Feed aggregator

President Donald Trump on Monday sharply rejected mounting warnings that artificial intelligence could eventually threaten humanity, calling such concerns a “HOAX” as some of the technology industry’s most prominent executives push for slowing the development of increasingly powerful AI systems.

Trump addressed the issue in an afternoon Truth Social post, questioning why executives running some of the world’s leading AI companies would advocate restrictions that, in his view, could damage their own businesses and weaken the United States in its technological competition with China.

“When, in the History of Business, did anyone see the Leaders of an Industry call for Regulation that, if strongly implemented, will drive them into oblivion and bankruptcy?” Trump wrote.

The president compared warnings that AI could ultimately pose an existential danger to humanity to other controversies that he has repeatedly characterized as hoaxes, including the investigations involving Russia and his two impeachments.

Trump’s comments came as several major figures in the AI industry publicly called for greater caution in the race to develop more advanced models. The debate intensified over the weekend after Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei published a lengthy proposal urging the industry to deliberately moderate the speed at which frontier AI capabilities are advancing.

Amodei argued Saturday that AI capabilities are developing so rapidly that safety research may not be keeping pace. His proposal called for slowing the advancement of the most powerful models sufficiently to give researchers and companies more time to understand and address potential dangers.

OpenAI CEO Sam Altman and Elon Musk subsequently expressed support for the broader push for additional safeguards, while Google DeepMind CEO Demis Hassabis also backed greater caution surrounding the development of increasingly capable AI.

Among the dangers identified by Amodei are the possibility of humans losing control of highly advanced AI systems, the technology being misused for cyberattacks or bioterrorism, and widespread economic disruption. He has also raised concerns about increasingly capable AI systems being used to develop subsequent generations of AI.

As part of his proposed approach, Amodei called for independent evaluators to receive greater access to frontier AI systems and development processes, allowing outsiders to assess whether companies are adhering to their safety commitments.

Trump has taken a markedly different approach to the emerging debate, repeatedly emphasizing that AI development is an international technological race in which the United States cannot afford to fall behind China.

“AI, and Data Centers, will be the Greatest Economic Development Engine in History — Bigger than Oil, Gold, Diamonds, or even the Internet,” Trump wrote.

Trump also took aim at Google over its recently announced expansion in Finland, arguing that permitting difficulties in the United States were pushing the company to invest overseas. He said he wanted Google to “change their thinking.”

Google announced last week that it intends to invest at least €13 billion — approximately $15 billion — in Finnish digital infrastructure, energy projects and related partnerships during 2027 and 2028. The investment, Google’s largest single investment in Europe, includes new data-center infrastructure.

Google said the expansion builds upon more than 15 years of operations in Finland and is intended to accommodate increasing demand for services including Gemini, Search and Maps, as well as other Google services.

The company’s announcement did not say that difficulties securing permits in the United States were responsible for its decision to expand in Finland. Instead, Google cited Finland’s digital infrastructure, energy system, workforce and its existing operations in the country.

Earlier Monday, Trump described opposition to AI development and the construction of data centers as a “sick conspiracy,” contending that excessive regulation of the rapidly developing industry could ultimately strengthen China’s position in the global AI competition.

“WHOEVER WINS AI, WINS!” Trump wrote.

New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani is leading a coalition of cities and counties in a lawsuit against the Trump administration, seeking to block a new immigration policy that would make it easier for federal officials to deny green cards and certain visas to immigrants who receive government assistance.

The lawsuit puts Mamdani directly at odds with President Donald Trump over the administration’s new “public charge” rule, which is scheduled to take effect Friday, September 18. The rule broadens the types of public benefits immigration officials can consider when deciding whether certain immigrants should be permitted to obtain permanent residency in the United States.

Mamdani made clear in announcing the lawsuit that his administration wants immigrants in New York to continue using government programs for which they are legally eligible without fearing that doing so could jeopardize their immigration status.

“The new public charge rule seeks to push immigrant families away from the programs that have kept people fed and healthy for decades. New Yorkers will be afraid to see a doctor or ask for help they are legally entitled to. That fear will not stop at the families that the federal government is targeting. Families who remain fully eligible for benefits will feel a chilling effect, and all New Yorkers will pay for it,” Mamdani said.

Mamdani continued: “New York City is proud to lead a coalition of cities and counties — Chicago, San Francisco, Santa Clara County, Seattle, King County and the Public Rights Project — standing firmly against this cruel and unlawful rule. Our immigrant communities are not a burden. They are the people who make New York City and country great. We will use every tool at our disposal to ensure they can continue to live here with dignity and without fear.”

The New York City lawsuit is separate from another legal challenge filed Monday by New York Attorney General Letitia James. James is leading a coalition consisting of 22 states and the District of Columbia seeking to stop the same Trump administration policy.

At issue is the federal government’s “public charge” test. Immigration law has long allowed officials to consider whether certain immigrants seeking admission or permanent residency are likely to become dependent on government assistance. The Trump administration’s new rule gives immigration officers broader discretion to consider an applicant’s use of means-tested benefits, including assistance involving food, health care and housing.

The policy represents a significant departure from the narrower approach put in place during the Biden administration. Under the 2022 policy, the public-charge determination generally focused on direct cash assistance and long-term institutional care rather than programs such as Medicaid and food assistance. President Trump’s administration rescinded that approach and moved to expand the benefits that may be considered.

The Trump administration says the policy is intended to enforce the principle that immigrants seeking permanent status should be self-sufficient and should not depend on American taxpayers for their support. The Department of Homeland Security responded to Monday’s lawsuits by accusing “sanctuary states” and “left-wing leaders” of fighting the policy because they fear losing federal funding as noncitizens withdraw from public-assistance programs.

Mamdani’s administration is taking the opposite position. Its lawsuit argues that immigrants who are legally eligible for government assistance should not have to choose between using those programs and protecting their prospects of remaining permanently in the United States.

The city also argues that the policy could have consequences extending beyond the immigrants directly subject to public-charge determinations. City officials contend that confusion and fear surrounding the rule could prompt immigrants and members of mixed-status families to avoid medical care, food assistance and other benefits even when those benefits would not affect their immigration cases.

New York City officials further maintain that the policy could ultimately cost local governments money. If immigrants avoid preventive health programs and other federally supported benefits, the city argues, more of the financial burden could shift to hospitals, emergency services and local government.

The separate lawsuit brought by James and the states raises similar arguments, including the claim that the Trump administration has exceeded its authority under federal immigration law and violated federal administrative law in implementing the expanded policy.

James said families should not have to sacrifice assistance for which they qualify because they fear immigration consequences.

“Working families should not be forced to go without the support they need because they fear that seeking assistance will lead to their deportation. This rule exploits that fear and causes families to forgo food assistance, healthcare services, and other public benefits to which they are legally entitled,” James said.

The legal fight therefore goes beyond the technical definition of a “public charge.” The Trump administration is seeking greater latitude to consider immigrants’ reliance on government assistance when determining whether they should receive permanent status, while Mamdani and the governments joining his lawsuit are seeking to preserve immigrants’ ability to use legally available public benefits without those benefits broadly counting against their immigration applications.

Both lawsuits were filed in federal court in Manhattan. Unless the courts intervene, the Trump administration’s new public-charge policy is scheduled to take effect on September 18.

Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu warned Hezbollah on Monday that any renewed attack on Israel would trigger an even more powerful Israeli response, issuing the message after the IDF completed its takeover of the Ali al-Taher Ridge in southern Lebanon and destroyed major Hezbollah infrastructure in the area.

Netanyahu pointed to the operation on the Ali al-Taher and Beaufort ridges as another significant Israeli success against the terror organization.

“We have achieved another massive victory over Hezbollah: We have destroyed its major terrorist stronghold on the Beaufort Ridge and the Ali al-Taher Ridge,” Netanyahu opened.

Netanyahu said Israel has no intention of easing its campaign against Hezbollah’s infrastructure in southern Lebanon and would continue acting against threats emerging from the area.

