Feed aggregator

The Trump administration has approved a potential $24.3 billion sale of 48 F-35 fighter jets to Saudi Arabia, moving Riyadh significantly closer to acquiring one of America’s most advanced combat aircraft and marking a major development in the defense relationship between Washington and the kingdom. The proposed sale still faces the U.S. arms-sale process following the State Department’s approval.

Under the package approved by the State Department, Saudi Arabia has requested 48 F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighters configured for conventional takeoff and landing, along with 49 Pratt & Whitney F135-PW-100 engines. Forty-eight of those engines would be installed in the aircraft, while one would serve as a spare.

The multibillion-dollar package extends far beyond the aircraft themselves. It includes secure communications systems, precision-navigation and cryptographic equipment, electronic-warfare database support, equipment for maintaining both the jets and their munitions, spare parts, consumable items and repair-and-return services.

Saudi forces would also receive training equipment and simulators, software and technical documentation, transportation and aerial-refueling support, as well as training for personnel involved in operating and maintaining the aircraft.

Additional elements of the proposed agreement include maintenance assistance, aircraft modifications, technical studies and surveys, site assessments and engineering, logistics and technical support provided by the U.S. government.

In its justification for approving the sale, the State Department said the package would advance U.S. foreign-policy and national-security objectives by strengthening Saudi Arabia’s security and defense capabilities. The department described the kingdom as an important American security partner in the Gulf.

Washington said the F-35s would enhance Saudi Arabia’s ability to defend its territory and deter both existing and emerging threats. The aircraft would also increase the Saudi military’s ability to operate alongside American, regional and NATO forces.

The State Department said the acquisition would expand the Royal Saudi Air Force’s operational fleet while giving the kingdom additional air-to-air and air-to-ground self-defense capabilities. U.S. officials said Saudi Arabia should be able to incorporate the aircraft and accompanying equipment into its military without significant difficulty.

Despite the scale and sophistication of the proposed acquisition, the State Department said it does not expect the deal to change the strategic military equilibrium in the Middle East.

“The proposed sale of this equipment and support will not alter the military balance in the region,” the department said.

The planned sale comes as Saudi Arabia has become more deeply involved in the continuing Middle East conflict, increasing the significance of Riyadh’s efforts to upgrade its air power.

Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company, based in Fort Worth, Texas, would serve as the principal contractor for the F-35 aircraft, while Pratt & Whitney Military Engines of East Hartford, Connecticut, would be the principal contractor for the jets’ engines.

At this stage, the U.S. government said it is unaware of any offset agreement connected with the proposed transaction. If such an arrangement is ultimately reached, its terms would be negotiated directly between Saudi Arabia and the companies involved.

The sale also is not expected to require additional U.S. government personnel or contractor representatives to be permanently assigned to Saudi Arabia for implementation.

The State Department further determined that proceeding with the package would not negatively affect the readiness of America’s own armed forces.

The approval represents a major formal step toward a Saudi F-35 acquisition, but it does not by itself mean that the $24.3 billion transaction has been completed or that the aircraft have been delivered. The proposed sale must continue through the required U.S. process before a final agreement and eventual transfer can take place.

{Matzav.com}

President Donald Trump said Thursday that he is nearing a major decision on the next phase of the war with Iran, weighing whether to launch another large-scale military offensive against the Iranian regime or pursue a renewed diplomatic track.

“I have a big decision coming up. Do I want to go in and annihilate them [the Iranian regime] or do I not? It’s a big decision. Anything could happen with me,” Trump told Axios.

Trump’s remarks came just days before he is scheduled to meet with leaders of six Gulf nations on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly in New York. The discussions are expected to play an important role as the President considers how the United States should proceed in the nearly seven-month-old conflict.

Representatives from Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait and Oman are expected to participate in Tuesday’s meeting. According to Axios, the talks could help shape whether Washington makes another attempt at diplomacy with Tehran or returns to more intensive military operations.

Trump said he intends to listen closely to the Gulf leaders before making his decision, particularly given the effects the war has had across the region.

“I want to find out where they are and how they are doing. We have been very protective of them,” he said.

The President would not say whether he expects to decide on the next stage of the conflict before or after the U.S. midterm elections in November.

Trump previously decided against restarting major combat operations in early August after Saudi Arabia and Qatar expressed concern that an expanded American offensive could prompt Iran to retaliate against Saudi oil and natural-gas infrastructure, according to Axios.

Since then, the administration has pursued a less intensive military approach while maintaining significant pressure on Tehran. Negotiations with Iran were suspended, additional economic sanctions were imposed, and the United States continued its naval blockade of Iranian ports. At the same time, American forces have concentrated on reopening the Strait of Hormuz and increasing the movement of energy shipments through the critical waterway.

Those efforts have led to a substantial increase in the number of oil and gas tankers passing through the strait, although traffic has yet to return to the levels seen before the war and oil prices remain elevated.

Trump and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth have directed the U.S. military to maintain its current force presence in the Middle East through the end of 2026, according to U.S. officials cited by Axios. The deployment is intended to keep American forces prepared should Trump order a return to full-scale combat.

But officials have indicated that maintaining the military in its present posture indefinitely is not practical, adding pressure for a decision about Washington’s longer-term objectives.

