Behind the anti-ICE, pro-Hamas, anti-Iran war, and some No Kings protests in Arizona (and across the nation) rests the pro-Maoist Party of Socialism and Liberation. The Party for Socialism and Liberation (PSL) is a pro-Maoist communist party funded with millions of dollars by Shanghai-based American millionaire, Neville Roy Singham. Singham has close ties with the Chinese Communist Party. PSL lists on its website over a hundred chapters located in nearly every state of the union.
PSL is ready at a moment’s notice to stage a protest as soon as a news story drops. These protests might be about ICE enforcement, the October 7, 2023 Hamas attack, abortion restrictions, or American action against the communist governments in Venezuela and Cuba.
To a dedicated core of protesters, the issue doesn’t matter so long as it can be spun as anti-capitalist and anti-Western. While some protesters join because they are motivated by a specific issue, for the PSL, the revolutionary overthrow of American capitalism and political institutions is the ultimate goal.
The PSL runs candidates for office, but the party’s power rests in organizing street protests and disruptive demonstrations. Examples include:
In February, 2025, the Phoenix chapter of the PSL, led a series of anti-ICE protests across Maricopa County, including a march to the state house. PSL leaders, Lexia Isais, a public-school teacher, and her comrade, Jordan Napier organized the march on the state house. “No one is illegal! Viva Mexico!” Napier shouted. Organizers arranged similar marches in Flagstaff. Isais got her start in PSL activism as an Arizona State University (ASU) student. PSL remains active today at ASU. In 2024, it led the construction of an encampment – the “ASU Liberated Zone” – on the Tempe campus in solidarity with Hamas.
Highway shutdowns are a specialty. In 2016, they organized the shutdown of a road to block access to a rally for then-candidate Donald Trump in Fountain Hills. Whether PSL was involved in a road closure and general chaos at an anti-illegal immigration enforcement rally in Glendale in 2025 is unclear from media reports, but it fits the pattern.
PSL cultivates college campus memberships. The University of Arizona also sported an encampment, while members of the PSL chapter chanted, “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free,” at a rally denouncing Israeli actions in Lebanon, American capitalism, and Western imperialism everywhere.
PSL strongly continues to support the brutal Maduro regime in Venezuela. Protests against Maduro’s capture to stand trial in the United States drew few if any Venezuelans, who were thrilled to see the dictator removed from power. Protesters also rallied to the defense of the Iranian government at the start of the American Epic Fury campaign. In contrast Iranians turned up as counter-protesters.
PSL member Dania Duran was one of the organizers of the ICE Out protest at Phoenix Sky Harbor airport. At a time of public concern about long security lines because of the government shutdown, the stunt was an airport version of blocking traffic, since their presence could add to delays. The protest was sure to make the local mainstream news, even if travelers were annoyed. In this case and others, the PSL minimized its visibility to the public. The public-facing organizing group – the one more likely to generate quotes in mainstream press – was the National Day Laborer Organizing Network. It is funded through left-wing sources.
Unlike the Democratic Socialists of America, the PSL does not believe that working within the Democratic Party is a viable strategy to gain power. PSL organized a march at a campaign appearance by Kamala Harris and Tim Walz. Kept outside of the venue, they shouted about how the ticket was insufficiently opposed to Israel.
The PSL does not publish membership totals, but mass membership is not its goal. PSL considers itself a vanguard party with a tight cadre of dedicated revolutionaries.
The party follows the Leninist doctrine of a disciplined revolutionary party spelled out in his lengthy pamphlet “What Is to Be Done?” published in 1901. Lenin believed a centralized, disciplined party was necessary for communist revolution. As self-proclaimed vanguard party, PSL is organized as a centralist party in which all members are bound to defend and act on the party’s program. Members who don’t follow the party line are expelled.
Why PSL Matters
The PSL’s instant disruptive protests on most any leftist issue is obviously within their First Amendment rights, even if they dismiss the Constitution as a capitalist farce.
