On July 22, an Interim Staff Report on President Biden’s FBI Catholic spy ring was released by House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan. Some of the new information is distressing.

The FBI began its Catholic spy ring by focusing on “radical-traditionalist Catholics,” but it didn’t end there. Amazingly, according to the FBI’s own internal review of this matter, “investigators found that many FBI employees could not even define the meaning of ‘radical-traditionalist Catholic’ when preparing, editing, or reviewing” the Richmond Field office memo that okayed the probe.

FBI operatives went beyond these “rad-trads” by categorizing “certain Catholic Americans as potential domestic terrorists.” They came to this absurd conclusion based on articles their employees read. “How Extremist Gun Culture is Trying to Co-opt the Rosary” is one of the gems they named as evidence of the nefarious Catholic agenda.

If there is one Catholic group that the FBI thought was emblematic of very conservative Catholics, it is the Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX). This was not a good choice—they are not in full communion with the Catholic Church. This is a break-away association of Catholics founded in 1970 who were upset with the reforms of Vatican II in the 1960s. They were once excommunicated, then reinstated, but are still one step removed from being an authentic part of the Catholic Church.

The FBI’s focus on SSPX and the “rad-trads” was a pretext to opening the door to a much wider investigation of practicing Catholics, most of whom tend to be more conservative than non-practicing Catholics.

As an example of this mad search for wrongdoing, the FBI investigated Catholics who evinced “hostility toward abortion-rights advocates.” In other words, Catholic activists who exercised fidelity to Church teachings on abortion—they are called pro-life Catholics—were considered a domestic threat by the FBI. Similarly, those who espoused “Conservative family values/roles” were labeled “radical.”

It was not dissident Catholics the FBI was concerned about, it was the loyal sons and daughters of the Church. How strange it is to note that at least some dissident Catholics, and some FBI agents, were both seeking to subvert the Catholic Church.

It is not just the profile of Catholics whom the FBI was examining that was a problem—it was the scope of its investigations. It started in Richmond, then spread to Louisville, Milwaukee and Portland. Its reach even extended overseas—the FBI’s London Office was involved.

The ultimate goal was to have a “national application” of its investigatory measures.

Under Biden, the FBI engaged in one of the most despicable violations of civil liberties of innocent Americans we’ve seen in modern times.

A young good-looking star, Sydney Sweeney, managed to set off a firestorm of criticism over the summer with an American Eagle ad.

A video of the ad said, “Sydney Sweeney has great genes.” She was shown crossing out “genes,” inserting “jeans.” She opined, “Genes are passed down from parents to offspring, often determining traits like hair color, personality and even eye color.”

She hit the Left’s hot button. The very word “genes” was enough to ignite charges of eugenics. Moreover, her critics took note that she is a blue-eyed blond white woman, as if that is a bad thing. Ironically, it is those in left-wing circles who pioneered eugenics.

Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, was one of the great eugenicists of the twentieth century. She believed that the best way to get rid of poverty was to get rid of the poor, especially blacks. This was the motivation behind her birth control agenda.

The Left hates the word “genes” because it reminds them of the role nature plays in directing human behavior. That bothers them. Their quest for social engineering is predicated on the idea that by manipulating the environment, we can determine behavioral outcomes. Nature gets in the way of their grand totalitarian design.

American Eagle did not buckle, sending its sales and stock soaring, thanks to the humorless woke mob. Congratulations to Sydney Sweeney for braving the storm, and to American Eagle for doubling down.

William A. Donohue

The Catholic League welcomes the announcement that the IRS has altered its policy on non-profit organizations and their participation in political campaigns. We know from our own experience that the 1954 stricture, known as the Johnson Amendment, prohibiting 501 (c) (3) organizations from campaign activity, is both rife for mischief and impractical. But the changes will not have any substantial impact on the way we have been operating for decades.

On July 7, the National Religious Broadcasters, an association of Christian communications, and the IRS reached a settlement regarding their dispute over the IRS’s authority to stifle the political speech of religious non-profits.

