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
Most Iranian Americans want diplomacy with Iran: poll
Iranian-Americans in the age of Trump, the Travel Ban, and the Threat of War

Most Iranian Americans want diplomacy with Iran: poll

QiOSK

Recent data released by the National Iranian American Council (NIAC) suggests that a strong majority of Iranian Americans support diplomacy to resolve tensions between the U.S. and Iran — a finding at odds with the dominant conversation online suggesting that most Iranian Americans are in favor of the Iran war.

The data was collected through a survey of 505 Iranian Americans conducted by Zogby Analytics between Feb. 27 and March 5. Among the most notable results were that a clear majority of Iranian Americans — 61.6% — support diplomacy to move toward de-escalation and a negotiated path forward.

keep readingShow less
Oil disruption from Iran war won’t end any time soon
REUTERS/Essam al-Sudani/File Photo

People walk near farmland by the Zubair oil field as gas flares rise in the distance, in Zubair Mishrif, Basra, Iraq, amid regional tensions following the recent disruption to shipping in the Strait of Hormuz and the U.S.-Israeli conflict with Iran, March 9, 2026.

Oil disruption from Iran war won’t end any time soon

QiOSK

The US-Israel-Iran war has led to extraordinary volatility in global energy markets this week, and there is little reason to think that it will abate any time soon.

Benchmark Brent crude, which traded below $60 per barrel early this year, jumped to $80 last Thursday. It then bounced to $120 in thin weekend markets and, as of this writing, has settled in around $92. In other words, the range of the recent oil price has been 50% of where it was a mere five days ago.

keep readingShow less
Iran school attack
Top Image Credit: March 3, 2026, Minab, Hormozgan, Iran: Iran holds a funeral ceremony for students and staff members of the Shajareh Tayyebeh girls' elementary school who were killed in a strike on the school in Minab, Hormozgan, southern Iran. On February 28, 2026, 'Operation Epic Fury,' a joint Israeli-U.S. military operation, targeted multiple locations across Iran, including a girls' school in Minab near an IRGC base. The school was hit by three missile attacks, resulting in at least 201 deaths and 747 injuries, according to the Iranian Red Crescent, though the toll remains unverified due to restricted media access in Iran. While Iran blamed the U.S. and Israel, the U.S. Central Command is investigating the incident, and Israel stated it was unaware of any operations in the area. The attacks intensified after the air strike that killed Iran's Supreme Leader Khamenei and several senior commanders. (Credit Image: © Ircs via ZUMA Press Wire) Reuters Connect

Why did mainstream media slow-walk coverage of school attack?

QiOSK

As the U.S. war with Iran rages, mainstream media’s slow response to a probable U.S. attack on an Iranian school suggests it is hesitant to report on the conflict’s growing human toll.

The attack occurred on February 28 in Minab, Iran, and killed at least 165 people — mostly school-aged children. Although the U.S. stresses it would not deliberately attack a school, subsequent investigation by American military investigators points the finger at Washington, as do remnants of a U.S.-made Tomahawk missile recovered from the site. (Only the U.S., the UK, and Australia have Tomahawk missiles.) CBS news reported that the strike on the school might have been an accident, perhaps sprung from outdated intelligence wrongly identifying it as still part of a nearby Iranian base.

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.