“At some point you have to decide what is the end game,” the official said.

Trump also pointed to the naval blockade as one area where he believes the U.S. campaign has been particularly effective.

“Not one ship has gone to Iran since we started. They tried, and we blew them up,” he said.

At the same time that he is publicly considering another military escalation, Trump said direct communication between Washington and Tehran is continuing. He also maintained that Iranian leaders remain interested in reaching an agreement with the United States.

The White House, meanwhile, has begun developing a broader strategy for the Middle East once the current war ends. According to Axios, the plan remains in its early stages but envisions a regional effort to contain Iran while simultaneously expanding normalization between Israel and neighboring Arab countries.

Administration officials are developing that framework with an eye toward the remaining two years of Trump’s term. The political calendar is also looming over the planning, with Israel scheduled to hold elections on October 27 and the U.S. midterm elections following in November.

Another major question surrounding next week’s United Nations gathering is whether Trump will meet with Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu while both leaders are in New York.

Asked whether such a meeting would take place, Trump replied, “I may.”

The White House on Thursday withdrew President Donald Trump’s nomination of Lance Schroyer to lead U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, abandoning the selection less than three months after Trump tapped the former Oklahoma state trooper to take charge of an agency at the center of his administration’s immigration enforcement efforts.

The administration did not publicly provide a reason for withdrawing Schroyer’s nomination. The White House formally listed Richard Lance Schroyer among five nominations withdrawn from the Senate on Thursday.

Schroyer’s nomination, however, had made little progress since Trump announced his selection in late June. Sen. Rand Paul, the Kentucky Republican who chairs the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, had not scheduled a confirmation hearing, creating a major obstacle to Schroyer reaching a vote before the full Senate.

Trump announced Schroyer as his choice on June 27, highlighting his nearly three decades in Oklahoma law enforcement as well as his service in the U.S. Marine Corps. The nomination was formally sent to the Senate on July 20.

At the time, Trump praised Schroyer as a “PATRIOT with real operational experience, and proven leader with DECADES of experience locking up the worst of the worst,” and urged senators to move quickly on the nomination.

Schroyer spent 29 years in Oklahoma law enforcement and rose to the rank of major with the Oklahoma Highway Patrol. He later became a senior adviser to Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin, a fellow Oklahoman with whom Schroyer has had a longstanding relationship.

Before Mullin became homeland security secretary, Schroyer had also served on his security detail while Mullin was in the Senate. Mullin publicly described Schroyer earlier this year as a “good friend of mine.”

Schroyer did have some experience working directly with federal immigration enforcement. He helped lead an Oklahoma Highway Patrol initiative to train more than 700 state troopers to work with ICE under the federal 287(g) program, which allows designated state and local officers to perform certain immigration-enforcement functions. Schroyer himself was deputized to make ICE arrests after completing training last year.

Still, questions had been raised about his comparatively limited experience in federal immigration enforcement and his background managing an organization far smaller than ICE. CNN reported that some immigration hardliners and officials within the Department of Homeland Security had privately expressed doubts about his selection.

The more immediate problem was in the Senate.

Paul had yet to schedule Schroyer’s confirmation hearing and had not publicly committed to supporting him. The Kentucky senator and Mullin have also had a contentious relationship, including a heated exchange during Mullin’s own confirmation process earlier this year.

Other reporting has linked the stalled nomination to Paul’s demands for additional information from the Department of Homeland Security regarding investigations into the fatal shootings of two U.S. citizens by federal immigration officers in Minnesota in January. The White House itself, however, has not said whether that dispute played a role in its decision to withdraw Schroyer.

The withdrawal leaves ICE once again without a nominee positioned to become its first Senate-confirmed director in years.

The agency has not had a Senate-confirmed director since early 2017. Both Republican and Democratic administrations have relied on a succession of acting officials to oversee ICE after nominees either failed to win confirmation or were never brought to a final Senate vote.

That leadership vacuum is particularly notable because ICE has taken on an expanded role during Trump’s second administration as the White House has increased immigration arrests, detention and deportation operations around the country. Supporters of the administration say those measures are necessary to enforce immigration law and improve public safety, while Democrats and immigration-rights organizations have challenged aspects of the enforcement campaign and raised concerns about due process and the treatment of immigrants.

ICE has also undergone recent changes at the acting-director level. Todd Lyons stepped down as acting director in May, and longtime ICE official David Venturella subsequently took over leadership of the agency in an acting capacity.

When Trump initially selected Schroyer, the President pointed specifically to his involvement in partnerships between Oklahoma law enforcement and ICE as evidence that he was suited for the position.

“Lance has over 29 YEARS of Law Enforcement experience in Oklahoma,” Trump wrote when announcing the nomination, adding, “The Senate must CONFIRM Lance, IMMEDIATELY — Do not delay.”

Instead, Schroyer never received a confirmation hearing.

The White House’s withdrawal means the administration will now have to decide whether to nominate another candidate for the position if it wants to end ICE’s lengthy reliance on acting directors. As of Thursday afternoon, the administration had not announced a replacement or explained why it decided to abandon Schroyer’s nomination.