“When a house of worship in good faith speaks to its congregation, through its customary channels of communication on matters of faith in connection with religious services, concerning electoral politics viewed through the lens of religious faith, it neither ‘participate(s)’ nor ‘intervenes’ in a ‘political campaign,’ within the ordinary meaning of those words.”

The motion said “this interpretation of the Johnson Amendment is in keeping with the IRS’s treatment of the Johnson Amendment in practice.”

That conclusion is way too generous. The IRS did in fact break new ground with its settlement agreement. Here’s the evidence.

Just weeks after Barack Obama was elected president in 2008, I was notified by the IRS that the Catholic League was under investigation for violating the IRS Code on political activities as it relates to 501 (c) (3) organizations. What the IRS did not realize is that I knew who triggered the investigation: Catholics United (now defunct), a George Soros-funded phony Catholic organization. We know it was a dummy Catholic group because of the 2016 Wikileaks files on John Podesta (former chief of staff for President Bill Clinton and chairman of Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign). He admitted to doing this.

When I received the November 24, 2008 IRS letter notifying me of a probe, I recognized how strikingly similar it was to a leaked copy of the Catholics United complaint. Just before I was scheduled to go on CNN on October 23 (three days after I wrote a news release, “George Soros Funds Catholic Left”), a CNN staffer leaked the complaint to me. She did so because the head of Catholics United, Chris Korzen, tried to stop me from being interviewed—he suggested that one of his allies take my place, claiming I was not “an authentic Catholic commentator.” CNN knew better and I went on TV that night.

The “evidence” against me was nothing more than news releases and reports that I had written during the presidential campaign on various issues. In other words, the IRS would not have taken action against the Catholic League if it were faithful to the rules that it now claims were always operative. In short, the new wording is welcome precisely because it alters its long-standing policy on religious non-profits.

What we went through—it lasted for about a year and a half before we were given a slap on the wrist—proves what I said about the IRS rule being rife for mischief: It allowed the Soros-funded “Catholic” group to persuade the IRS to start its investigation.

Another example of the mischief that the initial rule entailed was the disparate treatment given to African American churches. Not a campaign season goes by without political candidates speaking at black churches. In some cases, they have been endorsed by pastors; there are instances when  collections have been taken up for them. If this happened at a Catholic church, the whole world would know about it.

I also said this stricture was impractical. What made it impractical was the enforcement mechanism.

How can a religious non-profit like the Catholic League be expected to combat anti-Catholicism, and fight for religious liberty, without addressing political figures who are responsible for these matters? We have a First Amendment right to freedom of religion and freedom of speech, so any encroachment on those rights is unconstitutional.

The IRS concluded that although the Catholic League had “intervened in a political campaign,” it was “unintentional, isolated, non-egregious and non-recurring,” and therefore our tax exempt status remained in tact. I told the IRS agent who contacted me that they were twice wrong: (a) we did not intervene in a political campaign and (b) what we did was intentional. Therefore, I said, we were not going to change course.

It is now indisputable: the Catholic League did not change—the IRS did.

We will continue to address policy issues that arise during a political campaign that are of interest to our mission. While we have no plans to endorse candidates for public office, we will not hesitate to call out candidates who trespass on religious liberty. Quite frankly, once either the Republicans or the Democrats think they own you, they are free to throw you to the curb. We are happily independent.

So while we will not substantially change our stance, we are glad to know that we won’t have the IRS looking over our shoulder for simply doing our job.

Young Muslim radicals running for mayor in big cities are the talk of the town in left-wing circles, and within the Democratic Party. Leftwing activists are thrilled by the news, but Democrats are split: some hope the two extremists win, but more moderate Democrats are afraid this will turn off most Americans, making it hard to win elections in the future.

New York State Assemblyman Zohran Mamdani is ahead in the polls in the New York City mayoral race, and Minnesota State Senator Omar Fateh is the one to beat in the race for mayor of Minneapolis. Both call themselves democratic socialists, and both are highly critical of the human rights record of the United States. Yet neither says a word about the human rights record of their African ancestors.