The Prime Minister declared, “Our policy is clear: We will continue to destroy terrorist infrastructure in the security zone in Lebanon. We will continue to remove any threat to the State of Israel.”

Netanyahu then directed an explicit warning at Hezbollah and Israel’s other enemies, saying that another attack would result in a still harsher Israeli military response.

“And from here, I say to our enemies: If you haven’t learned the lesson by now, and you choose to attack us again, you will suffer even heavier blows. There is still work to complete, and with G-d’s help, we will complete it,” he concluded.

A coalition of 22 states and the District of Columbia sued the Trump administration on Monday in an effort to stop a new immigration policy that would give federal officials broader authority to deny green cards to immigrants who use — or are deemed likely to rely upon — certain government benefits.

The lawsuit, filed in federal court in Manhattan, challenges a new Department of Homeland Security approach to the longstanding “public charge” provision of immigration law. The policy is scheduled to take effect Friday, September 18, and would broaden the factors immigration officers may consider when determining whether an applicant is likely to become dependent on government assistance.

New York, California and Illinois are leading the multistate challenge. They are joined by Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, Nevada, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Washington and Wisconsin, along with the District of Columbia.

A separate lawsuit was filed Monday by a coalition of local governments led by New York City and also including Chicago, San Francisco, Seattle, Santa Clara County in California and King County in Washington.

At the center of the dispute is the meaning of “public charge.” Federal immigration law has long permitted the government to deny admission or permanent residency to certain immigrants deemed likely to become primarily dependent on the government for support. The controversy is over which government benefits immigration officials may consider when making that determination.

Under regulations adopted during the Biden administration in 2022, officials could consider an applicant’s receipt of certain forms of cash assistance, including Supplemental Security Income, but generally could not count non-cash programs such as Medicaid or the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, commonly known as food stamps.

The Trump administration rescinded that regulation in July. DHS said the change would allow immigration officers to examine a broader range of relevant circumstances on a case-by-case basis when deciding whether an applicant is likely to become a public charge. USCIS said the move was intended to restore the principle that immigrants should be self-reliant rather than dependent on taxpayer-funded benefits.

The new approach echoes a broader public-charge policy adopted during President Trump’s first term that allowed non-cash benefits, including Medicaid and food assistance, to play a greater role in immigration determinations. That policy faced extensive litigation before the Biden administration abandoned it and adopted the narrower 2022 standard.

The states challenging the new policy contend that DHS has gone too far and has failed to clearly spell out which benefits could ultimately jeopardize an immigrant’s green card application. They argue that the resulting uncertainty could cause immigrants and their families to stop using health care, food assistance and other programs for which they are legally eligible.

New York Attorney General Letitia James, who is leading the states’ lawsuit, said the policy could force families to choose between obtaining assistance and protecting their immigration status.

“Hardworking families should not be forced to go without the support they need because they fear asking for assistance will get them deported,” James said.

The states also argue that the rule could impose significant financial costs on state and local governments. They contend that immigrants avoiding Medicaid and other health programs could instead turn to emergency rooms for treatment, while reduced participation in federally funded food-assistance programs could also affect local economies.

The Trump administration has defended the change, saying it is intended to enforce federal immigration law and ensure that people seeking permanent residency can support themselves.

DHS, responding to Monday’s lawsuits, accused the plaintiffs of being “sanctuary states” and “left-wing leaders” who were “terrified they will lose federal funds because hundreds of thousands of illegals and noncitizens might remove themselves from American welfare programs.”

USCIS similarly defended the underlying policy when it announced the rescission of the Biden-era regulation in July.

“The Trump administration is upholding the rule of law and protecting American taxpayers from subsidizing aliens who may become dependent on public benefits. USCIS is committed to safeguarding the safety, security, and financial well-being of Americans,” USCIS spokesperson Zach Kahler said.

The states’ lawsuit argues that DHS exceeded the authority granted to it by Congress and violated the Administrative Procedure Act, the federal law governing how agencies issue and implement regulations. The plaintiffs maintain that the administration’s interpretation departs from the established meaning of the public-charge provision.

New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani, whose administration is leading the separate local-government lawsuit, said the policy would discourage immigrant families from seeking services for which they qualify.

“The new public charge rule seeks to push immigrant families away from the programs that have kept people fed and healthy for decades. New Yorkers will be afraid to see a doctor or ask for help they are legally entitled to,” Mamdani said.

Unless a federal judge intervenes, the new public-charge policy is scheduled to take effect on September 18. USCIS has also announced that a revised version of Form I-485, the application used by many immigrants seeking permanent residency, will take effect that day, with older versions no longer accepted for applications submitted on or after the effective date.

Former CIA Director David Petraeus found himself near the scene of a Russian drone attack in Ukraine on Sunday, shortly after a train carrying former British Prime Minister Boris Johnson and senior European security officials had departed the same station.

Petraeus, a retired U.S. Army general, was traveling aboard a different passenger train at Yahodyn station, close to Ukraine’s border with Poland, when a jet-powered Russian drone slammed into the locomotive of another train nearby, according to multiple reports.

Passengers aboard Petraeus’ train could hear drones flying overhead, he said. After clearing Ukrainian customs, they were ordered off the train, and a powerful explosion was heard soon afterward.

“For those who have not been under fire, this was terrifying,” Petraeus said, The New York Times reported, calling the strike the work of a “truly barbaric leader trying to terrorize Ukrainian civilians.”

The timing of the strike drew particular attention because a diplomatic train carrying Johnson and security officials from several European countries had left the station shortly beforehand.

Ukraine’s government-owned railway company, Ukrzaliznytsia, said the diplomatic train may have been the intended target of the attack.

According to the Kyiv Post, the Russian drone instead hit a Kyiv-to-Warsaw passenger train approximately 1.2 miles from the Polish border. Poland is a member of NATO.

There were 206 people aboard the targeted train, but no injuries were reported. Railway monitoring personnel detected the approaching drone and warned the train crew in time for the passengers to get off before the strike.

Johnson, who had been traveling home following a security conference in Kyiv, denounced the attack afterward.

“What we can say for sure is that this is the kind of random and senseless attack Ukrainians are enduring every day – even on civilian railways,” Johnson wrote on X.

Former Swedish Prime Minister Carl Bildt, another passenger on the diplomatic train, said the passenger train that was ultimately struck had been traveling only minutes behind his train.

Bildt’s train was itself briefly placed under an evacuation alert before authorities gave permission for it to resume its journey.

The Yahodyn strike was one component of a wider Russian attack in the area along Ukraine’s frontier with Poland.

A separate drone hit a truck less than a mile from the Polish border, forcing a temporary disruption at the Yahodyn-Dorohusk border crossing.

Polish authorities raised the country’s military readiness in response to the attacks, although officials said none of the Russian drones crossed into Polish airspace.

Russia’s Defense Ministry said Russian forces had attacked infrastructure being used to move military cargo into Ukraine from Europe.

The train hit in Sunday’s drone strike, however, was a civilian passenger train.

Petraeus, who has been a supporter of Ukraine since the Russian invasion began, said there was “no military justification” for attacking the train.

After the immediate danger had passed, Petraeus returned to his train and continued across the border into Poland.

“This is just part of a campaign to exhaust the Ukrainian population, which is not going to work,” Petraeus said. “They are tired. But they are unbreakable.”

A major memorial gathering marking the yahrtzeit of Rav Ovadia Yosef zt”l, which had been scheduled to take place next month at Binyanei Ha’Umah in Yerushalayim, has officially been canceled following a directive from Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara barring the event from being held before Israel’s upcoming elections.

The Ministry of Religious Services formally announced the cancellation after weeks of controversy surrounding the annual gathering, which commemorates the life and legacy of the longtime Sephardic chief rabbi and spiritual leader of Shas.

In a letter sent by Religious Services Ministry Director-General Yehuda Avidan to Yerushalayim Municipality Director-General Ariella Rajuan and Yaakov Cohen, who heads the ministry’s senior division for religious projects and events, Avidan said that the attorney general’s directive, combined with the resulting scheduling difficulties and a notice from the event producer, made it impossible to proceed.