For now, Venturella remains in charge in an acting capacity, while one of the federal agencies most central to the administration’s immigration agenda remains without a Senate-confirmed leader nearly a decade after the position was last permanently filled.

New York City is beginning the rollout of 17 high-tech public bathrooms across all five boroughs, offering New Yorkers free access to toilets in areas where finding a restroom has long been difficult — but users will have just 10 minutes before the bathroom door automatically opens.

Mayor Zohran Mamdani announced Wednesday that installation of the modular bathrooms is underway as part of a $4 million, one-year pilot program. The units are being placed in public plazas, parks and other heavily traveled locations that currently lack dependable restroom access.

“Many of us have pleaded with baristas and maître d’s, we have listened intently as the worker at Chipotle whispers the bathroom code to another paying customer,” Mamdani said at a press conference.

Each of the new facilities will include a flushing toilet, running-water sink, climate control and a baby-changing station. The ADA-accessible bathrooms will be touchless and will even play music while they are occupied. They are scheduled to operate daily from 7 a.m. until 10 p.m.

But anyone planning an extended bathroom visit will have to think again.

Each user is given a 10-minute limit. As the deadline approaches, the bathroom issues a series of audio and visual warnings, including flashing lights. At five minutes, the music is interrupted by a notification that the user has reached the halfway point. At eight minutes, another message warns that the visit is nearing its end and that the door will open at the 10-minute mark.

As Mamdani said at Wednesday’s announcement, “This is not a place to scroll.”

The unusual time restriction is intended in part to discourage people from remaining inside the facilities for extended periods and to keep the bathrooms available for their intended purpose. City officials said the average public-restroom visit lasts only about three-and-a-half minutes.

The project originated earlier this year. The city announced the $4 million modular-restroom initiative in January, and the New York City Economic Development Corporation subsequently issued a request for proposals. In June, NYCEDC selected Throne Labs to manufacture, install, operate and maintain the 17 units.

A major advantage of the bathrooms is their mobility. Unlike conventional public restrooms, the self-contained units do not need to be hooked up to the city’s water, sewer or electrical infrastructure. That allows the city to install them comparatively quickly and move or remove them if patterns of demand change.

The city says the modular approach is also significantly less expensive than building traditional permanent public bathrooms. At Wednesday’s press conference, Mamdani said the entire group of 17 units costs roughly what New York has historically spent to construct a single conventional public restroom.

Access to the facilities will be controlled electronically. Users can enter through a text message, QR code or the Throne Bathroom Network app. For people without smartphones, physical tap cards will be distributed by community organizations near the bathrooms.

The app will also show users where the closest facility is located, whether it is currently available and cleanliness ratings submitted by previous users. Those ratings and other feedback are designed to alert Throne Labs when a unit needs attention.

City officials said the bathrooms will receive regular in-person cleaning as well. Mamdani said each facility would be cleaned by an actual worker after an average of 15 uses or fewer, part of an effort to address one of the most persistent complaints surrounding public restrooms: cleanliness.

The 17 facilities are being introduced amid a longstanding shortage of public bathrooms in New York City. Mamdani said Wednesday that the city has roughly one public toilet for every 8,500 residents, while many existing facilities are located inside city parks.

“New York City’s number one place to go number two. Or number one. You don’t need to tell me or anybody at City Hall,” said Mamdani, who predicted that the new facilities would prove popular.

NYC Parks Commissioner Tricia Shimamura said the shortage can make spending extended periods in the city’s parks particularly difficult for families.

“I too am a parent of a 4- and a 7-year-old, and also a New Yorker who likes to stay my parks as long as possible. And the only way that you can do that is when you know that you have a public restroom nearby,” said NYC Parks Commissioner Tricia Shimamura.

The bathrooms will be spread throughout all five boroughs. Bronx locations include Yankee Stadium, Admiral Farragut Playground, Mapes Park and Monsignor Raul Del Valle Square. Brooklyn sites include Columbus Park, Milestone Park, Fulton Street and Truxton Street, and Avenue C Plaza.

In Queens, units are planned for Astoria Boulevard South and 31st Street; Northern Boulevard and 31st Street; Northern Boulevard and 54th Street; and 34th Avenue and 64th Street. Manhattan locations include Cooper Square, Malcolm X Plaza, Delancey and Suffolk streets, and Plaza Alianza Dominicana. Staten Island will receive a unit at the North Shore Esplanade.

The administration is attempting to address a problem that has frustrated city officials for decades. Previous efforts to increase public-restroom access have repeatedly encountered problems involving cost, construction, maintenance and where facilities should be placed.

One prominent earlier experiment came during the administration of Mayor Michael Bloomberg. In 2008, the city introduced a coin-operated automated public toilet in Madison Square Park, also featuring a time limit intended to keep the facility available and discourage misuse.

Mamdani said the current initiative is deliberately structured as a pilot so officials can evaluate how the new bathrooms perform before deciding how extensively to expand the concept.

If the first 17 facilities prove successful, the administration plans to consider adding additional public bathrooms as part of a broader effort to improve restroom availability across the city.

For New Yorkers who have grown accustomed to desperately searching for a restaurant, coffee shop or store willing to let them use a restroom, the new units could provide another option — provided they finish before the 10-minute clock runs out.