Their funding and connections to Chinese Communist Party groups are what should alarm us.
The PSL collects dues from members, but the real money comes through Neville Roy Singham, a tech billionaire who cashed out his business fortune to focus on his political passions. From his office in Shanghai, he funds left-wing, pro-Chinese groups in the United States as well as India, South America, Great Britain, and Africa.
Singham shares office space with a Chinese media group, with a link so seamless “It can be hard to tell where Maku begins and Mr. Singham’s groups end.” It is a connection that goes back to at least 2019.
How much Singham contributes to the PSL is impossible to track.
In a five-part series that documented the Singham network, Fox News estimated the spending of the total Singham network at $401 million between 2017 and 2025.
Money that has been partially entangled with investment in Chinese companies and until recently passed through an untraceable Goldman Sacks donor-advised fund among other dodges that maximize opacity, makes it way to nonprofits with blandly positive names.
The core group includes The People’s Forum, the Justice and Education Fund, the United Community Fund, The Progress Unity Fund, and BreakThrough Media (BT Media). Some exist only as post office boxes in UPS stores.
Media Matters
In media outreach, for example, Ben Becker, a founder of PSL, started BT Media in 2020. As the Network Contagion Research Institute reports, PSL dominates the key offices and editorial team of BT News. They include:
Claudia De la Cruz – BT Media’s Secretary and Director, as well as PSL’s candidate for the 2024 Presidential election.
Karla Reyes – BT Media’s Chair and Director and De la Cruz’s 2024 PSL Presidential campaign running mate.
Yari Osorio – BT Media’s Treasurer and Director and PSL’s 2012 Vice-Presidential candidate.
“The degree of overlap between BT Media and PSL on their executive and editorial teams is so significant,” the NCRI concludes, “that one can easily conclude that the former is functionally serving as a mouthpiece for the latter.” BT Media is now a multimedia outlet for anti-Western content.
The People’s Dispatch published an approving story about No Kings rallies that even included an X post from the Speaker of Iran’s Parliament Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf. “Welcome to the party we started 47 years ago, No kings. This is the people of Iran, and we approve this message. #NoKings.” The People’s Dispatch weirdly characterized the 1979 Iranian Revolution as the fruit of class struggle.
Other Singham-funded media connections are much more subtle. The Justice and Education Fund, for example, has supported The Independent Media Institute. Through that grant, writers for such publications as Teen Vogue, Salon, and Food and Wine wind up in the Singham network.
With PSL as the networking hub, other groups, some basically hashtags for a temporary cause, demonstrators and pre-printed signs appear as if by magic.
PSL, with its siblings, the ANSWER Coalition, the People’s Forum, and Code Pink (Singham’s wife, Jodie Evans was a co-founder) reliably advance the views and interest of China. Code Pink was once critical of human rights abuses in China. Evans is now the co-author of China Is Not Our Enemy.
At a February 2026 Ways and Means committee hearing on foreign influence in America’s tax-exempt sector, Adam Sohn, Co-founder of Narravance, a social media research and intelligence firm, concluded:
“The ANSWER Coalition and the Party for Socialism and Liberation mobilize the protesters. The People’s Forum trains and coordinates the activists. BreakThrough News handles messaging and media amplification. The impact of this money is ongoing: federal property vandalized at Union Station; American flags burned and police officers assaulted. Airports blocked at JFK and LAX. Brooklyn and Manhattan bridges shut down. Ambulances and commuters disrupted. Wall Street blockaded; holiday commerce halted at Macy’s Herald Square; and immigration and law enforcement facilities targeted. This is not grassroots protest. It is a repeatable system for paralyzing American infrastructure on demand, financed through U.S. tax law, and aligned with a hostile foreign power. It is an active vulnerability we cannot afford to leave intact.”
In multiple decisions, the United States Supreme Court upheld the right for free speech for communist and radical agitators. The Center for American Institutions supports this right for free speech. Citizens though have a right to know that Arizona popup protests are not spontaneous expressions of widespread public discontent. The Arizona mainstream media has an obligation to report the news truthfully.
