Ossoff Calls His New GOP Opponent an Antisemite — Georgia Senate Race Is Now a Test of the Jewish Vote

Rep. Mike Collins (R-GA) won the Republican Senate runoff Tuesday with 55% of the vote, capturing the Trump-endorsed nomination for a November race against Democratic incumbent Sen. Jon Ossoff, the first Jewish senator from Georgia. Ossoff immediately went on offense, calling Collins an antisemite with a documented record of amplifying antisemitic conspiracy theories and Holocaust distortions. The race is now the sharpest electoral test of 2026 for the pro-Israel community: a Jewish incumbent in a competitive swing state against a MAGA populist with a real antisemitism problem.

• Mike Collins won the Georgia GOP Senate runoff Tuesday with more than 55% of the vote, clearing a competitive field to face Ossoff in November.
• Sen. Jon Ossoff immediately accused Collins of antisemitism — a direct, public charge from a Jewish incumbent candidate against his general election opponent, not a surrogate.
• Collins has a documented record of amplifying antisemitic conspiracy content on social media, including posts invoking dual-loyalty tropes and Holocaust distortion.
• Georgia is a competitive swing state: Ossoff won his 2020 seat by fewer than 55,000 votes. Collins is a Trump-loyal MAGA candidate who can expect full Republican infrastructure support.
• The race forces a choice on pro-Israel voters of both parties: the only Jewish senator in the Deep South versus a Republican nominee with an antisemitism record who nonetheless carries MAGA alignment on many Israel-adjacent foreign policy issues.

The Georgia Senate race is the clearest instance yet of a major-party Jewish candidate running explicitly on antisemitism as a disqualifier against his opponent — not a side issue, but the opening frame of the campaign. Whether that framing holds or whether swing-state dynamics override it will tell the pro-Israel community something specific about the 2026 electoral environment: does antisemitism cost Republican candidates votes in competitive states, or does partisan loyalty neutralize it?

Senate Republicans are openly breaking with President Trump over the U.S.-Iran memorandum of understanding, calling it the “worst foreign policy blunder in decades” and warning that the deal provides Iran major economic relief while leaving nuclear and ballistic missile programs intact. Israeli security officials, locked out of the 14-point MOU, fear the agreement gives Hezbollah a cash infusion once Iranian assets are unfrozen and pressures Israel to withdraw from its southern Lebanon security zone — a withdrawal IDF officers warn would jeopardize northern Israeli security.

• Senior Senate Republicans including Bill Cassidy (R-LA) and Ted Cruz (R-TX) called the MOU a strategic failure, with Cassidy saying “Reagan is rolling over in his grave” over Iran’s preserved missile program.
• Iran’s foreign ministry declared “Iran has defeated two nuclear powers” — the regime is framing the deal publicly as a victory over the U.S. and Israel.
• Israeli security officials believe Iran signed primarily to buy economic relief and diplomatic breathing room, with plans to rebuild nuclear and proxy capabilities once the pressure lifts.
• The MOU commits the U.S. to Lebanon’s territorial integrity — a provision Israel did not agree to, and which Iranian officials are already invoking to demand IDF withdrawal from southern Lebanon.
• IDF officers warn that withdrawal from the 10-kilometer security zone along the Litani River before Hezbollah fully disarms would recreate the pre-war threat to northern Israel.

The MOU's internal contradiction — committing the U.S. to Lebanon's territorial integrity while Israel holds a security zone Hezbollah is demanding be vacated — is the live pressure point. Iran's public declaration of victory and Hezbollah's immediate invocation of the MOU's Lebanon provision signal that Tehran intends to use diplomatic language, not just military posture, to squeeze Israel out of positions it won militarily. The next 60-day negotiation window, where nuclear and proxy terms are supposed to be finalized, will determine whether the MOU framework holds or unravels.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services announced Wednesday it is opening a civil rights investigation into the American Psychological Association, the nation’s largest professional mental health organization, over allegations of antisemitism and anti-Israel activism within its affinity groups. The probe stems from complaints by Jewish and Israeli psychologists who allege APA promoted or failed to discipline anti-Israel conduct. The investigation extends the federal government’s antisemitism enforcement posture — which has until now focused primarily on universities and K-12 schools — into major professional associations for the first time.

• HHS is investigating the American Psychological Association under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination based on race, color, or national origin in federally funded programs.
• Complaints from Jewish and Israeli psychologists allege APA affinity groups promoted anti-Israel activism and that leadership failed to discipline members for conduct Jewish members experienced as antisemitic.
• The APA investigation expands federal enforcement beyond education to professional credentialing bodies — a structural escalation in the scope of the antisemitism enforcement framework.
• The announcement comes as Trump’s education enforcement realignment moved antisemitism civil rights enforcement from the Education Department to DOJ, covered in yesterday’s Playbook.
• Germany separately reported 8,725 antisemitic incidents in 2025 — the highest level on record — signaling the global antisemitism environment driving these enforcement pressures.

Extending federal antisemitism enforcement to professional associations represents a qualitative expansion of the enforcement perimeter — from spaces where students receive government-funded education to spaces where professionals maintain credentials and advance careers. Whether the APA investigation produces findings and remedial action will shape whether other major professional bodies treat antisemitism complaints as a compliance risk or a reputational inconvenience.

With New York City’s congressional primaries five days out on June 23, the anti-DSA coalition is taking shape: former city Comptroller Scott Stringer is a driving force behind two PACs spending millions to defeat Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s preferred congressional candidates, working alongside the teachers union in a coordinated effort not previously disclosed. The races being contested include NY-10 (Goldman vs. Mamdani’s former Columbia encampment organizer Darializa Avila Chevalier) and other seats targeted by the DSA orbit.

• Former NYC Comptroller Scott Stringer is confirmed as a key force behind pro-Israel, anti-DSA PAC spending targeting Mamdani’s preferred House candidates, according to multiple JI sources.
• Mayor Zohran Mamdani has allied with former Columbia Gaza-encampment organizer Darializa Avila Chevalier, who is challenging incumbent Rep. Dan Goldman in NY-10.
• Dan Goldman — who previously criticized AIPAC while accepting their endorsement — is the incumbent under pressure from the Mamdani-DSA machine five days before the June 23 primary.
• The anti-DSA PAC coalition is the clearest organized pushback yet from centrist Democrats, Jewish activists, and teachers unions against the progressive-left electoral machine Mamdani assembled in last year’s mayoral race.
• Justice Democrats, spending heavily in multiple primaries, are running the inverse operation — using AIPAC’s playbook to flood anti-Israel candidates into competitive districts, per a separate JI report.

The June 23 NYC primaries are a direct test of whether the Mamdani electoral machine — built on pro-Palestinian, DSA-aligned organizing — can convert its mayoral momentum into congressional seats. A Goldman defeat would represent the DSA's first major congressional scalp in New York under the Mamdani era and would signal to pro-Israel groups that a well-funded incumbent is not safe from an organized far-left primary challenge even in friendly territory.