Sen. Rand Paul blocked an attempt by fellow Republican Sen. John Kennedy to quickly pass legislation requiring developers of highly advanced artificial intelligence systems to install an emergency “kill switch,” setting up a Senate clash over how far Washington should go in regulating rapidly developing AI technology.

Kennedy, R-La., went to the Senate floor Wednesday seeking unanimous consent for his proposal, which was designed to ensure that companies developing superintelligent AI retain the ability to shut down their systems in an emergency. Paul, R-Ky., objected, arguing that Congress should not impose potentially far-reaching requirements before lawmakers have a better understanding of the technology and its applications.

Kennedy acknowledged that lawmakers are confronting an emerging field in which many questions remain unresolved.

“I’m not standing here today suggesting to you I have all the answers,” Kennedy said. “What I am suggesting to you is there are risks to artificial intelligence.”

Under Kennedy’s proposal, developers of superintelligent AI would be required to incorporate an emergency mechanism capable of shutting down an advanced system if it began operating beyond effective human control.

The legislation would leave control of that emergency mechanism with the companies developing the technology rather than giving the federal government authority to activate it. Kennedy argued that such a safeguard could become critical if future AI systems develop capabilities allowing them to operate in unexpected or uncontrollable ways.

Paul objected that even a measure presented as narrowly focused on highly advanced AI could create uncertainty for companies and interfere with technological development across a wide range of industries.

“If Congress acts hastily before the technology is understood, Congress risks killing innovation and setting this technology back decades,” Paul said.

Paul also raised questions about exactly where the requirement would begin and end. AI is increasingly being incorporated into everything from internet search engines to medical applications, and he questioned whether systems used by doctors to analyze prescription medications, for example, could eventually fall under such a mandate.

Rather than immediately impose the shutdown requirement, Paul proposed an alternative approach: establishing a bipartisan panel that would examine the potential dangers associated with superintelligent AI and recommend appropriate safeguards.

Kennedy refused to accept that proposal, arguing that creating another congressional body to study the matter would postpone action rather than address what he views as a potentially serious threat.

“A committee is a way to kill this,” Kennedy said, calling Paul’s proposal the “weenie way out.”

With Kennedy unwilling to accept Paul’s proposed modification, Paul formally objected to the unanimous-consent request. Because unanimous consent requires the absence of an objection, Paul’s move prevented Kennedy’s legislation from advancing through that expedited procedure. It did not amount to a full Senate vote rejecting the legislation.

The exchange highlighted a broader disagreement in Congress over how to respond to the accelerating development of artificial intelligence. Some lawmakers have called for federal safeguards aimed at the most powerful AI systems, while others have warned that overly broad or premature rules could hamper American technological development.

Kennedy presented his proposal as an effort to preserve technological innovation while creating an emergency safeguard against the possibility of an advanced AI system moving beyond human control.

Paul’s argument focused instead on the potential unintended effects of legislating before Congress has determined precisely which technologies would be covered and how any federal requirements would operate in practice.

The Senate confrontation came amid heightened attention in Washington to warnings about advanced AI. Tech executives and researchers have increasingly discussed potentially severe risks from future systems, while lawmakers continue debating what role, if any, the federal government should play in imposing safety requirements.

OpenAI CEO Sam Altman has been among the technology executives who have publicly acknowledged that concerns surrounding increasingly powerful AI systems deserve serious consideration, while expressing confidence that developers can work to keep such systems aligned with human interests.

President Donald Trump, meanwhile, has recently pushed back against warnings that artificial intelligence could eventually take control or threaten humanity, and his administration has generally emphasized AI development and American competitiveness. Congressional Republicans themselves remain divided over how much federal regulation is appropriate.

For now, Paul’s objection means Kennedy’s proposed AI emergency-shutdown requirement cannot move forward through unanimous consent. The legislation could still be pursued through the Senate’s regular legislative process, leaving unresolved the larger debate over whether Congress should establish safeguards now or wait until lawmakers have a clearer picture of where advanced AI technology is headed.

As Yom Kippur approaches, the Chief Rabbi of Petach Tikvah, Rav Micha Halevi, is urging Yidden to use the Aseres Yemei Teshuvah as an opportunity to strengthen their standards of kashrus, pointing to the longstanding halachic practice of adopting additional stringencies during these especially significant days.

Speaking with Ariel Berman on Emess’s afternoon program, Rav Halevi discussed the concept of being especially careful regarding food and drink between Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur, describing the period as one in which a Yid seeks an elevated level of closeness to Hashem.

“In these ten days, we are in a special covenant between Klal Yisroel and Hakadosh Boruch Hu,” Rav Halevi said.

The concept has a well-known source in Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chaim 603, which rules that even someone who is generally lenient during the year regarding bread baked by a non-Jewish commercial baker should be careful to eat pas Yisroel during Aseres Yemei Teshuvah. The Rema there adds that a person should carefully examine his deeds and do teshuvah during these days.

The practice traces back still further. The Tur cites a Yerushalmi teaching that even someone unable to maintain a heightened standard of ritual purity throughout the year should do so for the days between Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur. The Raavyah connects that teaching to the practice of being stringent regarding pas Yisroel during Aseres Yemei Teshuvah.