The Center for American Institutions examines issue confronting the state of Arizona. Its goal is to go behind the headlines to better inform the citizens of our state.
Last week, the Arizona House of Representatives passed an Arizona First budget focused on increasing take-home pay, lowering costs, and protecting core services. The Arizona Senate is on track to approve it today. Governor Hobbs should sign it.
The fastest way to address an affordability crisis is simple: let people keep more of what they earn.
This budget returns $1.45 billion to taxpayers over the next three years. When government takes less, families keep more through bigger paychecks, larger refunds, and lower overall tax burdens.
Our plan raises the standard deduction so workers can keep more from each paycheck. It exempts tips and overtime pay so frontline workers see meaningful relief at tax time. It reduces the cost of raising a family by exempting childcare expenses from state taxes and increasing the per-child tax refund by 25%. And it supports seniors on fixed incomes by exempting retirement income for Arizonans age 60 and older.
The goal is straightforward: you keep more, and government takes less.
At a time when families are tightening their belts, government should do the same. Yet the governor’s proposal increased spending to $18.7 billion. The House budget spends $800 million less without compromising the core services Arizonans rely on. It reflects the same discipline families practice every day.
This plan shows that responsible leadership is still possible in divided government. It prioritizes stability, protects taxpayers, and delivers a balanced approach ahead of the new fiscal year.
It fully funds K-12 education with an inflation increase, provides $200 million for public school facility repairs, gives additional support to low-income students, and eliminates co-pays for reduced-price school meals. It protects the most vulnerable by funding congregate care within the Department of Child Safety, addressing rising costs for high-need individuals with developmental disabilities, and strengthening foster care support through community providers.
This is what responsible governing looks like: targeted tax relief, controlled spending, and a commitment to core priorities. It recognizes that affordability is not just a talking point. It is the defining issue for Arizona families.
Governor Hobbs now has a clear choice. She can embrace a balanced, responsible budget that lowers costs and delivers real relief. Or she can reject a plan that reflects the will of a divided government working in good faith.
The House has done its job. We cut taxes. We protected essential services. We kept spending in check.
For Arizona families feeling the strain of rising costs, this budget deserves the governor’s signature.
Steve Montenegro is the Speaker of the Arizona House of Representatives and serves Legislative District 29 in the West Valley, Goodyear, and Surprise. Follow him on X at @SteveMontenegro.
Flagstaff residents have until May 19th to vote on the Flagstaff Regional Land Use Plan 2045, a mail-in only election that will determine whether this becomes the city’s guiding blueprint through 2045. The plan will shape “growth, development, conservation, housing, transportation, and other long-term community priorities.” It is a roadmap for how city leaders want Flagstaff to grow, move, build, and live for the next two decades.
The main themes of this Regional Plan are Climate Action, Housing Attainability and Equity. Climate and equity, two of the left’s favorite virtue-signaling obsessions. The plan runs roughly 250 pages and buried inside the planning jargon is a much bigger agenda: a comprehensive restructuring of everyday life in Flagstaff.
The plan repeatedly sounds the alarm over the so-called “climate emergency,” declaring that “climate change, driven by human-induced GHG emissions, is intensifying global weather disruptions.” Translation: the climate is spiraling into chaos, and it’s your fault, therefore the city government now needs to center major policy decisions around climate activism.
The plan repeatedly references Flagstaff’s Carbon Neutrality Plan (CNP) that has the goal to “achieve carbon neutrality by 2030.” What is supposed to be a land use and regional planning document instead reads like an environmental manifesto. In city government’s attempt to “save the planet,” residents should expect pressure for more mandates, regulations, and costly transitions as officials target emissions from “buildings, transportation, waste, etc.” Their call for the “displacement of fossil fuel-based generation with zero-carbon sources such as wind, solar, and nuclear energy,” will inevitably drive-up costs – even in the areas, like housing affordability, they claim to be trying to reduce.
