a deal with seven magic words: “we will never have a nuclear weapon.”

keep readingShow less
Starmer Macron Merz
Top image credit: France's President Emmanuel Macron, Britain's Prime Minister Keir Starmer and Germany's Chancellor Friedrich Merz arrive at Kyiv railway station on May 10, 2025, ahead of a gathering of European leaders in the Ukrainian capital. LUDOVIC MARIN/Pool via REUTERS
Europe's snapback gamble risks killing diplomacy with Iran

Craven Europeans give US and Israel a blank check for illegal war

Middle East

In the aftermath of the new U.S. and Israeli strikes on Iran, the transatlantic alliance has offered a response that confirmed what many both in the West and outside knew all along: that for London, Paris, Berlin, and Brussels, the "rules-based international order" has been reduced to a simple, brutal premise: might makes right, provided the might is Western.

The joint statement from the E3 — France, Germany, and the United Kingdom — is a master class in evasion. "We did not participate in these strikes, but are in close contact with our international partners, including the United States and Israel," they declared. The text also lists all the references and rationalizations used by Iran hawks — “nuclear program, ballistic missile program, regional destabilization and repression against its own people.”

keep readingShow less
Trump Iran
Top image credit: Hundreds of people attend a pro-democracy demonstration against U.S. President Donald Trump in Washington, D.C., U.S., on February 28, 2026. Demonstrators cited a number of reasons for their opposition to Trump, including his involvement with sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein, ICE raids, authoritarian policies, and today’s bombing of Iran. (Photo by Allison Bailey/NurPhoto) via REUTERS CONNECT

How does this war with Iran end? Or does it?

QiOSK

Now that President Trump has launched an illegal, unprovoked war of choice on Iran, the next question inevitably becomes: how does this end? Or, what are some off ramps Trump can take to end it before the situation turns out of control?

There are three broad scenarios; the first and most likely is that Trump continues this until he gets some sort of regime implosion and then declares victory, while also washing his hands of whatever follows.

keep readingShow less
google cta
Want more of our stories on Google?
Click here to make us a Preferred Source.

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.