Later poskim discuss adopting additional appropriate chumros during this period as well. Regarding cholov Yisroel specifically, halachic authorities have written that even those who rely during the year on the well-known leniency regarding government-supervised milk have reason to be more stringent during Aseres Yemei Teshuvah.

Rav Halevi explained that adopting a higher standard specifically in matters of food carries particular significance, reflecting a desire during these days to exercise greater care regarding what a person brings into his body.

“Especially during these days, one should be careful to eat foods with higher standards of kashrus,” he said.

He stressed that the particular additional practice need not be identical for everyone. Each person can identify an appropriate area in which to strengthen his kashrus observance based on his regular practices and circumstances.

Rav Halevi also addressed an important practical issue involving bishul akum, food cooked by a non-Jew, and the differing rulings of the Beis Yosef and Rema.

According to the Ashkenazic practice following the Rema, Jewish participation through lighting the cooking fire can generally be sufficient for purposes of bishul Yisroel. According to the Beis Yosef, followed by Sephardim, greater Jewish participation in the actual cooking process is required, such as placing the pot on the fire.

Rav Halevi cautioned that even establishments carrying a high-level mehadrin certification may not necessarily follow the standard required for Sephardim. Sephardic customers, he said, should therefore ascertain which standard an establishment follows rather than assuming that a mehadrin designation automatically resolves the bishul Yisroel issue.

The conversation then turned from the standards of the food itself to the structure of kashrus supervision.

Rav Halevi described a reform he instituted in Petach Tikvah intended to eliminate the direct financial relationship between a mashgiach and the restaurant or business he supervises.

That relationship, he explained, can create an inherent difficulty. A mashgiach must be free to arrive at unpredictable times and report problems without worrying that doing so could jeopardize his own livelihood.

“The owner sees the mashgiach leaving, but he has to be concerned that he may immediately come back in,” Rav Halevi said.

Under the system operating in Petach Tikvah, mashgichim are employed for at least half-time positions and supervise several establishments as part of their employment. Their income therefore does not depend on the continued operation or certification of any single restaurant or store.

If a business closes or loses its kashrus certification, the mashgiach does not lose his salary; he can instead be assigned elsewhere.

The arrangement, Rav Halevi said, provides mashgichim with employment security and benefits while giving them greater professional independence to report kashrus violations without fearing personal financial consequences.

“If a business closes because of a kashrus problem that he reported, his livelihood will not decrease. That is the most important point,” Rav Halevi said.

{Matzav.com}

[COMMUNICATED]

Across Eretz Yisroel, thousands of avreichim spend their days immersed in Torah, living with extraordinary dedication and extremely limited means. They and their families willingly make sacrifices throughout the year so that limud Torah can remain at the center of their lives.

Today, even this has become increasingly difficult to sustain.

A weak American dollar has reduced the value of support arriving from overseas, while at the same time, government funding cuts and the rising price of groceries, clothing and other necessities have put growing pressure on kollel families. The regular monthly checks upon which many households depend simply no longer stretch as far as they once did.

This financial strain is especially painful before Sukkos. Making Yom Tov brings unavoidable expenses, from stocking the kitchen to purchasing clothing and other basic necessities. In previous years, many Roshei Kollel distributed special Yom Tov bonuses to help their yungerleit meet those costs. This year, numerous kollelim are struggling to provide them.

In response, Adopt-a-Kollel has launched its Mind the Gap campaign, a one-time effort to ensure that these families can enter Sukkos with the dignity they deserve.

Donations of every size will help place food on a table, purchase much-needed clothing, and relieve the anxiety weighing on a home steeped in Torah.

The Adopt-a-Kollel revolution has connected kehillos around the world with individual kollelim in Eretz Yisroel. They are our kollelim and our yungerleit—families with whom our own kehillos have built a genuine and lasting bond.

Now, they need us to go the extra mile. CLICK HERE.

Please support the Mind the Gap campaign today and help a Torah family make Yom Tov.

Help a kollel family make Yom Tov: CLICK HERE
To donate by phone, call 732-314-7866

With just 40 days remaining until Israel’s election for the 26th Knesset, new polling analysis indicates a notable increase in uncertainty among chareidi voters, with United Torah Judaism currently retaining a larger share of its previous electorate than Shas.

Dudi Dror, head of the Askaria polling institute, discussed the findings with Avi Blum on Kol Chai’s main news program, offering a closer look at voting patterns within the chareidi community as the campaign enters its final stretch.

According to Dror, approximately 12 to 13 percent of chareidi voters currently support parties outside the traditional chareidi lists, a figure he said has remained relatively stable. Those voters are concentrated primarily among right-wing parties, including Otzma Yehudit, Likud and Religious Zionism.

The more significant development, he said, is the sharp rise in undecided chareidi voters.

At the comparable point before the 2022 election, approximately 6 percent of chareidi voters were undecided. That figure now stands at roughly 13.5 percent — more than double the previous level.

Dror said the undecided group shows some inclination toward Otzma Yehudit, although he cautioned that the numbers are not strong enough to draw a definitive conclusion about where those voters will ultimately go.

