Marjorie Taylor Greene Confronts Code Pink Protesters On Capitol Hill

The piece examines a recent uneasy convergence between Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene and the protest group Code Pink, profiles Code Pink leaders Medea Benjamin and Jodie Evans, recounts past confrontations at Senate and House hearings and an AIPAC event, and raises concerns about foreign influence tied to Jodie Evans’ marriage to Neville Roy Singham and subsequent inquiries by lawmakers.

I have a long history with Medea Benjamin and Code Pink, and I say that as someone who knows the players and has watched them for decades. Back when I worked for the Senate Judiciary Committee, Code Pink turned up at nearly every hearing, regardless of subject, shouting lines that labeled President George W. Bush a “Hitler” and a “dictator” while attacking U.S. counterterrorism efforts. They set up shop in the Hill cafeterias and became a familiar disruptive presence whenever conservative policies or national security topics were on the docket.

Their tactics have not changed much; the messaging has simply shifted focus from Bush to Donald Trump. Recently at a House hearing on Israel, I saw the same pattern—Code Pink activists chanting and accusing Israel of “demonic behavior.” They still specialize in loud, attention-grabbing interruptions and in attaching themselves to major hearings so cameras and staff take notice. Their presence is predictable and engineered to provoke and dominate space.

Medea Benjamin is a notorious figure in this crowd, and she does not go by her birth name Susan. She chose “Medea” as a public persona, invoking a mythic figure known for betrayal and violence. The name choice is odd given Medea the mythological character’s history; it invites the kind of rhetorical attack that conservatives and many Americans find both theatrical and troubling. When you’ve seen someone disrupt serious policy debates for years, that kind of theater becomes part of their brand.

One of Code Pink’s cofounders, Jodie Evans, draws particular scrutiny because of her marriage to Neville Roy Singham, who lives in Shanghai and has been described in major outlets as a key node in a global propaganda network tied to the Chinese Communist Party. That connection has prompted lawmakers like Sen. Tom Cotton to push for a closer look at Code Pink’s funding and possible FARA implications. Those concerns are not speculative if credible reporting links major money and influence channels to foreign state interests.

When I confronted Code Pink at the hearing, I called attention to those foreign connections, and the activists reacted strongly to being labeled as influenced by the Chinese Communist Party. Interestingly, similar accusations tied to other foreign donors like Qatar or to George Soros did not provoke the same level of outrage from them. That selective sensitivity is notable: they resist criticism that hits a particular nerve while treating other foreign ties as less consequential.

I have a history of heckling back. At an AIPAC convention years ago the pattern repeated: Medea and her crew moved among people lined up to enter and tried to intimidate and shout. I followed her that morning, returned the heckling, and watched as the disruption lost steam. That kind of street theater can be neutralized by direct, consistent calling out, which is why activists carefully guard their narratives and respond badly when you point to foreign funding or hostile state links.

Code Pink’s long record of protests and the leadership’s controversial associations raise legitimate questions for anyone who cares about national security and civic integrity. The activism that once focused on Bush-era policies now targets conservative leaders and allied groups, and it does so with the same disruptive playbook. When protests are backed, financed, or amplified by foreign interests, the line between genuine activism and foreign interference deserves scrutiny from both lawmakers and the public.

On the Hill, where appearances and influence matter, the optics of Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene meeting with Code Pink are striking to many conservatives. That’s why I reacted the way I did when I saw Code Pink at hearings and at AIPAC: their presence is no longer a novelty but a pattern, and patterns do not excuse looking into who benefits from the noise. When activists who rail against “foreign influence” themselves have connections to overseas funding networks, the American people have a right to know the full story.

Finally, the personal detail that Jodie Evans is married to Neville Roy Singham and that investigations have been suggested into Code Pink for potential FARA violations are facts that feed into a larger debate about transparency. Those facts are what make casual friendships or odd alliances on the Hill into matters of public concern. The public should expect and demand clarity about who is shaping the narratives that flood our political institutions.

https://x.com/EYakoby/status/1998167552644755671