The gathering had been scheduled to take place at Binyanei Ha’Umah from October 6 through October 8.

Avidan said that should officials decide to organize an alternative event, the Ministry of Religious Services would hold discussions with the Yerushalayim Municipality about the possibility. He concluded his letter by thanking the mayor and the municipality’s director-general “for the willingness to hold an event in memory of Maran zt”l.”

The cancellation follows a controversy that erupted approximately two weeks ago, when Baharav-Miara instructed officials to postpone the gathering until after the elections. During each of the past two years, the Ministry of Religious Services and the Yerushalayim Municipality organized memorial events for Rav Ovadia at a reported cost of NIS 4 million.

This year, ministry officials sought to settle the event’s arrangements well in advance because Rav Ovadia’s yahrtzeit, 3 Cheshvan — October 14 — falls close to the date of Israel’s general election. Another issue involved the ministry’s desire to hold the gathering with separate seating for men and women.

As part of an effort to resolve the concerns, the ministry reportedly offered to move the event forward by one week and hold it without the participation of Shas representatives. The attorney general’s office rejected that proposal as well, directing that the event instead be held after the election — approximately a week and a half after Rav Ovadia’s yahrtzeit.

Shas reacted furiously when the directive was initially issued, calling it “the brazen and outrageous demand of the dismissed attorney general.”

Party officials said the decision to postpone what they described as a prayer and memorial gathering on the grounds that it constituted “election propaganda” amounted to “a serious affront to the memory of Maran and to the enormous public in the State of Israel that follows the light of his legacy.”

Shas further argued that the directive represented “a blatant trampling of the law, which was unanimously approved by the Knesset plenum and requires the gathering to be held.”

The party vowed to challenge the decision through the courts, declaring: “We will not allow an attorney general who serves the left to harm the memory of Maran, and we will use every legal tool to overturn the decision.”

With the Religious Services Ministry’s latest notification, however, the planned October gathering at Binyanei Ha’Umah has now been formally canceled, leaving any alternative commemoration dependent on new arrangements between the ministry and the Yerushalayim Municipality.

Israeli prosecutors have filed an indictment against a 41-year-old Be’er Sheva man accused of deliberately contaminating jars of baby food with powerful prescription medication and returning them to supermarket shelves in Yerushalayim, allegedly poisoning five infants and toddlers who later consumed the products.

The State Prosecutor’s Office filed the charges against Yan Shamala in the Yerushalayim District Court, alleging that he tampered with jars of Prinok baby food puree before placing them back in stores where unsuspecting customers could purchase them.

Five young children who consumed the allegedly contaminated puree suffered poisoning severe enough to require hospitalization, according to the indictment.

The charges concern a series of incidents that prosecutors say occurred during May and June 2026. The prosecution has asked the court to keep Shamala in custody for the duration of the proceedings against him.

According to prosecutors, Shamala had prescription benzodiazepine medications in his possession. Such drugs may not be administered to children without specialist authorization. Investigators allege that on multiple occasions, Shamala crushed the pills, mixed them into jars of Prinok puree, resealed the containers and then put them on shelves at Zol U’Begadol supermarkets in Yerushalayim, making the jars appear no different from the other baby food being sold.

In one of the alleged incidents, Shamala placed two contaminated jars in the baby-products section of the chain’s Jaffa Street store near Machane Yehuda, prosecutors said. Tests allegedly showed that each container held the equivalent of approximately 17 or more prescription pills.

A mother subsequently bought one of those jars. The next day, her 12-year-old daughter served the puree to her two younger sisters, who were approximately three-and-a-half years old and eight months old.

The two small children collapsed shortly after eating the food, suffering extreme weakness and impaired consciousness. Both were rushed to the hospital in an intensive care ambulance and remained hospitalized for several days. Medical testing showed severe benzodiazepine poisoning, with levels approximately 10 times higher than the maximum value considered within the normal range.

Prosecutors allege that Shamala carried out a similar act at another Jaffa Street location, this one situated near Yerushalayim’s Central Bus Station. He is accused of putting four jars containing prescription medication onto the store’s shelves.

According to the indictment, those containers likewise held the equivalent of approximately 17 or more prescription pills apiece. One of the jars was bought and eventually consumed by three small children — two approximately three years old and an 11-month-old baby.

All three children developed alarming symptoms within minutes, including confusion, drowsiness, difficulty maintaining stability and loss of muscle tone. They were transported to the hospital and admitted for treatment, where testing indicated severe benzodiazepine poisoning.

In response to the poisonings, the supermarket removed all of the company’s baby food purees from its shelves. Subsequent examinations uncovered additional jars containing the substance. Authorities later issued closure orders for two of the supermarket chain’s locations amid concerns over the danger to public health.

Shamala now faces five counts of using a dangerous poison and five counts of assaulting a minor or helpless person. Prosecutors have additionally charged him with two counts of attempted use of a dangerous poison, two counts of attempted assault of a minor or helpless person, and theft.

Attorney Moria Beina Weisman of the Yerushalayim District Prosecutor’s Office emphasized the potential severity of the alleged acts and said the consequences could have been considerably worse.

“Five babies and toddlers were harmed, and these incidents could have ended with far more serious consequences and harmed additional children. These were young babies and toddlers, the youngest just eight months old, who were harmed by food intended for them.”

Weisman said the fact that the alleged acts involved food specifically intended for babies and very young children made the accusations particularly serious.

“Targeting specifically children of these ages through a basic product intended to nourish them compounds the severity of the acts attributed to the defendant,” she added.

{Matzav.com}

A sudden burst of warnings about the potentially catastrophic dangers of artificial intelligence — coming from Barack Obama, Democratic lawmakers and some of the most powerful figures in the AI industry just as the 2026 midterm campaign enters its final stretch — is drawing questions about whether an emerging technology debate is becoming a coordinated political issue.

New York Post columnist Miranda Devine raised that possibility in a column Sunday, pointing to the remarkable convergence of AI warnings over the past several days and arguing that their timing deserves scrutiny. Her column comes as the underlying debate over AI safety has genuinely intensified: Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei, OpenAI CEO Sam Altman, Elon Musk and other technology leaders have all recently called for slowing or more carefully controlling development of the most advanced AI systems.

The political dimension became particularly pronounced after Obama reportedly used a closed-door Democratic fundraiser in Manhattan last week to urge Democrats to make artificial intelligence policy a major priority. According to Reuters, citing a New York Times report, Obama encouraged House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries and other Democrats to focus on AI governance if the party gains control of the House and said the issue should also feature prominently in the 2028 presidential campaign.

Obama reportedly warned that AI could present dangers exceeding those posed by nuclear weapons because creating a powerful AI system does not require the difficult acquisition of nuclear material. At the same time, he stressed that properly managed AI could deliver enormous benefits, including advances in medicine and energy.

Devine argues that the timing is striking because the political warnings arrived alongside an extraordinary wave of alarms from within the technology industry.

One catalyst was Jacob Coxon, a 27-year-old Anthropic researcher who resigned and publicly warned about the possibility that advanced AI could pose an existential danger.

“The people building AI earnestly believe that it could kill us all by the end of the decade . . . They are gambling with our lives,” Coxon said.

Soon afterward, Amodei published a lengthy essay titled “We Must Pace the Frontier,” calling for AI developers to deliberately slow improvements in the capabilities of their most advanced systems so that safety measures have time to catch up.

Amodei’s argument was sweeping. While emphasizing that AI could cure diseases, accelerate economic growth and produce extraordinary improvements in human life, he warned that rapidly improving systems could become increasingly difficult to control. His proposed response includes independent evaluators inside leading AI companies, coordination among competing developers and eventually international agreements.

Amodei also acknowledged a major obstacle to any slowdown: China. If American companies restrain themselves while Chinese developers continue racing ahead, he wrote, the United States could create a serious national-security problem.

That concern is central to the opposing argument advanced by Trump administration AI adviser David Sacks and others who fear that sweeping restrictions could sacrifice America’s technological advantage.

