New York Lawmaker Criticizes Coffee Shop’s Ban on His Pro-Israel Stance
New York lawmaker says it s sad – On June 23, 2026, New York Democratic Congressman Dan Goldman expressed disappointment after being excluded from a Brooklyn coffee shop, Poetica Coffee, for his advocacy in support of Israel. The incident sparked a federal investigation by the Trump administration’s Justice Department, which now scrutinizes the establishment for alleged discriminatory practices. Goldman, who represents New York’s 10th congressional district, has long held supportive views of Israel, and the controversy emerged following a viral social media post that briefly accused him of promoting antisemitic ideas.
The Café’s Controversial Statement
Goldman’s ban occurred after a visit to Poetica Coffee, where a now-deleted Instagram post depicted him standing at the counter with his phone. The post, which gained traction before being removed, criticized him for not recognizing the “genocide juice” in his coffee, implying his views aligned with those who enable the genocide of Palestinians. The café’s message stated, “We see that you stopped by our shop today for a coffee. Do you see how it doesn’t taste like genocide juice? Or are you still having a hard time telling the difference?”
“We issued you a refund – we don’t need your money (it’s probably coming from AIPAC anyways),”
the post continued, targeting the influential pro-Israel lobbying group AIPAC. It concluded with a challenge: “Enjoy your loss on Tuesday. Don’t ever come to Poetica.” This comment referenced Goldman’s upcoming Democratic congressional primary against former New York City comptroller Brad Lander, who has been vocal in his criticism of Israel’s actions in Gaza, labeling the conflict as genocide and rejecting funding from AIPAC.
Goldman’s Defense of the Incident
In response to the backlash, Goldman told CNN that the café’s actions highlighted a “sad state of affairs” in American society. He argued that the investigation should focus on individuals without public platforms, such as ordinary citizens or community members, rather than elected officials. “I mean, I don’t ask for the antisemitism,” he said, “but I’m a public figure and I can accept the criticism.”
“I had such a nice interaction with the barista in the coffee shop. She was wearing a hijab, I didn’t know her, but she couldn’t have been nicer and allowed my daughter to go use the bathroom, and I honestly was so grateful for her kindness that I felt like I should buy a coffee, and so I did, and I gave her a large tip.”
Goldman emphasized that the café’s post contradicted the positive experience he had during his visit. “It was diametrically opposite to that post that I came upon later,” he noted, underscoring the disconnect between his personal conduct and the café’s public accusation. He also highlighted the importance of free speech, suggesting that the café’s decision to ban him might be an overreach in its effort to uphold its values.
AIPAC and the Broader Political Context
The café’s reference to AIPAC, a powerful pro-Israel advocacy group, has intensified the debate over the role of political influence in such decisions. Goldman, who attended the Israel Day parade in New York City in May, expressed pride in the event, which also featured Israeli far-right minister Bezalel Smotrich. Smotrich, known for his homophobic rhetoric and calls for Gaza’s destruction, has described himself as a “proud homophobe” and advocated for ethnic cleansing in the West Bank.
Goldman’s participation in the parade, which celebrated Israel’s nationhood, further underscored his alignment with the country’s policies. However, he distinguished between his support for Israel and his views on its government, stating, “I’m proud to have attended and to celebrate the nation and state of Israel,” which he framed as separate entities.
The Justice Department’s Response
Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon of the Justice Department’s civil rights division announced the investigation on X, asserting that federal law prohibits discrimination in public spaces. “These actions are not only reprehensible, they’re potentially illegal,” she said, signaling the department’s intent to enforce anti-discrimination statutes. Dhillon also mentioned that the division would pursue “an enforcement action if warranted,” emphasizing the seriousness of the case.
Poetica Coffee’s Commitment to Inclusivity
Despite the incident, Poetica Coffee maintains its stance on welcoming all individuals. On its website, the café describes itself as a space “where the guest is sacred, the books are unbanned, and the door is open to everyone.” It references the Uzbek concept of Mehmon, meaning “sacred guest,” to explain its philosophy: “Not as a customer. Not as a transaction. As someone who arrived and deserves to be welcomed.”
“In practice, it looks like a café where the door doesn’t close on anyone, where tea gets poured before anyone asks who you are.”
The café’s statement contrasts sharply with the social media post that led to Goldman’s ban, raising questions about the consistency of its values. While the post criticized him for his pro-Israel stance, the website portrays Poetica as a haven for all, regardless of their beliefs or affiliations. This dichotomy has fueled discussions about the balance between ideological expression and the right to exclude individuals based on their views.
The Ripple Effect on Political Discourse
The controversy has sparked broader conversations about how political figures are treated in public spaces. Goldman’s case highlights the tension between free speech and the assertion of values by private establishments. As the primary against Brad Lander approaches, the incident may influence voter perceptions, particularly among those who align with his pro-Israel position or question the café’s motives.
Goldman’s $253 million net worth, inherited from his Levi Strauss family legacy, adds another layer to the narrative. His financial status and public profile have made him a target for scrutiny, with critics suggesting the café’s decision was politically motivated. Yet, Goldman insists that his actions and beliefs are not inherently offensive, and the investigation should reflect a fair assessment of all parties involved.
This unfolding situation reflects a growing divide in American politics, where personal and political identities often intertwine. As the Justice Department probes Poetica Coffee, the incident serves as a microcosm of larger debates about tolerance, discrimination, and the role of private institutions in shaping public opinion. Whether the café’s actions are seen as a principled stand or an example of bias will likely depend on the perspectives of those who witness the controversy.