When I was young, my parents always told us they met in college. Given that they went to different colleges for very different majors, that always seemed odd to me. When I was older, I learned the full story. They had actually met in an underground bunker during the Lebanese Civil War. They were both serving in the Lebanese Forces defending their Christian faith and families—my mother choosing to step up after losing her 19-year-old brother to the war.
This war was about their very right to live their Christian faith free from violent threats and governmental oppression. Unfortunately, the Christian forces did not prevail, and my parents ultimately immigrated legally to the United States to forge a new life for their family. They wanted to secure our freedom to live our faith and create a prosperous future.
They had put their lives on the line to secure that freedom in Lebanon. They knew all too well that you could not put your faith in the government to defend you. All too often, the government was the danger. So, from a young age, the importance of the Second Amendment was instilled in me, along with respect for all the freedoms enshrined in our Constitution. For a people to remain free, they must have the right and ability to defend themselves. That was true in 1776, and it’s perhaps even more true today.
When I speak to voters, I hear concerns about safety echoing frequently. Many of my friends and neighbors are gun owners for just that reason. They want to know they can defend themselves against dangerous people who could try to harm them or their family. In blue cities that have adopted soft-on-crime policies, it is the government that has created these conditions. But furthermore, many of us understand gun ownership in broader terms: that as Americans, the responsibility to defend our freedom has always and ultimately resided with us. Our faith is not in government to grant our rights, but rather to uphold rights that have already been granted by God. And if and when it fails on a grand scale to do so, we must be ready.
Many Americans are unaware how quickly their Second Amendment rights can vanish with just one election. And not just a Presidential election. In Virginia, a change in Governor and a number of legislative seats led to sweeping anti-gun legislation criminalizing the sale and transfer of the most common household firearm in the country. This bill (HB217/SB749) was sent to their new-Governor Abigail Spanberger along with 25 other anti-Second Amendment bills.
Arizona’s own Governor Hobbs is equally as radical as Governor Spanberger. The difference? Arizona’s Legislature, where pro-Second Amendment legislators hold a slight majority, would never send her such bills to sign. Were the balance of power in the Arizona House and Senate to shift by a few seats, a slew of similar bills would be promptly sent to her desk by Arizona Democrats and signed.
I’m proud that Arizona’s constitutional defense of gun ownership outpaces the Second Amendment, using the strong verbiage “the right to bear arms shall not be impaired,” and offering some of the strongest constitutional carry protections. We must defend our place as a leading Second Amendment state.
I urge voters concerned about defending this vital freedom to consider the consequences of elections. Vote all the way down your ballot and talk to every candidate about their position on the issue. It’s not just about party, but about commitment to the Constitution, regardless of political winds or the ways in which anti-Second Amendment activists leverage tragedy for political gain. That’s the kind of commitment I’ll always have to the Second Amendment. Freedom can be lost in a generation, but on my watch, I won’t allow it.
George Khalaf is a candidate for the Arizona House in Legislative District 3. You can follow him on X here.
Last year, Katie Hobbs, by executive order, established a “task force” headed by her Office of “Sustainability” to develop a report on energy affordability and reliability. This month, her task force submitted their plan which would do the opposite of that: make energy more expensive and less reliable. This shouldn’t come as a surprise considering the “task force” called by Hobbs is made up of solar special interests, environmental activists, her own agencies, and utilities that have all committed to going Net Zero anyway.
Instead of reading 81 pages that brings nothing new to the table, the only questions that need to be asked (and answered) about the report are below.
Does it call for new natural gas generation? Not really.
Does it call on utilities to keep our coal plants open? No, they want to shut them down and “repower” them to “clean” energy.
Does it pave the way for new nuclear? Not until the mid-2040s, at the earliest.
What, then, does it advocate doing? Subsize special interests by blanketing state trust land and government buildings with even more solar, wind, and battery storage. The very thing causing utility rates to increase and leading to blackouts…
A new edition of a science education manual for judges departs “sharply” from a “longstanding tradition of neutrality,” say three of America’s most distinguished physicists in a letter to U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts.