Sacks has openly questioned both the motives and timing behind the new campaign. He has argued that if executives at Anthropic and OpenAI genuinely believe their own frontier systems are moving dangerously fast, they already have the ability to slow development without waiting for Washington to impose industry-wide rules.

“You guys are the frontier. [You] have a duopoly on frontier intelligence . . . Stop pretending you need anyone else’s permission. Stop pretending antitrust law has to be suspended so you can form a cartel. Stop pretending you need a regulatory approval process that supersedes product liability . . . Stop pretending the motivation to slow down is purely altruistic . . .

“The easiest way not to build superintelligence is for you to agree not to build it . . .

“If you don’t, we’ll know this was just another bid for regulatory capture — or an election-season psyop.”

Sacks’ criticism highlights a question extending beyond electoral politics: whether regulation sought by the largest AI companies could ultimately strengthen those companies by making it more difficult and expensive for smaller competitors to enter the market.

Devine, however, goes further. She argues that the rapid convergence of Obama, Democratic politicians, AI executives and sympathetic media coverage makes the possibility of an organized election-season narrative worth considering. She points in particular to Obama’s reported intervention and Democrats’ increasing focus on AI data centers and their effects on electricity costs, employment and communities.

There is clear evidence that Democrats are moving AI toward the center of their political agenda. Obama’s remarks to Democratic donors have been independently reported, while lawmakers have introduced or advocated new AI restrictions. Sen. Bernie Sanders, for example, has called for aggressive restrictions on artificial superintelligence. But evidence that these separate developments constitute a coordinated Democratic “psyop,” as Devine and Sacks suggest, has not been established.

There is also an important complication for the theory that AI doomsday warnings are simply a Democratic political operation: several prominent figures who are not aligned with Democrats have voiced similar concerns. Musk has backed the latest calls for slowing frontier AI, and leaders at OpenAI and Google DeepMind have also expressed support for greater caution. The current AI-safety push therefore extends considerably beyond Democratic political circles.

The underlying risks are also not purely hypothetical. Anthropic reported last week that its models have been exploited by state-sponsored groups, criminals, spyware vendors and other malicious actors for cyber operations. The company said it disrupted the activity and strengthened safeguards afterward.

The broader AI-safety debate includes fears that increasingly autonomous systems could eventually conduct cyberattacks, facilitate biological weapons development or become capable of acting beyond effective human control. How likely those extreme scenarios actually are remains heavily disputed among computer scientists and technology executives.

Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang is among the prominent skeptics of the current wave of alarmism. According to Devine, Huang dismissed some of the warnings as “complete nonsense” and suggested that companies selling AI security products have a financial incentive to emphasize potential dangers.

“What better way to create demand than to create a problem?” Huang said.

President Trump has meanwhile taken a markedly different approach, arguing that the overriding strategic concern is beating China in the race for AI supremacy. He has resisted calls for a broad slowdown and warned that unilateral American restraints could allow Beijing to overtake the United States.

That disagreement is turning what had largely been a technical argument about AI safety into a political fight with significant implications for the midterms: one side emphasizes potentially catastrophic risks and the need for government safeguards, while the other emphasizes innovation, competition and the geopolitical danger of allowing China to gain ground.

Devine’s central contention is that voters should pay attention not only to the substance of the warnings but to the political context in which they suddenly became so prominent. The evidence confirms that Obama is urging Democrats to elevate AI as a political issue and that Democratic lawmakers are increasingly doing so. It also confirms that an unusually intense wave of warnings has simultaneously emerged from major AI companies. What remains unproven is Devine’s larger suggestion that those developments are coordinated as an election strategy rather than overlapping responses to rapidly advancing technology.

That distinction may become increasingly important as November approaches. AI policy now sits at the intersection of national security, jobs, electricity prices, data centers, corporate power and America’s technological competition with China — giving both parties ample reason to make it an election issue, regardless of whether the current surge of alarm is organic or orchestrated.`

A highly unusual sight drew considerable attention among the thousands who spent Rosh Hashanah in Uman this year, as Rav Shalom Ber Sorotzkin, Rosh Yeshivas Ateres Shlomo, made his first-ever Rosh Hashanah visit to Uman and joined the massive tefillos of Breslover chassidim.

Rav Sorotzkin stayed at the Azamra Hotel during his visit, which quickly became one of the most widely discussed developments among those gathered in Uman for Rosh Hashanah.

His arrival was marked by an especially conspicuous welcome: a huge banner was hung from one of the area’s tall buildings bearing a photograph of the Rosh Yeshiva and a message welcoming him to Uman. The display immediately attracted the attention of visitors throughout the area.

On the first night of Rosh Hashanah, Rav Sorotzkin went to the main Breslover kloiz for Maariv. The massive bais medrash was packed with thousands of mispallelim, with virtually no room remaining to stand.

During both days of Rosh Hashanah, the Rosh Yeshiva davened Shacharis and Mussaf at the large minyan held in the tent of noted philanthropist Mr. Louis Scheiner. The minyan, one of the prominent Rosh Hashanah minyanim in Uman, begins each morning at 6 a.m.

Rav Sorotzkin’s presence generated considerable excitement among participants. He was seen davening with great hisorerus and simcha and, at one point, spent an extended period encouraging the spirited dancing with his hand.

The davening continued for hours, accompanied by singing and dancing, and concluded at approximately 10:45 a.m.

The visit was particularly noteworthy because of Rav Sorotzkin’s position as the Rosh Yeshiva of one of the prominent Litvishe Torah institutions in Eretz Yisrael. His decision to spend Rosh Hashanah in Uman and participate in the Breslover minyanim therefore became a major topic of conversation throughout the city.

The unusual visit was discussed extensively in the batei medrash, hotels and streets surrounding the tziyun of Rav Nachman of Breslov.

Sources indicated that Rav Sorotzkin’s unprecedented trip to Uman was connected to a major financial commitment from an American philanthropist. According to the sources, a wealthy supporter offered to cover the substantial financial shortfall facing Ateres Shlomo — reportedly amounting to millions of dollars — on the unusual condition that the Rosh Yeshiva accompany him to Uman for Rosh Hashanah. Some reports have placed the value of the commitment at approximately $10 million, although that specific figure has not been independently confirmed. Other reports said the donor undertook to cover three months of overdue stipends owed to thousands of avreichim in the Ateres Shlomo kollel network. Rav Sorotzkin consulted with one of the Gedolei Yisroel before agreeing to the arrangement, after which the outstanding stipends were transferred to the avreichim.

{Matzav.com}

The Williamsburg community is mourning the petirah of Rav Chaim Tzvi Ehrenreich zt”l, Gaavad of Shamloi and mechaber of Maayan Yeshuah, who was niftar on the second day of Rosh Hashanah after meriting to hear the shofar. He was 94.

Rav Chaim Tzvi zt”l, a distinguished link to generations of illustrious Hungarian gedolim and tzaddikim, had been ill for a relatively brief period. He remained lucid until his final hours and was niftar on Rosh Hashanah after hearing the tekios.

The niftar was the son of the noted mohel, Rav Yehoshua Ehrenreich zt”l of Yerushalayim, who was a son of the renowned Rav Shlomo Zalman Ehrenreich zt”l Hy”d, the Shamloier Rov and author of Even Shlomo and other sefarim. Rav Shlomo Zalman was murdered al kiddush Hashem during the Holocaust, together with a portion of his precious Torah manuscripts.

Rav Chaim Tzvi was also a descendant of the Kol Aryeh, and his distinguished lineage extended to Rav Tzvi Hirsch of Liska, the Tal Chaim, and other leading rabbanim and Torah luminaries of prewar Hungary.

He was the son-in-law of Rav Moshe Dov Weisberg zt”l, one of the distinguished talmidei chachamim of Yerushalayim, who was a son of Reb Chaim Shlomo Zalman Weisberg z”l and a descendant of the Ohev Yisrael of Apta.

Throughout his long life, Rav Chaim Tzvi was known for his extraordinary breadth and sharpness in all areas of Torah, including Pardes. He was particularly renowned for his knowledge of gematrios and parperaos lachochmah, which he developed and wove together based upon the teachings of Toras hachein.