A relatively large portion of the uncertainty, he said, is coming from Sephardic chareidi voters and previous Shas supporters.

Asked about Otzma Yehudit leader Itamar Ben Gvir’s outreach to those constituencies, Dror said it was possible that the activity was intended to draw voters away from Shas, while emphasizing that such an explanation was political interpretation rather than something established by the polling data.

The retention figures presented by Dror point to a significant difference between Israel’s two principal chareidi parties.

United Torah Judaism is currently retaining approximately 78 to 79 percent of those who voted for the party in the previous Knesset election, according to Dror. Shas, by comparison, is retaining approximately 68 to 69 percent of its previous voters.

The figures do not necessarily mean that the missing Shas voters are predominantly chareidi. Dror said only about 45 percent of the party’s electorate is chareidi, with Shas historically drawing substantial support from traditional and religious Sephardic Israelis as well.

According to his analysis, much of Shas’s current decline is coming from those traditional and religious, but non-chareidi, voters rather than from the party’s core chareidi constituency.

Dror also cautioned against drawing firm conclusions about Shas’s eventual election-day performance from polling conducted 40 days before the vote. He noted that Shas has historically performed better at the ballot box than some pre-election surveys suggested, meaning its current polling numbers should not automatically be treated as an indication of its final result.

The discussion also addressed the unusually wide disparities among Israeli election polls, particularly surveys showing significantly different projections for the competing political blocs.

Dror explained that methodological differences can produce varying results. Polling firms may use different samples and weighting systems, including adjustments designed to compensate for demographic groups that are underrepresented among respondents.

But he said methodological differences and ordinary sampling error alone cannot adequately account for gaps of more than 10 Knesset seats between some competing bloc projections.

One reason apparently small polling differences can have an outsized effect is Israel’s electoral threshold. A relatively modest change in support for a party hovering around the threshold can determine whether that party receives Knesset representation at all, potentially shifting several seats between the broader political blocs.

The latest numbers therefore depict a chareidi electorate that remains predominantly aligned with the traditional chareidi parties, while containing a substantially larger undecided segment than at the same point in the 2022 campaign.

For United Torah Judaism, the data presented by Dror suggest comparatively high retention of its previous voters. For Shas, the challenge appears broader, with a larger share of its previous electorate currently looking elsewhere or remaining undecided — particularly among the traditional and religious voters who have historically formed an important part of the party’s electoral base.

{Matzav.com}

A stark warning was sounded in the Knesset on Wednesday as lawmakers approved another extension of Israel’s prison emergency, with National Security Committee chairman MK Tzvika Fogel warning that without urgent action to address overcrowding and staffing shortages, “the next October 7” could originate from inside the country’s prisons.

The committee approved extending the special incarceration emergency for another month, through October 15, 2026. The government had requested a two-month extension, but lawmakers shortened it amid the approaching elections and concerns over whether the temporary committee expected to operate in the next Knesset would be able to conduct another review at the appropriate time.

The emergency designation gives the Israel Prison Service exceptional authority to hold prisoners and detainees under conditions that would ordinarily violate statutory minimum living-space requirements. In some circumstances, inmates can also be housed without individual beds.

According to figures presented by the Ministry of National Security, 23,049 prisoners and detainees were being held in IPS facilities as of Wednesday morning. Israel’s prison system has been under extraordinary pressure since the October 7 massacre and the ensuing war, with thousands of additional security prisoners entering the system. Earlier official Knesset data showed the prison population rising by more than 6,850 inmates between the beginning of the war and January 2026.

Authorities are now working to dramatically expand capacity. The Ministry of National Security expects approximately 3,000 additional spaces for security prisoners to become available by the end of 2026 and the beginning of 2027, according to information presented at Wednesday’s hearing.

The Israel Prison Service has also stepped up recruitment as it attempts to cope with the growing inmate population and a shortage of personnel.

Officials told the committee that 1,115 new prison officers have been recruited through targeted campaigns, specialized recruitment programs and incentives for personnel serving at facilities in southern Israel. The IPS is also preparing to open a facility in Yerushalayim and is pursuing additional recruits from the chareidi community, recently discharged soldiers and candidates brought in through special recruitment and referral programs.

Israel’s prison-capacity crisis predates October 7 but worsened dramatically after the massacre and war. A State Comptroller report discussed by a Knesset committee in June found that approximately 16,000 people were incarcerated before the war, including more than 5,000 security prisoners. The total subsequently climbed to approximately 23,000, including roughly 10,000 security prisoners.

The comptroller’s findings also indicated that Israel had not sufficiently prepared for an emergency scenario requiring the rapid absorption of thousands of security prisoners. Planning had relied heavily on overcrowding existing facilities and expanding current prisons rather than maintaining enough reserve capacity for a major security emergency.

Fogel warned Wednesday that repeatedly extending the prison emergency could not serve as a permanent solution to the underlying problem.

He said the growing inmate population and pressure on prison facilities were creating risks for IPS personnel and argued that additional government ministries needed to become directly involved in finding a long-term solution.

“If additional government ministries do not get involved quickly, it could be that the next October 7 will not come from Yehudah and Shomron, but from inside a prison,” Fogel warned.