Writing in an open letter to Justice Roberts were Drs. Richard Lindzen of Massachusetts Institute of Technology, William Happer of Princeton University and Steven Koonin of Stanford University’s Hoover Institution. Roberts is chairman of the Federal Judicial Center, publisher of the Fourth Edition of the “Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence,” whose new chapter on “How Science Works” the letter writers want to be removed.
For decades, the Reference Manual has served as an essential guide for more than 3,000 federal judges and countless state jurists. Cited in over 1,700 judicial opinions, it has helped courts distinguish reliable science from speculation. Its strength has been a commitment to describing how science operates according to the tenets of the 300-year-old scientific method, avoiding political considerations and a drift into pseudoscience.
The letter’s authors, with more than 600 peer-reviewed publications among them, bring unparalleled expertise to the issue. Their concern centers on the replacement of the late David Goodstein’s respected chapter with an overwritten, intellectually deficient 65-page version.
The new chapter’s lead author is philosopher Michael Weisberg, who had a prominent role as a diplomat at United Nations climate proceedings, where he advocated financial payments to small island nations purportedly threatened by a warming planet. The appearance of conflict with his authoring supposedly neutral guidance on scientific evidence is unmistakable — especially in the context of climate litigation involving trillions of dollars in potential liabilities.
The substantive problems are even more serious. Where Goodstein, once a California Institute of Technology physics professor, emphasized the scientific method —generating hypotheses and testing them with data — the new chapter dismisses the scientific method as a “myth.” It elevates “scientific consensus” and “widespread acceptance” as the highest form of certainty, transforming inquiry into a popularity contest.
This inverts the traditional practice of science. As Nobel laureate Richard Feynman observed, the key to science is comparing predictions directly with observation: “If it disagrees with experiment, it is wrong.”
In Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals (1993), the Supreme Court made the same point: Scientific knowledge must be derived by testing hypotheses against reality. Goodstein’s earlier edition said, “Data are the coin of the realm in science,” and theories must make new predictions that can be falsified or verified. Consensus, by contrast, is a sociological phenomenon.
As Michael Crichton famously warned, “If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus.” History bears this out. Popular “consensus” on plate tectonics, causes of disease and 20th-century fears of global cooling were overturned by evidence, not votes.
Further revealing the chapter’s activist inclinations is its opening citation of Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway’s “Merchants of Doubt,” a book that insists there is “zero argument among actual scientists” about catastrophic climate change — a claim countered by mountains of real-world data.
Labeling credentialed dissenters as outside “actual science” has no place in an educational document for judges. Science advances by challenging prevailing views with data, not by enforcing community norms.
The Federal Judicial Center wisely withdrew a chapter on climate science from the manual after 27 state attorneys general documented its conflicts and unsupported claims. Yet the “How Science Works” chapter, written largely to support that now-removed material, remains.
With more than 1,000 climate-related cases pending in state and federal courts, judges deserve guidance rooted in empirical rigor. Lindzen, Happer and Koonin are correct. The Center should promptly withdraw the new chapter and restore Goodstein’s earlier version, which captured the essence of scientific reasoning in language accessible to readers without the scientific background that most jurists lack.
They should also direct the National Academy of Sciences to withdraw both chapters from its version of the Manual. Maintaining the integrity of judicial guidance on science is not a partisan issue.
Justice Roberts and the Federal Judicial Center have an opportunity to reaffirm their commitment to neutrality and restore confidence in the Manual. In an age when science is increasingly politicized, maintaining rigorous standards for what counts as scientific evidence in court is vital.
The credibility of the American judicial system requires nothing less.
Angela Wheeler is a contributor to The Daily Caller News Foundation and executive director of the CO2 Coalition, Fairfax, Virginia. She is a cum laude graduate of Emporia State University, Kansas, where she studied communication, with additional biology and pre-medicine coursework.
