A progressive state legislator vying to be Michigan’s next U.S. senator voiced openness to supporting an Iron Dome for Palestinians.

State Sen. Mallory McMorrow, D-Mich., made the eyebrow-raising remark, first reported by Jewish Insider, during a recent interview with pro-Palestinian podcasters Matt Bernstein and Emma Vigeland.

«I don’t think anybody should live in fear of being bombed or killed,» McMorrow said when the hosts grilled her on her support for Israel’s Iron Dome missile defense system. «I would look at how do we support defensive systems for Palestinians? How would we support defensive systems for Lebanese?»

Asked by Fox News Digital whether that would apply to Palestinians in Hamas-controlled Gaza, a spokesperson for McMorrow replied, «No.»

DEMOCRATIC U.S. SENATE HOPEFUL SAYS HER PARTY NIXING ROGAN INTERVIEW IS WHY PEOPLE ARE ‘TURNING AGAINST’ IT

«Her priority remains ending this war and securing lasting peace in the region,» the spokesperson added.

During the interview, McMorrow also omitted mention of the Iranian-backed terror group Hezbollah, which fires missiles indiscriminately at Israel from Lebanon.

After Vigeland appeared to mockingly suggest Palestinians having access to Iron Dome missile technology, McMorrow enthusiastically replied, «Let’s have that conversation.»

When McMorrow’s comments drew an audible groan from Bernstein, who continued to press the Senate hopeful to disavow her support for Israel’s defensive weaponry, she appeared to double down.

«I mean the horror of living in fear of being bombed constantly,» McMorrow said. «Let’s work with the outcome of how do we end the violence, period.»

McMorrow later said she hopes missile defense systems eventually become unnecessary altogether. 

«I would love to get to a place where it’s not needed, period, for anybody,» she told the podcasters, referring to the Iron Dome.

She also told the podcasters that she would have supported a resolution sponsored by Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., that blocked certain weapons sales to Israel. The measure failed in April due to overwhelming opposition from Senate Republicans and a handful of pro-Israel Democrats.

Mallory McMorrow campaigns at the Michigan Democratic Nominating Convention in Detroit on April 19, 2026. (Jim West/UCG/Universal Images Group)

MICHIGAN DEMOCRATIC SENATE CANDIDATE CLAIMS ISRAEL ‘JUST AS EVIL’ AS HAMAS

McMorrow’s remarks come as she is vying for the Democratic nomination in a bruising three-way primary contest that counts Jewish, Muslim and Arab communities as important constituencies. 

Rep. Haley Stevens, an establishment Democrat backed by pro-Israel groups, and Bernie Sanders-backed Abdul El-Sayed are also running in the August primary.

The Senate hopeful did not appear to push back when the podcasters railed against «Zionist indoctrination» or accused Israel of being an «apartheid state.»

During the interview, McMorrow sought to cast herself as a bridge candidate who could keep the Democratic coalition from fracturing over Israel-Palestine issues. 

Michigan Democratic Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed and state Sen. Mallory McMorrow are running to the left of Rep. Haley Stevens, D-Mich., and have sharply criticized the Israeli government under Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. (Bill Pugliano/Getty Images; Mandel Ngan/AFP via Getty Images)

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

«If we let it tear us apart, we get Mike Rogers,» McMorrow said, referring to the presumptive GOP nominee who is endorsed by the president. «[Donald] Trump gets a win.»

El-Sayed sparked backlash earlier this year after leaked audio, reported by The Washington Free Beacon, showed the far-left candidate voicing concern about constituents who were allegedly upset about the assassination of former Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei during a U.S.-Israeli airstrike.

La discusión sobre la aprobación de la iniciativa de ley 6593 en el Congreso de la República alcanzó un nuevo punto de inflexión el 18 de mayo, cuando la junta directiva, la mayoría de los jefes de bloque, la comisión de Economía y representantes de la Superintendencia de Bancos (SIB) se reunieron en una sesión privada para analizar ocho enmiendas nuevas y al menos cinco propuestas de modificación al texto final de la normativa contra el lavado de dinero y financiamiento del terrorismo. El presidente del Congreso, Luis Contreras, subrayó la importancia de avanzar hacia un consenso definitivo, con el objetivo de que la próxima sesión —convocada para el lunes siguiente— pueda culminar el debate y llegar a acuerdos que permitan aprobar la ley en los plazos previstos.