The concern surrounding prison security is not merely theoretical. Israeli prison officials have previously warned of efforts by security prisoners to coordinate disturbances and accumulate improvised weapons. During a Knesset hearing last year, a senior IPS official said intelligence indicated increasing friction inside prisons, including “the intentions and accumulation of cold weapons and coordination of protest measures.”

At Wednesday’s hearing, however, officials also stressed that the overcrowding problem extends beyond security prisoners.

A representative of the Israel Bar Association told lawmakers that only 16 percent of applications for early release are currently approved. She argued that broader use of early release for suitable criminal prisoners could alleviate overcrowding while allowing those inmates to enter rehabilitation programs outside prison.

Fogel said that while Israel must contend with the large population of security prisoners, the government also has an obligation to rehabilitate criminal inmates and avoid incarceration conditions that could increase the likelihood that they return to crime after their release.

The government has been adding prison capacity at several facilities. Earlier this year, the Knesset was told that construction had been completed on 480 additional spaces at Maasiyahu Prison, while expansion projects were underway at Tzalmon, Ofer, Ketziot and Saharonim.

The scale of the problem has changed considerably since October 7. Official figures presented in September 2025 showed 24,715 people incarcerated at the time — an increase of approximately 8,360 since the massacre — including 11,115 security prisoners.

Wednesday’s one-month extension gives the IPS additional time to operate under the emergency provisions while construction and recruitment continue.

But Fogel made clear that, in his view, expanding facilities and repeatedly renewing emergency measures cannot substitute for a comprehensive government response, warning that overcrowding, insufficient staffing and a large concentration of security prisoners could ultimately develop into a serious security threat if the problem is allowed to fester.

{Matzav.com}

A new package of economic sanctions targeting chareidi men who have not reported for IDF service is being prepared by an interministerial team, with families potentially losing thousands of shekels annually in housing assistance, after-school subsidies and government funding for vacation programs.

The measures, first reported Wednesday night by Channel 13’s Yoeli Brim, are expected to take effect during 2027 and would expand an already growing array of financial penalties being imposed on chareidi draft-eligible men who have not regularized their status with the IDF.

One of the most significant new measures under consideration involves government-subsidized housing loans. Under the proposal, draft defaulters would lose eligibility for enhanced housing loans offered with government assistance and preferential terms.

The benefit is separate from an ordinary bank mortgage. According to the Channel 13 report, losing eligibility could cost an affected family approximately 7,000 shekels per year.

Another planned measure would eliminate subsidies for after-school programs for children whose father is classified as a draft defaulter. The financial impact of that change alone could reach approximately 10,000 shekels annually for some families.

Government assistance for summer camps and other programs operating during school vacations could also be withdrawn. Depending on a family’s circumstances, that could result in several thousand additional shekels in annual expenses.

Taken together, the three newly reported measures could cost some affected households more than 17,000 shekels per year, before taking into account other benefits that have already been eliminated or restricted.

The latest proposals are part of a much broader effort by Israel’s legal authorities to use economic and civilian measures against chareidi men who remain obligated to serve following court rulings that ended the previous blanket framework under which full-time yeshiva students could defer military service.

A government review has examined numerous benefits available to individuals and households, including assistance involving housing, education, transportation and employment. A Knesset Research and Information Center review previously catalogued 18 separate categories of individual benefits potentially relevant to the debate.

Other sanctions that have already been advanced include restrictions on eligibility for municipal property-tax discounts, public-transportation discounts, daycare subsidies and participation in government-subsidized housing programs.

In July, the Construction and Housing Ministry notified chareidi draft defaulters that their eligibility for subsidized housing programs, including Dira BeHanacha, was being revoked following a decision by the Israel Land Authority Council.

Daycare assistance has emerged as one of the most financially consequential elements of the sanctions. According to an analysis by the Israel Democracy Institute, daycare subsidies worth an average of approximately 26,400 shekels annually per affected chareidi family have already been withheld from draft-eligible avreichim since March 2025. Reduced National Insurance payments previously available to eligible yeshiva students were also eliminated beginning in January 2026, according to the analysis.

The issue has generated a major battle within the government and Knesset because many chareidi lawmakers argue that sanctions tied to benefits received by a household punish wives and children rather than solely the individual subject to the draft obligation.

That argument has been particularly prominent in the fight over daycare subsidies. Chareidi lawmakers have sought legislation under which eligibility for daycare assistance would be calculated primarily according to the mother’s employment or educational status, contending that withdrawing the subsidy could discourage chareidi women from remaining in the workforce. Government economic officials and opponents of the legislation have argued that such changes could weaken incentives connected to military service.

The latest sanctions are reportedly being formulated following petitions and court proceedings concerning enforcement of the draft obligation. Israel’s attorney general and other legal officials have argued that government ministries must ensure that individuals who have not complied with their military obligations do not continue receiving certain state benefits whose eligibility criteria are connected to their status.

Earlier this year, Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara’s office submitted to the High Court an extensive list of possible economic measures. Among those identified were restrictions involving public transportation, municipal property taxes, subsidized housing, daycare and after-school programs, as well as certain scholarships and educational assistance programs.