Mamdani

Mamdani was born in Uganda to Indian parents. He refuses to condemn the phrase “globalize the intifada,” which is understood as a call for an uprising against the supporters of Israel. He says, “That’s not language that I use.” But his supporters do, and he will not call them out for doing so. He says he believes in “universal human rights,” though his record does not show it.

In March 2025, Mamdani responded to the arrest of Mahmoud Khalil, the Columbia University student and Palestinian activist who was arrested by ICE officers on March 8. He said Khalil’s arrest “is a blatant assault on the First Amendment and a sign of advancing authoritarianism under Trump.”

In 2021, Mamdani said that his answer to the homeless is to jettison the practice of “people access housing by purchasing it on the market and toward a future where we guarantee high quality housing to all as a human right.”

In a 2020 tweet marking Pride Month, Mamdani criticized the socalled human rights struggles faced by those in the LGBT community. He said that “it’s more important than ever to reckon with how our queer family – especially our Black & trans family – still don’t enjoy basic human rights, and how they suffer from police violence at epidemic proportions.”

Mamdani likes to flag his ties to Uganda, but does not want to call attention to its human rights record. Instead, he basks in luxury.

He recently jetted off to his family’s opulent compound in the tony Ugandan neighborhood of Buziga Hill for his wedding. The three-day event saw the family estate turn into a party house among the lavish homes owned by billionaires and the upper crust of society in Uganda. Homes in the neighborhood easily fetch one million dollars. For his wedding, Mamdani had special forces commandos providing security to keep the riffraff out of the invitation-only soiree.

Fateh

Fateh is the son of Somali immigrants, and the first item on his platform states, “with Donald Trump back in the Oval Office, the progress towards equity and justice that our communities have worked so hard to create is in jeopardy.”

In 2023, when the Minnesota State Senate debated legislation that would give drivers licenses to illegal immigrants, Fateh came to the defense of the illegals. He noted that the real threats to national security “look like the members [white Republicans] that sit in the front rows.”

In 2021, Fateh was part of a group of Minnesota lawmakers, led by Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN), calling for the Department of Justice to investigate how local law enforcement prepared for the trial of Derek Chauvin, the policeman charged with the death of George Floyd. Fateh and his colleagues accused the police of using “extreme and unnecessary force,” even going as far as deploying “‘less-lethal’ munitions and chemical weapons indiscriminately.” According to the letter, this amounts to the police failing to “uphold civil and human rights.”

Fateh likes to brag about Somalia being “his home,” yet he has nothing to say about its human rights record.

In 2020, he gave a speech in which he referred to Somalia as his home several times. “I understand that our Somali communities are all connected to each other, here in Minnesota and back home, and I ask for your support. There’s always been a link between our community here as well as back home and I’m running to bridge that gap and unite all of us and represent all of us because when we succeed here, we succeed everywhere.”

Human Rights in Uganda and Somalia

Freedom House is a well respected organization that details the state of human rights in every nation in the world. It studies political participation, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of assembly, and the like. It awards a score for “Political Rights” and “Civil Liberties,” and an overall score.

The composite score for Uganda was 34 out of 100. For Somalia, it was 8. That is why they were both deemed “Not Free.” The United States had a composite score of 84 and was deemed “Free.”

How can it be that Mamdani and Fateh are so condemnatory of human rights in the United States, which is a free country, yet keep their mouths shut about egregious human rights abuses in their ancestral homes? Maybe they should trade places with the Ugandan and the Somali people. That would be a win-win.

There was a time, not long ago, when Republicans and Democrats had more in common with each other than they had with third-parties, either on the right or the left. No more. This chart shows how far Democrats have moved left, making them almost indistinguishable from hard-core left-wing parties.

In mid-July, a federal district judge ruled that a controversial bill that would eviscerate the priest-penitent privilege was unconstitutional. It was due to a lawsuit filed by the Department of Justice that settled this issue.

The Trump administration’s lawyers filed suit in June, saying that Senate Bill 5375 violates the free exercise of religion for all Catholics. Specifically, it requires priests to violate the seal of Confession; they could be excommunicated if they disclosed what the penitent said.