Durante la jornada, los diputados reconocieron avances en la mayoría de las propuestas, en particular aquellas dirigidas a clarificar la redacción y adecuar la legislación a las recomendaciones internacionales, evitando así que Guatemala sea incluida en la denominada lista gris del Grupo de Acción Financiera de Latinoamérica (Gafilat). Según el diputado Inés Castillo, de la Unidad Nacional de la Esperanza, las modificaciones responden a observaciones técnicas y a la necesidad de conciliar el marco jurídico nacional con los estándares internacionales: “Hicimos una discusión con altura y pudimos avanzar en los razonamientos que tienen los distintos partidos políticos.”

La controversia principal reside en la enmienda al artículo 8, relativa al proceso de administración del riesgo de lavado de dinero, financiamiento del terrorismo y proliferación de armas de destrucción masiva (LD/FT/FPADM). El texto estipula que las personas obligadas deberán cumplir con disposiciones preventivas mediante una gestión basada en riesgos, identificando, evaluando y mitigando el nivel de exposición.

El personal técnico de la SIB manifestó su desacuerdo con la redacción del literal O de dicho artículo, advirtiendo que la falta de precisión podría poner en peligro la viabilidad general de la ley. El diputado Allan Rodríguez, de la bancada VOS, apuntó que este punto específico es el único observado negativamente por la SIB: “Es un literal de uno de los artículos, los demás los encontraron viables. La Superintendencia argumentó con sus motivos; por eso necesitamos analizarlo más a fondo,” dijo Rodríguez.

El debate respecto a las definiciones y el alcance de las personas políticamente expuestas (PEPs) también ocupó un lugar relevante entre las enmiendas discutidas. El presidente de la Comisión de Finanzas, Héctor Julio Estrada, de la bancada Cabal, detalló que la discusión ha oscilado entre limitar el vínculo familiar a primer grado de consanguinidad —como padres, hijos, cónyuges y convivientes— y ampliar la definición, siguiendo o adaptando los estándares internacionales del Grupo de Acción Financiera Internacional (GAFI): “La discusión es qué permite cumplir con el estándar GAFI sin afectar injustamente a toda la familia de una persona expuesta políticamente. Pedimos a la GAFI que fundamente ese estándar”, expresó Estrada en la reunión.

Según el presidente de la Comisión de Economía y Comercio Exterior, Jorge Ayala, desde la comisión ya se había alcanzado consenso en diez enmiendas, mientras que las ocho nuevas se dividieron en dos grupos: cuatro que ajustan artículos previamente reformados y cuatro que introducen modificaciones a artículos nuevos. Entre las novedades figura una enmienda que suma funciones a la IVE al establecer que deberá crear programas de capacitación y guías dirigidas a las personas que, conforme a la ley, resultan obligadas a cumplir con estos controles. Otras enmiendas abordan la tipificación de delitos en grado de tentativa y la precisión de conceptos como transacción sospechosa e inusual, con el objetivo de ofrecer mayor claridad y seguridad jurídica.

Durante la reunión, el diputado Estrada puntualizó los retos técnicos de las nuevas enmiendas: “Es una ley compleja, porque maneja temas económicos, penales y de cumplimiento. Se discute si las personas obligadas se clasifican por riesgo; en la propuesta, la ley empieza a tipificar por persona obligada, lo que podría alterar la estructura actual del análisis de riesgo, que siempre se ha centrado en el cliente o usuario del sistema financiero.” Estrada advirtió que una clasificación errónea podría generar tensiones y discrepancias en el sector, por lo que consideró indispensable reformular algunos criterios para no introducir vacíos lógicos que comprometan la operatividad de la normativa.

El carácter privado de la sesión fue uno de los puntos más debatidos fuera del pleno, aunque Contreras defendió el formato argumentando que la deliberación técnica requiere concentración y evita distracciones externas. Ante preguntas sobre posibles ocultamientos, el presidente del Congreso fue enfático: “No ocultamos nada. Hay cuarenta personas de diferentes bloques, de la IVE y de los bancos trabajando. Las reuniones públicas pueden dificultar el trabajo”, respondió Contreras, reafirmando que toda discusión se integra en el expediente legislativo y se publicará una vez concluido el proceso de ajustes.

La diputada Victoria Palala, del bloque oficialista Raíces, aportó una visión crítica al opinar que la presentación de nuevas enmiendas, muchas de ellas conocidas solo en la misma jornada, podría ser una “estrategia para entrampar la aprobación final de la iniciativa.” Según Palala, la reiteración de sesiones y la agregación de cambios inesperados dificultan el avance, aunque existe la expectativa de que la negociación sostenida permita destrabar el procedimiento la próxima semana.