He committed a large body of his Torah thoughts to writing. Portions of those writings were published in a series of kuntreisim bearing the name Maayan Yeshuah.

With his petirah, the Torah world lost a figure described by those who knew him as a continuously flowing wellspring of Torah and drush. His teachings carried the flavor of earlier generations, reflecting what he had personally heard and absorbed from the remaining links to the Torah world of prewar Europe.

Rav Chaim Tzvi was zocheh to leave behind a son and daughter, as well as grandchildren, great-grandchildren and great-great-grandchildren.

His son is Rav Yehoshua Ehrenreich, a son-in-law of the late Gaavad of Montevideo of Williamsburg. His elder son-in-law is the Nadvorna-Bania Rebbe, and one of his grandsons is the Dinov Rebbe.

The levayah is expected to take place in Williamsburg, after which the aron will be flown to Eretz Yisrael. The kevurah will take place on Har Hamenuchos in Yerushalayim, where Rav Chaim Tzvi zt”l will be laid to rest near his father.

Yehi zichro baruch.

{Matzav.com}

[Video below.] House Speaker Mike Johnson said Sunday that President Donald Trump’s proposal to send $5,000 to American adults if Republicans retain control of Congress would require lawmakers to approve the payments, while describing the President’s plan as a “creative idea” whose details still need to be worked out.

Johnson addressed the proposed “Trump Dividend” during an appearance on CNN’s “State of the Union,” days after Trump unveiled the idea at the Republican midterm convention in Dallas.

Trump announced last week that if Republicans maintain control of both the House and Senate in November, he wants to distribute $5,000 to every adult American citizen. The President compared the concept to a successful corporation sharing its profits with shareholders and said recipients would be required to spend the money inside the United States.

CNN anchor Jake Tapper pressed Johnson on whether Trump could actually distribute the money without legislative action.

“President Trump is proposing to pay every American adult $5,000, but only if Republicans keep control of the House and the Senate. For that $5,000 check, doesn’t the president need Congress to act? And are you going to carry out his wishes?” Tapper asked.

Johnson acknowledged that Congress would have to be involved, while speaking favorably about the concept.

“I would assume, yes, he’d need Congress to act. And that’s a creative idea. He launched it at our convention and got a lot of people excited. Of course, devil’s in the details. We have to figure all that out. But I think what he was articulating there is that he’s saying that if you want more money in your pocket, you have to keep Republicans in charge. Why? Because we’re talking about the record of achievement. Look at what we’ve done since President Trump took over. Republicans have had control of the House and Senate. We have the largest working and middle class tax cut in U.S. history. The average taxpayer in my home state of Louisiana, where I’m sitting this morning, has more than $2,900 in their pocket they didn’t have to send to Washington because of our policies. They also have an additional take home pay an average of $8,000 per filer. By the way, 97% of tax filers got a tax cut this year.”

Johnson’s comments underscored a significant practical issue surrounding Trump’s proposal: the President cannot simply authorize a nationwide payment of that magnitude on his own. Congress holds constitutional authority over federal spending, meaning legislation would be necessary to appropriate the money for the checks.

Trump, however, continued to promote the proposal Sunday while speaking in Ireland, arguing that the federal government could afford the payments because of increased government revenue.

“It’s easy to do,” Trump said when questioned about the cost of the proposal, according to Reuters. “We’re taking in so much money.”

The potential price tag would be enormous. Estimates have placed the cost of sending $5,000 to every American adult at well over $1 trillion, depending on exactly who qualifies for the payment. No detailed legislation establishing eligibility requirements, a funding mechanism or a timetable for distributing the checks has yet been enacted.

Trump first unveiled the proposal during his speech at the Republican convention in Dallas.

“Because we’ve done so well, and because our country is making so much money, only I can make this promise to you, and here is my promise: if the Republicans win the House of Representatives and the United States Senate… I will issue a dividend to every adult citizen in the United States of America for $5,000,” Trump said.

The President said the payments would operate much like a corporate dividend, with Americans effectively sharing in what he described as the country’s economic success. He also said the money would have to be spent domestically.

The proposal has immediately become a subject of debate on Capitol Hill, including among Republicans. Sen. Bernie Moreno of Ohio has said he intends to prepare legislation to implement the dividend if Republicans retain congressional control, while other Republicans have raised concerns about adding such a massive expenditure to the federal deficit and national debt.

Democrats, meanwhile, have sharply criticized Trump for tying the proposed payment to Republican victories in the midterm elections, arguing that the pledge amounts to an improper attempt to influence voters. Republicans and the White House have defended it as a campaign policy proposal aimed at returning the benefits of economic growth to Americans.

The proposal also follows earlier ideas floated by Trump to send direct payments to Americans. In 2025, Trump discussed a potential $2,000 tariff-funded dividend, though those payments were never implemented. He had also previously suggested distributing some of the savings generated by the Department of Government Efficiency to taxpayers.

Nationwide federal payments are not unprecedented. Congress authorized several rounds of direct stimulus payments during the COVID-19 pandemic, including two rounds signed into law by Trump during his first term and another approved under President Joe Biden. Those payments, however, were enacted through legislation passed by Congress.

For now, Trump’s $5,000 dividend remains a proposal rather than an authorized federal benefit. Johnson’s comments Sunday made clear that even if Republicans retain the House and Senate, lawmakers would still have to determine how the program would work, how it would be financed and whether sufficient support exists in Congress to approve the massive expenditure.

WATCH:

President Donald Trump announced Sunday that he plans to eliminate the 10% U.S. tariff on Irish whiskey, unveiling the decision during the trophy ceremony at the Irish Open in Doonbeg after receiving repeated appeals from Irish officials and golfers to remove the levy.

Trump made the announcement as he wrapped up his visit to Ireland, telling spectators that the issue had been raised with him repeatedly, including by Irish Prime Minister Micheál Martin and Irish Open champion Shane Lowry.

“Everybody’s been bugging me” to do it, the Republican president said. “And I said, ‘On behalf of the United States of America, I am going to take the tariffs off’” of Irish whiskey.

Irish whiskey is currently subject to the general tariff Trump imposed on most imports from the European Union. That rate, previously 15%, was lowered to 10% in July.

The issue had become particularly significant for Ireland after Trump announced in April that certain tariffs on whiskey imported from the United Kingdom would be eliminated. Because the U.K. includes Northern Ireland, the change meant Scotch whisky and spirits produced in Northern Ireland received tariff-free treatment while whiskey produced in the Republic of Ireland continued to face a U.S. import duty.

Trump’s unexpected announcement Sunday drew loud cheers and whistles from spectators attending the tournament. The President did not immediately provide details about when the tariff exemption for Irish whiskey would formally take effect.

The move was quickly welcomed by representatives of the spirits industry.

Chris Swonger, president and CEO of the Distilled Spirits Council of the United States, described Trump’s decision as “another positive step toward reducing barriers to spirits trade” and said the change would benefit businesses and consumers as the holiday shopping and hospitality season approaches.

“As U.S. hospitality businesses enter the critical holiday season, this action will provide a welcome boost for retailers, restaurants, consumers and the American economy,” Swonger said.

Ireland’s whiskey industry had been pressing the Trump administration for months to eliminate the tariff. In May, the Irish Whiskey Association publicly called for its removal, arguing that tariffs on Irish spirits also harmed American companies whose portfolios include Irish brands and created additional uncertainty for U.S. consumers.

The United States is a particularly important market for Irish whiskey, accounting for a substantial portion of the industry’s exports. The tariff disparity with U.K.-produced whiskey had therefore generated concern among Irish producers about their ability to compete in the American market.

Trump had previously attributed his decision to grant tariff relief to U.K. whiskey to a White House visit by King Charles III and Queen Camilla.

“The King and Queen got me to do something that nobody else was able to do, without hardly even asking!” Trump posted on social media.

The Scotch Whisky Association subsequently announced on July 24 that the zero-tariff treatment for Scotch had formally taken effect.