“Laws that explicitly target religious practices such as the Sacrament of Confession in the Catholic Church have no place in our society,” said Assistant Attorney General Harmeet K. Dhillon of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division.

Judge David Estudillo agreed. He said the bill “modifies existing law solely to make members of the clergy mandatory reporters with respect to child abuse and neglect.” As such, the law is “neither neutral nor generally applicable” insofar as it “treats religious activity less favorably than comparable secular activity.”

The Catholic League addressed this issue in January. That is when Bill Donohue wrote to all lawmakers in the state of Washington. He also wrote to its most vocal advocate, State Sen. Noel Frame, in May, registering his criticisms of the measure.

In his letter to the state’s legislators, Donohue asked the following: “Where is the evidence that child molesters—in any state—report their crimes to priests in the confessional? We have been studying this issue for decades but we can’t name a single instance where this had happened. If any lawmaker has evidence to the contrary, you have an obligation to make it public. If not, what exactly are you trying to do?”

In his letter to Sen. Frame, Donohue took aim at a disingenuous remark she made. She said, “I am reminded that Canon law has changed many times over the years in the Catholic faith and there’s nothing to say they cannot change their rules to allow the reporting of real time abuse and neglect of children. That is within their power to change and I think they should do so.”

Donohue replied, “Funny thing is I feel the same way about your state legalizing assisted suicide. Except I would recommend that state law follow Canon law.” He added, “I am reminded that state law has changed many times over the years in secular society and there’s nothing to say they cannot change their rules to follow Canon law and put an end to assisted suicide. That is within their power to change and I think they should do so.”

What is really outrageous about bills like this is that its proponents are not seriously concerned about child sexual abuse. If they were, they would know that this problem in the Catholic Church has long been checked. Instead, they would turn their attention to the public schools— that is where minors are being molested, yet nothing is done about it.

It is no secret that the teachers’ unions are among the most generous donors to the Democrats. Accordingly, Democrat lawmakers are reluctant to anger them. They are ready to ignore those administrators, teachers, counselors and coaches who are preying on children, lest their coffers suffer.

Whenever the state encroaches on religion, as the lawmakers in Washington sought to do, it is a threat to all people of faith, not just the ones targeted by a particular bill. That is why Protestants, Jews, Muslims and others need to oppose these bills. It is only a matter of time before the same lawmakers come after them.

There is a major component of President Trump’s signature spending bill, the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act,” that is of keen interest to the Catholic League—the school choice provisions.

The bill provides a full tax credit for Americans who donate to third-party scholarship granting organizations. These generous people will be eligible to take off $1,700 from their taxes each year. In turn, these donations will be used as scholarships that families can put towards paying for tuition or other educational expenses.

For the first time in American history, the federal government is providing a real alternative to families plagued by failing public schools that refuse to teach reading, writing, and arithmetic so that they can indoctrinate young minds turning them into woke activists.

Of course, as with every other aspect of these massive spending packages, the school choice provision was subjected to the usual procedural measures and horse trading that impacted its final shape. While the Senate Parliamentarian watered-down the more robust version that allowed for more funding for this critical measure, a bigger concern was the inclusion of an opt-out clause allowing blue states, who need alternatives the most, the option of not participating in the scholarship programs.

While this will lessen the impact of this program, it is a step in the right direction and illustrates that there is always more to do on the critical issue of school choice. For our part, the Catholic League will continue to lead in this critical fight.

Brooklyn Bishop Emeritus Nicholas DiMarzio has been sold out by the Archdiocese of Newark. The archdiocese has agreed to shell out hundreds of thousands of dollars to two men who accused the bishop of abuse, even though a twoyear Vatican investigation cleared him of all wrongdoing; he also passed a lie detector test.

The Newark archdiocese, led by Cardinal Joseph Tobin, said they agreed to a settlement to “avoid the costs of litigation and help bring resolution to painful matters for everyone involved.” They failed— by selling out DiMarzio they added to his painful situation. “I did not authorize these settlements because I did not abuse anyone,” the bishop said.