FIRST ON FOX: The New Civil Liberties Alliance (NCLA) filed a lawsuit against Illinois officials Tuesday over the state’s Firearm Owners Identification Act, also known as the FOID Card Act, a state law that requires Illinois residents to apply for and carry an identification card at all times in order to possess any firearm or ammunition. 

The civil complaint, which Fox News Digital obtained exclusively, challenges the law as unconstitutional, arguing it «entirely deprives everyone of the right to keep and bear arms – including the basic right to possess a firearm for self-defense in the home – unless and until they seek and receive the State’s permission.» 

NCLA is challenging the law’s constitutionality, contending that FOID violates both the Second Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment, particularly the latter amendment’s Due Process Clause. 

NCLA is suing Illinois State Police Director Brendan F. Kelly, Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul and Cook County State’s Attorney Eileen O’Neill Burke, seeking injunctive relief on behalf of three plaintiffs.

VIRGINIA DEMS SEND SWEEPING GUN BAN TO SPANBERGER AS WEST VIRGINIA WEIGHS EXPANDING MACHINE-GUN ACCESS

Two of the plaintiffs, Christopher Laurent and Kim Dalton, would like to obtain firearms for self-defense but haven’t done so because they «refuse to submit to the state’s unconstitutional procedure, and are unwilling to subject themselves to criminal prosecution by violating the law,» the complaint reads. 

The other, Justin Tucker, did obtain a FOID card but doesn’t want to have to continue to renew it or to carry it with him at all times, which state law requires if one wants to retain their right to bear arms in Illinois.

«The police can approach you and demand you ‘show your papers’ to prove you’re allowed to exercise this right, otherwise, you are committing a crime,» NCLA Senior Litigation Counsel Jacob Huebert, the lead attorney on the lawsuit, told Fox News Digital in an exclusive interview.

«Some people may have an urgent need to obtain a firearm for self-defense in their home because of a threat they face, yet they absolutely cannot do that. They have to file the application, go through the process, and wait as long as the state wants to take,» Huebert explained. 

GUN RIGHTS ON PRIVATE PROPERTY DEBATED AT SUPREME COURT

«At every step of the way, the burden of proof is on the citizen to be allowed to exercise their rights. You go through the first round, and if they deny you, you can do an internal appeal within the Illinois State Police, which has a review board. If you lose at all those stages, you can go to court, but even then, the burden of proof remains on you to show that you’re entitled to exercise your Second Amendment rights,» he continued. 

An assortment of semiautomatic rifles are on display for sale at R Guns on April 29, 2023, in Carpentersville, Illinois. (John J. Kim/Chicago Tribune/Tribune News Service via Getty Images)

«In our view, that is the exact opposite of how constitutional rights are supposed to work. A right means that you are presumed allowed to do something unless the government has a sufficiently good reason to stop you. Normally, if the government wants to disarm a particular person, they have to go to court, get a restraining order, and present evidence showing why that person shouldn’t be allowed to have a gun. But in Illinois, everybody is treated as guilty until they prove themselves innocent,» he told Fox News Digital.

DOJ PROMISES ‘A LOT MORE ACTION’ ON GUN RIGHTS WITH NEW SECOND AMENDMENT ENFORCEMENT SECTION

Illinois enacted the FOID law in 1967, and the constitutional legitimacy of the statute has been challenged multiple times in the decades since. In the 2020 decision People v. Vivian Brown, an Illinois state trial court ruled the law unconstitutional. However, state trial court decisions apply only to individual plaintiffs and don’t serve as precedent. 

A customer inspects a 9mm handgun at Rink’s Gun and Sport in the Chicago suburb of Lockport, Illinois, on June 26, 2008. (REUTERS/Frank Polich/Files)

By filing its suit in federal district court in Chicago, NCLA is seeking to force the court to set a precedent that would in effect nullify the law, Huebert explained.

«Once the federal courts weigh in, that will be the definitive law,» he told Fox News Digital. «If a federal court orders the Illinois State Police, the Illinois Attorney General, and the Cook County State’s Attorney not to enforce this law anymore, then they can no longer enforce it,» Huebert said. 

Illinois ranks as the state with the second-strongest gun laws on the books behind California, according to a 2026 ranking composed by Everytown For Gun Safety. Despite the stringency, however, Illinois ranks 13th in the nation in gun homicides, averaging 8.2 deaths per 100,000 residents on an age-adjusted basis, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control (CDC).

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Fox News Digital contacted the Illinois State Police, the Illinois Attorney General’s Office and the Cook County State’s Attorney’s Office for comment on the lawsuit.