Sunday’s announcement would remove the disparity by extending tariff-free treatment to Irish whiskey as well, although the administration had not yet released the details or timetable necessary to implement Trump’s pledge.

The announcement came at the conclusion of the Irish Open at Trump International Golf Links in Doonbeg, where Trump attended the final round and participated in the trophy ceremony. His official schedule listed his attendance at the tournament before his return to Washington.

Lowry, who won the tournament, was among those Trump said had personally raised the whiskey tariff issue with him. The President’s decision therefore provided an unexpected policy coda to the golf tournament: after months of lobbying by Ireland’s whiskey industry and government officials, Trump used the trophy presentation to announce that the 10% levy would be coming off.

[COMMUNICATED]

Yesterday, Eitan did not know Shema. Today, he says it proudly for the very first time. Across Eretz Yisroel, thousands of Shuvu children are discovering Torah, keeping Shabbos and bringing the beauty of Yiddishkeit home to their families. For 35 years, Shuvu has carried forward the special mission established by Rav Avrohom Pam zt”l—changing childhoods, strengthening families and transforming Klal Yisroel.

But today, that mission needs you. The ongoing war in Eretz Yisroel has sharply reduced the government funding received by schools throughout the country, including Shuvu. Please join Shuvu’s largest fundraising campaign of the year on September 14–15 at Charidy.com/Shuvu. For two days only, every dollar will be doubled—giving twice as many children the opportunity to discover Shema, Shabbos, Torah and the Jewish heritage that will remain with them for life.

Russian President Vladimir Putin issued a stark warning to European nations on Friday, declaring that the deployment of European troops to Ukraine would trigger a direct military confrontation with Russia as Western governments discuss possible security guarantees for Kyiv following an eventual end to the war.

Speaking to reporters in New Delhi, where he was attending the BRICS summit, Putin responded to proposals under consideration by European countries to establish an international military presence designed to protect Ukraine following a peace agreement.

“Now, they say they are thinking of how to deploy troops to Ukraine,” Putin said, according to Russia’s state-run TASS news agency. “This would mean a war with Russia.”

The warning followed discussions among Ukraine’s European allies over what security arrangements could be put in place if a ceasefire or peace agreement is ultimately reached.

French President Emmanuel Macron previously announced that 26 countries had committed themselves to providing postwar security guarantees for Ukraine. The countries were considering various forms of assistance, with some prepared to participate in a force operating on land, at sea or in the air, while others could contribute without stationing personnel inside Ukraine.

“The day the conflict stops, the security guarantees will be deployed,” Macron said.

Moscow has repeatedly rejected the prospect of Western forces being stationed inside Ukraine. Putin has previously warned that Western troops deployed there would be considered legitimate military targets by Russia.

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov reinforced Putin’s latest warning on Saturday, saying Moscow had made its position unmistakably clear to European governments.

“It’s not a red line, but Russia’s position that has been conveyed to the whole world, primarily to Europeans, in an extremely specific and clear manner,” Peskov said.

The escalating rhetoric came as fighting continued at high intensity across Ukraine. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said Russia launched nearly 500 attack drones across the country on Saturday, part of a major wave of strikes that hit numerous regions.

Ukrainian officials reported that Russian attacks on Saturday killed 10 civilians and wounded dozens more, damaging residential areas and infrastructure. Among the locations hit were Odesa, Kramatorsk, Kryvyi Rih, Zaporizhzhia and the Zhytomyr region.

The attacks have increasingly extended toward Ukraine’s western frontier with NATO countries. On Sunday, Russia struck a truck near the Dorohusk-Yahodyn crossing on the Polish border, temporarily disrupting operations there. Moscow said the target was infrastructure used to support European military shipments to Ukraine.

Ukraine borders NATO members Poland, Slovakia, Hungary and Romania, as well as Moldova. The possibility that troops from European countries could eventually operate inside Ukraine has therefore become one of the most sensitive questions surrounding efforts to establish lasting security guarantees for Kyiv.

European governments supporting the proposal have described a potential international presence as a postwar deterrent rather than a force intended to enter the current fighting. Planning has focused on what would happen after hostilities cease and how Ukraine could be protected against another Russian attack.

Russia, however, has consistently opposed NATO or other Western military forces operating on Ukrainian territory and has portrayed the issue as a fundamental security concern.

Putin’s latest warning significantly raised the stakes surrounding those discussions, making explicit that Moscow would regard the arrival of European troops in Ukraine as a direct confrontation between Russia and the countries deploying them.

The warning came as diplomatic efforts to end the war continued alongside the fighting. During the BRICS gathering in New Delhi, India and other participating countries renewed calls for negotiations, while Moscow signaled that it remained open to further talks involving Russia, Ukraine and the United States.

For now, however, the gulf between Moscow and Kyiv’s European allies remains substantial. European leaders are attempting to devise guarantees strong enough to deter another Russian offensive after a settlement, while Putin is warning that one of the most significant options under discussion — putting European military personnel on Ukrainian soil — could itself produce a direct war between Russia and Europe.

[COMMUNICATED]

When it comes to an esrog, everybody’s got their thing. Some guy wants a Chazon Ish. Some guy’s holding out for a Teimani. Somebody’s asking about the pitom, somebody wants it greener, somebody’s got a whole opinion about the gartel that most people don’t even understand. It’s personal. 

Most people walking into a store are picking from whatever’s sitting on the table in front of them. That’s it. That’s the selection. EsrogShopper.com does it completely differently. You tell them exactly what you’re looking for, and someone who actually knows esrogim goes and searches for it. Not close enough. Not pretty good. The one you actually had in mind. They’re going through over ten thousand esrogim to find it, and every set comes rabbinically certified and checked.

So if you want an esrog that somebody actually shopped for, instead of one you just settled on, check out EsrogShopper.com, or give them a call at 732-246-6300.

Hiddur. Delivered.

President Donald Trump doubled down Sunday on his pledge to send $5,000 “dividend” checks to American adults if Republicans retain control of Congress in November, declaring that the payments will “happen 100 percent” and arguing that the United States is bringing in enough money to finance them. The proposal, however, would require congressional authorization and could carry a price tag exceeding $1 trillion.

Trump compared the proposed payments to the $1,776 checks distributed to U.S. military personnel last year, telling reporters outside Air Force One that he has encountered similar skepticism about his latest plan.

“The $5,000 is going to happen 100 percent,” he said. “And the reason is because our country is taking in trillions and trillions of dollars. And it’s going to happen.”

Trump said he deliberately does not intend to distribute the money before the midterm elections, tying the proposal to Republicans maintaining control of both the House and Senate.

“I don’t want to do it now, because if the Democrats get it, our country will be in shambles and they won’t be able to do it,” he continued. “If we get in, we’re taking in tremendous amounts of money. We’re taking in over $20 trillion in terms of investment. And with the Democrats, all of that money will be thrown out. If the Democrats get in, they won’t be able to pay it.”

Trump first unveiled the proposed payments last Wednesday during the Republican National Committee’s midterm convention in Dallas, where he said the country’s economic performance would allow his administration to distribute $5,000 to every adult American citizen if Republicans win both chambers. He also stipulated that the money would have to be spent inside the United States.

Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick said Thursday that the administration does not envision financing the checks through taxpayer dollars. Instead, he said the administration believes it can generate the necessary funds through other government revenue sources.

Lutnick said the administration could “earn the money that Donald Trump wants to pay out, not from the deficit and not from taxpayers.”

National Economic Council Director Kevin Hassett has suggested that Congress could approve the payments through a budget reconciliation package. Under the Constitution, Congress controls federal appropriations, meaning the administration cannot simply distribute public money without legislative authorization.

House Speaker Mike Johnson confirmed Sunday that congressional action would be necessary. Appearing on CNN’s “State of the Union,” Johnson called Trump’s proposal a “creative idea” but said lawmakers would have to determine the specifics.

The President has compared his latest proposal to the $1,776 payments that approximately 1.45 million U.S. military service members received last year. Those checks were funded through a one-time housing supplement included in Trump’s sweeping tax and spending legislation.