It was in November 2019 that attorney Mitchell Garabedian, whose hatred of the Catholic Church is well known—he calls the Church “evil”—made a big public splash when he said he was going to file suit against DiMarzio for abusing Mark Matzek. The following year, another alleged victim of the bishop, also represented by Garabedian, Samier Tadros, went public with his allegation. Yet no lawsuits were filed until 2021.

If this sounds fishy, it is because it is.

Bishop DiMarzio categorically denies both accusations and his lawyer, Joseph Hayden, said in 2020, “We have uncovered conclusive evidence of Bishop DiMarzio’s innocence.” As Bill Donohue said at the time, “No lawyer, aside from those like Garabedian, would put his name on the line with such an unequivocal statement unless he knew his case was a slam dunk.” In 2021, the Vatican concluded, after an exhaustive probe, that the charges against him did not have “the semblance of proof.”

Here’s where it gets really fishy.

Why would anyone wait a half century to bring a lawsuit? That’s right—the two males alleged they were abused in the 1970s and early 1980s when DiMarzio was a priest in Jersey City. How is it possible that the parents of these boys never knew about it—Tadros says the abuse started when he was 6 years old and happened “repeatedly”— especially given its alleged serial nature?

The Associated Press broke the Tadros story. What makes this interesting is that Garabedian chose Michael Rezendes of AP to go public. The two men are from Boston, and know each other well. Rezendes was a reporter who worked on the “Spotlight” team of the Boston Globe that found wrongdoing in the Boston archdiocese, and Garabedian’s role in it was featured in the movie by the same name; he was played by Stanley Tucci.

Rezendes showed his true colors by citing, as authoritative, the National Catholic Reporter. He called it “an independent Catholic newspaper.” In fact, the only thing independent about it is its independence from the teachings of the Catholic Church. Worse, its attack on the Church’s teachings on sexuality helped to foment the sexual abuse crisis that Rezendes covered.

Rezendes then offers a quote from BishopAccountability, a website known for leaving the names of accused priests found innocent on its list of accused priests. It has also smeared Cardinal Timothy Dolan, and has never accepted Bill Donohue’s challenge to provide evidence that he was hiding dozens of molesting priests.

Bishop DiMarzio was singled out because he fought unjust legislation that was targeted at the Catholic Church, bills that allowed the public schools to get off scot-free. New York State Assemblywoman Margaret Markey, who represented a district in the Brooklyn diocese, was the one who pushed for a suspension of the statute of limitations for sexual abuse crimes, permitting a free ride to the public sector.

In 2016, this former office holder accused DiMarzio of offering her a $5,000 bribe. But it was all a lie. She admitted she was wrong about the date of their meeting— by three years—and wrong about the venue. She was also wrong about her accusation, which was undercut by witnesses at the meeting.

Bishop DiMarzio is a good man who has given his life to the Catholic Church. He is innocent of these scurrilous charges, and now he is being sold out by the Archdiocese of Newark.

On July 21, when Bill Maher interviewed Billy Joel, the singer said that when he first sang, “Only the Good Die Young”—which had a snappy line about Catholic girls, he got some blowback. Maher responded, “I  mean, I guess it—look I’ve had many letters from William Donohue, the head of the Catholic League. He literally challenged me to a fight. Really? Like two 60-something year-old men in the parking lot with our short sleeves rolled up. Really? But that’s how the Catholic Church feels about me.”

The gist of what he said is right, but not the particulars. Donohue never wrote to him, but a number of years ago he did joke with Megan Kelly that he would like to put on the Everlast [boxing gloves] and meet Maher in Madison Square Garden.

Maher never got over it. He complained to Larry King about Bill’s invitation but Larry simply said, “Bill takes his religion very seriously.”

Donohue advised Maher to bring a stool.

Georgetown University, which identifies as Catholic, has a Muslim problem. There is nothing new about this, but now that it is front and center, it can no longer be ignored.

On July 15, Robert Groves, the interim president of Georgetown, testified before the House Committee on Education and Workplace. He told the panel that one of his tenured professors, Jonathan Brown, a convert to Islam, is no longer chairman of the university’s department of Arabic and Islamic studies.

