U.S. homebuilders are circulating a plan that would call for the construction of nearly one million homes branded as “Trump Homes,” an initiative aimed at easing the country’s housing affordability crunch, Bloomberg News reported Tuesday.
Under the concept, builders would offer entry-level homes through a pathway-to-ownership structure, enabling private investors to provide tens of billions of dollars in capital to support the effort, according to Bloomberg News, which cited people familiar with the proposal.
News of the discussions boosted homebuilder stocks in early trading, with shares of Lennar, D.R. Horton, Pultegroup, Toll Brothers, Taylor Morrison Home, and KB Home rising between 5% and 7%.
Lennar declined to comment on the report, while the other builders mentioned and the White House did not immediately respond to requests for comment from Reuters.
The proposal is being floated as many Americans continue to struggle with high housing costs amid persistent inflation, a combination that has weighed heavily on home sales nationwide.
If the plan were carried out at the scale being discussed—roughly one million homes—it could result in more than $250 billion in new housing supply, according to Bloomberg News estimates.
Despite the potential scope, a White House official told Bloomberg News that the administration is not actively weighing the proposal at this time.
The report also noted that implementing such a program would be complex and could face hurdles in securing sufficient backing to move forward.
Last month, President Donald Trump signed an executive order aimed at limiting large institutional investors from competing with individual buyers, a move intended to improve housing affordability.
{Matzav.com}
Graphic footage capturing the fatal shooting of conservative activist Charlie Kirk during a speech at a Utah college campus spread rapidly online, amassing millions of views within hours.
Now, lawyers representing the man accused of killing Kirk are asking a state judge to prevent those videos from being shown at a court hearing set for Tuesday. The defense is also requesting that television and still cameras be excluded from the courtroom, contending that coverage by what they describe as “highly biased” media outlets threatens the fairness of the proceedings.
Prosecutors, joined by attorneys for news organizations, have urged District Judge Tony Graf to keep the hearing open to the public. Legal scholars, however, say the defense’s concerns are not unfounded. Media exposure in widely followed cases like that of Tyler Robinson can have a measurable “biasing effect” on prospective jurors, according to Cornell Law School professor Valerie Hans.
“There were videos about the killing, and pictures and analysis (and) the entire saga of how this particular defendant came to turn himself in,” said Hans, who specializes in jury research. “When jurors come to a trial with this kind of background information from the media, it shapes how they see the evidence that is presented in the courtroom.”
Robinson, 22, faces an aggravated murder charge in connection with the Sept. 10 shooting of Kirk at Utah Valley University in Orem, and prosecutors have indicated they will pursue the death penalty.
Roughly 3,000 people were present at the outdoor rally where Kirk, a co-founder of Turning Point USA known for energizing young voters to support President Donald Trump, was speaking when he was shot.
Under Utah law, prosecutors must prove the presence of aggravating factors to obtain a death sentence, including that the crime was particularly heinous or cruel. The graphic videos circulating online could become relevant to that determination.
Viewing such footage could lead people to conclude, “‘Yeah, this was especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel,’” Hans said.
The challenge of selecting an impartial jury is further complicated by the intense political discourse surrounding Kirk and the influence of his organization during Trump’s 2024 election campaign.
Even before Robinson was taken into custody, speculation spread about the identity of the shooter and his political beliefs, said University of Utah law professor Teneille Brown.
“People are just projecting a lot of their own sense of what they think was going on, and that really creates concerns about whether they can be open to hearing the actual evidence that’s presented,” she said.
As the case has progressed, Robinson’s attorneys have increasingly alleged media bias, at one point accusing news outlets of attempting to read lips to determine what their client was saying privately to his lawyers during court appearances.
Those concerns intensified after a television camera operator zoomed in on Robinson’s face as he spoke with his attorneys during a Jan. 16 hearing. The move violated courtroom rules, leading the judge to halt filming of Robinson for the rest of that session.
“Rather than being a beacon for truth and openness, the News Media have simply become a financial investor in this case,” defense attorneys wrote in a motion seeking to seal portions of their claims regarding media conduct. Making those filings public, they argued, “will simply generate even more views of the offending coverage, and more revenue for the News Media.”
Prosecutors have acknowledged the extraordinary public attention on the case but maintain that it does not justify limiting public access to the courts. Transparency, they argued, must be preserved regardless of the circumstances.
“This case arose, and will remain, in the public eye. That reality favors greater transparency of case proceedings, not less,” Utah County prosecutors wrote in a filing.