Republican Sen. Bernie Moreno of Ohio quickly embraced Trump’s latest proposal, announcing after the President’s Dallas speech that he intends to introduce legislation aimed at putting the $5,000 payments into effect if Republicans retain control of Congress.

The cost of such a program would be substantial. With roughly 245 million adult U.S. citizens, providing each of them with $5,000 would cost more than $1.2 trillion. Other estimates have put the potential price tag at approximately $1.3 trillion, depending on the eligibility rules ultimately adopted.

Paul Berman, a professor at George Washington University Law School, has questioned whether tariff revenue could come close to financing the program. The Hill reported that Treasury data cited by the Bipartisan Policy Center showed approximately $341 billion in net tariff revenue collected since the beginning of 2025 — far below the estimated cost of the proposed checks.

“Even if there were, that’s money that goes back to the public fisc, and then Congress is the one that has the power of the purse to allocate it,” Berman said.

The financing question has become more complicated after the Supreme Court struck down major portions of the Trump administration’s tariff program and ordered refunds of revenue collected under the invalidated tariffs. Independent analyses have likewise concluded that tariff receipts would be insufficient on their own to finance payments of $5,000 to every adult citizen.

Not all Republicans have embraced the proposal. Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis has pointed to the size of the national debt and warned that another massive round of direct payments could contribute to inflation.

Sen. Susan Collins of Maine has also expressed reservations about the potential cost and the absence, thus far, of an income limit determining who would qualify.

“From the few details we have, it seems that the proposed $5,000 dividend would not have an income cap and would be extraordinarily costly,” Collins said about the dividends.

The administration has not yet released a detailed legislative proposal explaining exactly who would qualify, how the checks would be financed, when they would be distributed or how the requirement that the money be spent in the United States would be enforced.

Trump, however, made clear Sunday that he is standing firmly behind the promise. Despite questions about the cost, congressional approval and the source of the funding, the President said there should be no doubt about his intention to deliver the payments if Republicans maintain control of Congress.

“The $5,000 is going to happen 100 percent,” he said.

Sen. Ruben Gallego said Sunday that if he were elected president, he would support undoing many of President Donald Trump’s architectural changes to Washington, including tearing down the new White House ballroom and Trump’s planned 250-foot triumphal arch near Arlington National Cemetery.

The Arizona Democrat, who has not announced a 2028 presidential campaign but has acknowledged considering a run, made the remarks during an appearance on CNN’s “State of the Union.” His comments marked one of the clearest statements yet from a potential Democratic presidential contender that some of Trump’s major construction projects should ultimately be demolished rather than simply inherited by a future administration.

CNN anchor Jake Tapper raised the subject while discussing Trump’s extensive effort to reshape prominent landmarks and public spaces around the nation’s capital, including the White House ballroom, the proposed triumphal arch and changes involving the Kennedy Center and Reflecting Pool.

“President Trump is putting his mark on Washington, DC quite a bit, building a White House ballroom. He plans to build an arch, attempts to rename the Kennedy Center, the reflecting pool, and on and on and on. It seems clear to me that this is going to be a big issue for Democrats running for president in 2028. I know you haven’t made a decision yet about whether or not you’re going to run for president, but if you do, would you advocate for tearing down the ballroom or tearing down the arch?” Tapper asked.

Gallego indicated that he would favor reversing nearly all of the changes.

“I think I’d be advocating for almost all of that. You know, the the real stain that this president has put on this country has been the fact that he eroded democracy, right. Let’s start with January 6. The fact that for the first time ever, a U.S. president attempted an actual coup. That right there is a reason why we should not have anything named toward him. The fact that he has destroyed the institutions that have kept this government together through some of the hardest times, and eroded, for example, our Department of Justice, is another reason why we needs to be taking down all these honorific situations or emblems of him. The fact that he wants to destroy the Kennedy Center, a man that contributed so much to this country, to replace it with his name, who has done everything to destroy this country, is another reason why we have to make sure that we wipe him out. So this is not me trying to get to Donald Trump because I don’t like Donald Trump, it’s because of what Donald Trump has done to this country. And as somebody who visits a lot of my friends at Section 60 of Arlington National Cemetery, the fact that we’re going to have this ugly monstrosity in the view of this very sacred site —”

Tapper interrupted to clarify which project Gallego was referring to.

“The arch?”

Gallego confirmed that he was referring to Trump’s planned triumphal arch.

“The arch is another reason why that needs to be taken care of. Because, again, this man has done nothing but actually destroy the very fundamental things that these men and women have fought for, which is to save this country in continuous democracy.”

Gallego’s remarks came as Trump has moved aggressively ahead with a series of major construction and renovation projects in Washington. The proposed arch is planned for Memorial Circle between the Lincoln Memorial and Arlington National Cemetery and has been envisioned at roughly 250 feet tall. The administration has said the monument would honor American veterans and has compared its design to Paris’ Arc de Triomphe.

The arch has generated both political and legal opposition. Critics contend that the structure would interfere with the historic sight line between the Lincoln Memorial and Arlington House and argue that the administration lacks the congressional authorization required to build it. The administration has disputed those arguments, while the project has yet to receive final approval from the National Capital Planning Commission.

Trump has strongly defended the project, saying of the planned arch, “I think it will be the most beautiful in the world.” He has compared it to the Arc de Triomphe in Paris and said the Washington structure would be of a similar scale, though slightly larger.

The White House ballroom has separately become a major political and legal flashpoint. Construction on the project has continued following litigation over whether congressional approval was required, with the Supreme Court recently allowing work to proceed while the legal battle continues.

Trump has defended the ballroom as both a major improvement to the White House and a project intended to serve future presidents, rather than himself. He has also described the facility as designed with significant security features.

“This is for future presence. This isn’t for me. This is for future presence. And it’s a gift. We’re making a gift to our country, spending hundreds of millions of dollars to build a ballroom,” Trump said last month.

The dispute over what a future administration should do with Trump’s Washington projects has been building for months. Some Democrats have discussed reversing name changes and other alterations, although others have suggested that physically demolishing completed structures would be far more difficult to justify. CNN reported earlier this month that Democrats it had spoken with generally did not expect a future Democratic administration to tear down completed projects because doing so could itself be viewed as destructive.

Gallego, however, went considerably further Sunday, saying he would favor removing much of Trump’s imprint if he eventually reached the White House. His comments were particularly pointed regarding the arch, which he described as an “ugly monstrosity” because of its planned location within view of Arlington National Cemetery.

The Arizona senator tied his opposition to friends buried in Section 60 at Arlington, arguing that Trump should not be memorialized near a site honoring American servicemembers.

Gallego’s remarks also offered a preview of an issue that could become part of the 2028 presidential debate: whether Trump’s physical transformation of Washington should remain after he leaves office or whether a succeeding administration should attempt to reverse it.

[Video below.] Michigan Democratic Senate nominee Abdul El-Sayed escalated his attacks on President Donald Trump on Sunday, calling the President a “barbarian in the White House” during a nationally televised interview on CBS News’ “Face the Nation.”

El-Sayed made the remark while responding to questions about the extraordinary amount of attention Republican leaders have focused on his candidacy ahead of November’s midterm elections. El-Sayed, a physician and former director of the Detroit Health Department, is facing Republican Mike Rogers in Michigan’s closely watched U.S. Senate contest. Republicans have increasingly sought to make El-Sayed and his progressive political views a national campaign issue.

During the interview, CBS host Weijia Jiang noted that El-Sayed had repeatedly been singled out by leading Republicans at the recent Republican National Convention, including President Trump, Vice President JD Vance, House Speaker Mike Johnson and Rogers.

Jiang then played a clip of Johnson warning about El-Sayed and New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani while arguing that Democrats in competitive congressional districts ultimately align themselves with the party’s progressive wing.

“We know who the Mamdanis and the El-Sayeds are, but it’s the Democrats in the swing seats who say one thing and then join forces and vote with the socialists that they’re afraid of. That is the dangerous part. They’re the ones who have let the barbarians inside the gate,” Johnson said.

Asked what he thought about Republicans devoting so much attention to him, El-Sayed immediately turned Johnson’s “barbarians” characterization against President Trump.