Iran is the primary source of terrorism in the Middle East, and a potential nuclear threat to Israel and the U.S. It was due to the escalating attacks on Israel that the U.S. bombed Iranian nuclear facilities in June. Brown, who holds an endowed chair at Georgetown, responded by saying Iran should attack U.S. military bases in the Middle East. “I am not an expert, but I assume Iran could still get a bomb easily. I hope Iran does some symbolic strike on a base, then everyone stops.”

The Georgetown president told federal lawmakers that “Within minutes of our learning of that tweet, the dean contacted Professor Brown. The tweet was removed. We issued a statement condemning the tweet. Professor Brown is no longer chair of his department. He’s on leave, and we’re beginning a process of reviewing the case.”

Brown’s hatred of the Jewish state was made plain after Hamas attacked Israel on October 7, 2023. In an unprovoked barrage, the Iranian-backed terrorists killed 1,200 men, women and children, leaving 3,000 injured. Brown, the son-in-law of convicted terrorist supporter Sami Al-Arian, defended Hamas. More than that, he said “Israel has been engaged in a genocidal project for decades.”

This is vintage Brown. He is such an extremist that he claims Israel has a Nazi-like history. “Israel will go down in history as a country whose main claims to fame are genocide, racial fanaticism on the level of the Third Reich and religious fanaticism that makes ISIS look mellow.”

Similarly, Brown wonders why so many Jews have “embraced genocide as a core tenet.” Indeed, he contends that this is “an inalienable part of their faith.” Just as obscene, he portrays the Israeli army as evil, saying it is “objectively the most effective child-killing machine in modern history.”

It should not come as a surprise that the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) is standing by their man, even after Brown’s admission that he hopes Iran strikes U.S. military installations. In 2014, the United Arab Emirates (UAE) designated CAIR a terrorist organization. And on July 15, Rep. Elise Stefanik said that CAIR was a co-conspirator in a terrorist-financing case and has ties to Hamas.

In a letter  to Groves, CAIR pleaded its case for Brown, arguing that the investigation should be called off and he should be fully reinstated.

Bill Donohue wrote to Groves as well, but his my recommendations were very different from the one CAIR made.

Brown may be the most conspicuous anti-Jewish professor at Georgetown, but he is hardly alone. Mobashra Tazamal also teaches there and his specialty is “Islamophobia.” He is known for comparing Israel to Nazi Germany. Nothing phobic about that—it’s simply a malicious lie.

To understand why Georgetown has a Muslim problem, all we need do is follow the money.

In 1977, Libya bought an endowed chair for $750,000. This was done under the auspices of Muammar Gaddafi, the brutal dictator and ally of the Soviet Union.  In 2005, Saudi Arabia gave $20 million to establish a Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding. It is known for banning Christianity and oppressing women, two issues that are a flagrant violation of the mission of this Jesuit-run institution. But this is chicken feed compared to what Qatar has given.

Qatar has greased Georgetown to the tune of over $1 billion. These include funds to operate Georgetown’s Qatar campus. This has real-life consequences: everything from research to faculty hiring and curriculum development reflect the priorities of the Qatari regime.

Didn’t anyone at Georgetown complain about this arrangement? Yes, the Georgetown Voice did, but it is a student newspaper. The administration and faculty simply ignored their plea to close the Doha campus. Money talks.

At the D.C. campus, Brown was a beneficiary of Qatar generosity. The regime funded a post he occupied, the Alwaleed bin Talal Chair of Islamic Civilization in the School of Foreign Service. But the real damage done by the Qatar-Georgetown nexus is not Brown’s chairmanship—it is the damage done by those who graduate from the university’s School of Foreign Service.

The report does not exaggerate when it says that this school “has produced more U.S. diplomats and ambassadors than any other institute. Many alumni have been shaped by ideologically slanted curricula and faculty with close ties to foreign leaders. These graduates go on to shape policy—often in ways aligned with the worldview of their financial backers.”

In short, Georgetown’s Muslim problem is a direct result of being bought by those whose values are about as anti-American and anti-Catholic as gets.