The defense is also attempting to have local prosecutors removed from the case, asserting a conflict of interest because the daughter of a deputy county attorney involved in the prosecution attended the rally where Kirk was killed.
Prosecutors responded that they could introduce video evidence at Tuesday’s hearing to show that the daughter is not a critical witness, noting that many others captured the shooting on camera.
According to prosecutors, one of those recordings depicts the moment the bullet struck Kirk, followed by blood flowing from his neck and Kirk collapsing from his chair.
{Matzav.com}Rav Yitzchok Yosef, the former Rishon LeTzion, delivered sharp criticism on Motzaei Shabbos of Sephardim who adopt Ashkenazi customs out of what he described as a sense of inferiority, saying such behavior reflects disrespect toward their own rabbinic tradition.
Speaking during his weekly shiur at the Yazdim Shul, Rav Yosef said, “The problem in our generation is that people imitate Ashkenazi customs in everything, as if we have no customs at all and only Ashkenazim have good ones.” While acknowledging the strengths of the Ashkenazi Torah world, he stressed that imitation should be selective. “Imitate them in the good things they have — establishing yeshivos, building kollelim, burning enthusiasm in learning, deep analysis and iyun. But do you have to do everything they do?”
Rav Yosef addressed specific wedding-related practices, including fasting on the wedding day and immersing in a mikveh before the chuppah, rejecting these customs for Sephardim. “They fast on their wedding day — let them fast. It’s the custom of their forefathers. We follow the customs of our forefathers. Maran does not write in the Shulchan Aruch that a chassan must fast on the day of his wedding. The Rav, zichrono livrachah — Rav Ovadia — was opposed to chassanim fasting.” He added that priorities had been distorted: “They took what is secondary and made it primary.” Instead, he advised that a chassan should spend the day learning or reciting Tehillim. “Today they copy everything from Ashkenazim, even going to the mikveh. We never heard of such a thing. In our times, this didn’t exist.”
During the shiur, Rav Yosef also related that Ashkenazim sometimes approach him privately seeking to adopt Sephardic practice for the sake of leniency. “Sometimes Ashkenazim come to me quietly and say, ‘Rav, your halachos are easier. Look, on Pesach I have what to eat: rice, everything, legumes. Ashkenazim have nothing — only potatoes.’”
He distinguished between people raised in religious homes and baalei teshuvah. “I ask him, ‘Was your father religious or not? If you’re the son of Lapid and you grew up on Bialik, then yes, be Sephardi, completely. But if you’re the son of a religious father, don’t abandon the Torah of your mother. Your father followed the opinion of the Rema — continue as your father did.’”
Addressing baalei teshuvah from secular families who insist on adopting Ashkenazi stringencies, Rav Yosef said, “If he’s a baal teshuvah and his father was secular, what is ‘the Torah of your mother’? The Torah of Bialik? What Torah is that? Therefore, someone whose father was secular and wants to be Sephardi should follow Sephardic practice here in Eretz Yisroel, because this is asra d’mara.” He cited the kabbalist Rav Yaakov Pragi, who served as rav and av beis din in Alexandria, Egypt, and condemned adopting Ashkenazi stringencies such as wearing tzitzis out and conducting a yichud room. “Is this not disrespecting your rabbanim? As if your rabbis aren’t important? Rav Ezra Attiya? Rav Ben Tzion? Maran? Rav Tzadkah? They’re not important? Only Ashkenazim matter?”
Rav Yosef further criticized changes in dress, particularly the practice of wearing tzitzis outside one’s clothing. “If they take out their tzitzis, then I also need to take out my tzitzis. But did Rav Ezra Attiya do that? Did the Kaf HaChaim do that? Did the Ben Ish Chai do that? When Maran wore a cloak, fine. When he wore a frock coat, were his tzitzis outside? No. They were always inside. So why imitate Ashkenazim?”
He contrasted this with Ashkenazi pride in their own customs. “They wear a gartel. It’s not required by halachah, but it’s their custom. No one would dare tell an Ashkenazi to change his minhag, and rightly so. Kol hakavod to them. So why shouldn’t it be the same for us?”
Rav Yosef concluded with a pointed message: “Why constantly imitate them? As if your rabbis aren’t important enough. Every community should hold fast to its own customs.” He ended with a stern warning, again quoting Rav Pragi: “One who adopts stringencies against his rabbis, against the Shulchan Aruch, is showing contempt for the honor of his rabbis.”
{Matzav.com}