“Well, I’ll tell you this: the barbarian is in the White House, and we’re seeing the consequences of that right now,” El-Sayed said.

El-Sayed then accused Republicans of attempting to divert voters’ attention from economic and foreign-policy issues, citing gas and grocery prices, tariffs, the administration’s conflict with Canada, the war with Iran and access to medical care.

“You know, it was not a subject at all of the RNC? the gas prices, grocery prices, these ridiculous tariffs, and this war with Canada that’s raising our prices an average $5,600 a year for the average Michigan family. The war in Iran- didn’t want to talk about any of it. The fact that you can’t see a doctor in the United States. So, they’re going to point to me. They’re going to talk about me. They’re going to point to my name. They’re going to point to our faith. And at the end of the day, they’re doing that so that you don’t pay attention to the fact that you are being nickled and dimed by the barbarian in the White House and by a set of public policies that are not in your interest, but in his.”

The remarks came as El-Sayed has emerged as a major Republican target in the battle for control of the Senate. Republican leaders have portrayed his candidacy as evidence of the Democratic Party’s movement toward its progressive wing, while El-Sayed has sought to make affordability, health care and economic policy central themes of his general-election campaign.

The Michigan contest has attracted national attention in part because of its potential significance in determining control of the Senate. Democrats need a net gain of four seats to take the chamber, making competitive races such as Michigan particularly consequential.

El-Sayed has also faced controversy during the campaign over previous remarks and associations. Earlier this month, he apologized to Michigan’s Jewish Democratic Caucus over comments he made following an attack on Temple Israel in West Bloomfield, Michigan. El-Sayed had said in discussing the attacker that “hurt people hurt people,” while referencing the man’s reported personal losses in an Israeli airstrike. He later said he had intended to provide context rather than justify the attack and acknowledged that it was not the appropriate moment for such analysis.

At the same time, some attacks directed at El-Sayed have drawn criticism for targeting his Muslim faith. Republican figures have made allegations about El-Sayed having ties to terrorism without presenting evidence, while El-Sayed has argued that Republicans are deliberately focusing on his name and religion.

Sunday’s exchange underscored the increasingly personal tone of the Michigan race. Republicans have sought to associate El-Sayed with the Democratic Party’s progressive and socialist wing, while El-Sayed used his CBS appearance to turn one of their most pointed descriptions back on President Trump — twice referring to the President as the “barbarian in the White House.”

WATCH:

{Matzav.com}

Researchers are raising concerns about a rare and potentially fatal neurological disorder that has been reported among some patients using popular GLP-1 weight-loss medications, including Wegovy and Zepbound, with experts warning that severe appetite suppression, vomiting and other gastrointestinal side effects can leave patients dangerously deficient in essential nutrients.

A study published in Clinical Nutrition documented 15 reported cases of Wernicke encephalopathy, a serious brain disorder resulting from a severe deficiency of vitamin B1, or thiamine, among people who had been taking GLP-1 receptor agonists.

The majority of cases were associated with semaglutide, which is marketed under the brand names Ozempic and Wegovy, or tirzepatide, which is sold as Mounjaro and Zepbound.

The researchers identified the 15 cases by reviewing reports contained in the FDA’s Adverse Event Reporting System, previously published medical literature and cases seen at their own medical center.

Many of the patients experienced gastrointestinal or nutrition-related problems, including significant weight loss, vomiting, reduced appetite and malnutrition.

The researchers also found that reports of Wernicke encephalopathy occurred disproportionately among people using GLP-1 drugs compared with patients taking other medications. They cautioned, however, that their findings demonstrate an association and do not establish that the medications themselves caused the disorder.

Vitamin B1 is essential for normal brain function. A severe deficiency can result in confusion, difficulty walking, impaired balance and changes in vision. Without prompt treatment, Wernicke encephalopathy can cause lasting neurological injury and, in severe cases, death.

Karthik Achari, a Chicago-based clinician and founder of PepMD who was not involved with the research, stressed that the findings need to be understood in the context of the enormous number of people now using GLP-1 medications.

“Researchers went through adverse event reports and the medical literature and found a small number of cases, 15, of Wernicke encephalopathy in people taking GLP-1 drugs,” Achari told Fox News Digital. “That’s out of millions of people on these medications. So this is rare.”

“But it’s real, it’s serious, and the mechanism makes sense,” he added.

According to Achari, GLP-1 drugs can substantially suppress appetite and can also trigger nausea and vomiting. In certain patients, that combination could lead to inadequate food intake and eventually a vitamin B1 deficiency.

“The drug shrinks your appetite. It doesn’t shrink your body’s requirements,” he said. “You can now eat very little without feeling it, which is the point of the medication, but your need for protein, vitamins, and fluids didn’t go anywhere.”

Achari said certain groups could be particularly vulnerable, including patients experiencing prolonged nausea or vomiting, those rapidly losing weight while consuming very little food, people who previously underwent bariatric surgery and those who consume alcohol heavily.

Erin Palinski-Wade, a New Jersey-based nutritionist and author of “The Sleepdemic Solution,” similarly emphasized that adequate nutrition and hydration should be an important component of care for patients using GLP-1 medications.

“GLP-1 medications can dramatically reduce appetite, but that also means people may unintentionally under-eat the very things their bodies need most, especially protein, fiber and fluids,” she told Fox News Digital.

Palinski-Wade warned that persistent vomiting or diarrhea can contribute to dehydration and potentially lead to kidney complications. She recommended seeking medical advice when such symptoms continue for approximately 24 hours.

“Don’t assume every side effect is just part of being on a GLP-1,” Palinski-Wade said. “Severe or persistent symptoms deserve attention.”

The study’s authors noted important limitations to their findings, particularly that much of the research was based on adverse-event reports submitted to the FDA. Such reports cannot establish that GLP-1 drugs caused Wernicke encephalopathy. The researchers called for further study, while medical experts cautioned that patients should not discontinue prescribed GLP-1 medications solely because of the new findings.

Blue and White chairman Benny Gantz issued a blistering condemnation of “NAZA,” an anti-Israel film that received an award at the 83rd Venice Film Festival, accusing its creators of falsely depicting Israel as intentionally killing civilians in Gaza.

The film, produced by two Israelis, presents the Gaza war from a pro-Palestinian perspective and portrays Israel and the IDF in a sharply negative and delegitimizing light.

“As a former IDF Chief of Staff and Defense Minister, I state unequivocally: IDF soldiers and commanders are among the most moral, humane and principled fighters in the world. How do I know? Because I was there. I know the IDF’s operations in Gaza in detail – before October 7, and even more so afterward,” Gantz wrote.

Gantz rejected the film’s portrayal of Israel’s conduct in Gaza, arguing that the IDF had gone to extraordinary lengths to uphold ethical standards while fighting in densely populated areas.

“You have to be a liar to portray Israel as deliberately carrying out killings in Gaza. No army in the world has fought in an urban environment while maintaining the purity of arms as the IDF has.”

Gantz also recalled a message he said he delivered to senior American military officials shortly after the October 7 massacre, stressing that Israel’s military campaign was never intended as an act of vengeance.

“In the first days of the war, for example, I told a delegation of American generals that there was no action we could take in Gaza that would make up for the atrocities committed against us on October 7. Therefore, revenge was never the purpose of the fighting. We are fighting to protect Israel’s citizens and to ensure security for the decades to come.”

Gantz’s criticism came after Culture and Sports Minister Miki Zohar denounced the filmmakers in even stronger terms, saying he would seek to have their Israeli citizenship revoked “for betraying the state.”

“The victory of the despicable film NAZA at the Venice Film Festival is appalling,” Zohar said. “The creators’ seething self-hatred, which drives them to harm their homeland in order to receive applause from antisemites around the world, is unfathomable and constitutes a betrayal of the state. This is precisely why I led the important cinema reform – so that Israeli citizens will no longer pay out of their own pockets for attacks on IDF soldiers and the State of Israel. I will work to revoke the citizenship of these contemptible filmmakers.”

{Matzav.com}