The measures have generated fierce opposition within the chareidi community, where rabbonim have instructed yeshiva bochurim to continue their Torah learning amid the ongoing confrontation over the draft.

The financial implications could become substantial. Published estimates cited in the Israeli reports indicate that the collection of sanctions could ultimately reduce government expenditures by close to one billion shekels annually, while individual families affected by several of the restrictions could lose benefits worth tens of thousands of shekels each year.

The latest three measures — involving housing loans, after-school programs and vacation programs — remain under development and are reportedly slated to take effect during 2027. Their implementation would mark another expansion of the economic pressure being applied to chareidi draft defaulters as Israel’s political and legal battle over the status of yeshiva bochurim continues.

{Matzav.com}

[COMMUNICATED]

The Feigenbaum Machzor brings Rabbi Yitzchak Feigenbaum’s depth and clarity to the tefillos of Yom Tov, helping familiar words land differently.

Now available in Nusach Ashkenaz and Nusach Sefard.

Click HERE to order your machzor

Hunter Biden leveled extraordinary accusations against Israeli Prime Minister Binyomin Netanyahu in a new interview with British broadcaster LBC, claiming without presenting evidence that Netanyahu knew in advance that Hamas was planning the October 7 massacre and deliberately failed to prevent it. Biden also characterized Israel’s conduct in Gaza as “akin to genocide.”

The remarks came during a wide-ranging interview with veteran British journalist Andrew Marr on LBC’s Tonight with Andrew Marr, during which the son of President Joe Biden discussed President Donald Trump, American politics, Israel and Gaza, as well as his own struggles with addiction.

Biden directed some of his strongest criticism at Netanyahu, alleging that the Israeli prime minister had advance knowledge that an attack was being planned for October 7, 2023, when Hamas terrorists invaded southern Israel, murdering approximately 1,200 people and taking more than 250 hostages.

According to LBC’s account of the interview, Biden claimed Netanyahu knew an attack was being planned but “did absolutely nothing about it.” Biden did not provide evidence during the interview establishing that Netanyahu personally knew Hamas would launch the October 7 assault or that he intentionally allowed it to occur.

Biden went further, suggesting that Israeli authorities knowingly allowed the Hamas assault to happen in order to obtain public support for subsequent military action in Gaza. Israel Hayom reported Biden as saying that “they knew” what was coming and allowed it to occur so they could pursue a plan that otherwise would never have received approval. The report noted that Biden did not specify precisely whom he meant by “they” or produce evidence supporting an allegation that Israeli leaders deliberately permitted the massacre to take place.

His allegations appear to draw on reports and longstanding questions surrounding intelligence failures before October 7. Israeli military and intelligence bodies have faced intense scrutiny over warning signs and information about Hamas’s preparations that existed before the massacre. The existence of missed intelligence and security failures, however, is distinct from Biden’s allegation that Netanyahu personally knew the attack was coming and intentionally declined to stop it.

Biden also launched a broad attack on Netanyahu’s conduct of the subsequent Gaza war, describing the Israeli campaign as “akin to genocide,” while acknowledging that “genocide” is a “very loaded” term.

The accusation comes amid an international dispute over that terminology. Israel has rejected allegations of genocide, maintaining that its war is directed against Hamas and other terrorist organizations following the October 7 massacre and that civilian casualties occur despite measures intended to reduce them. Israel has also accused Hamas of operating from civilian areas and infrastructure.

The LBC interview was not the first occasion on which Biden has publicly advanced allegations that Israeli leaders knew more about Hamas’s October 7 plans than they have acknowledged.

During a lengthy 2025 interview with YouTuber Andrew Callaghan, Biden questioned Israel’s preparedness despite reports that Israeli intelligence had obtained information concerning Hamas’s operational plans before the attack. In that interview, Biden also discussed the profound impact of October 7 on ordinary Israelis and their desire to eliminate the Hamas threat.

More recently, Biden made even stronger allegations during another podcast appearance. In an interview released this month, he said, “what’s happening in Palestine right now is genocide,” and accused Netanyahu and his Likud-led government of acting in an “evil” manner. He then asserted that Netanyahu knew about the October 7 attacks before they occurred.

Biden has also sharply escalated his personal rhetoric against Netanyahu in recent months. During an August appearance on Tucker Carlson’s podcast, he reportedly called Netanyahu “evil incarnate.” He has additionally aired unsubstantiated theories involving Israeli figures and the dissemination of material from his laptop, while acknowledging that he did not possess forensic evidence tying Israeli intelligence or Israeli government officials to the alleged activity.

His latest comments are particularly notable given his father’s complicated relationship with Netanyahu during the Gaza war. President Joe Biden repeatedly declared his support for Israel following October 7 and traveled to Israel days after the massacre. As the war continued, however, his administration increasingly clashed with Netanyahu’s government over civilian casualties, humanitarian conditions in Gaza and the conduct of Israeli military operations.

Hunter Biden’s LBC appearance extended far beyond Israel. He also launched a blistering attack on President Trump, describing him as “an existential threat to not just our constitutional republic, but to all of NATO and for the entire globe.” He characterized Trump as the greatest global crisis since World War II and said he feared Trump might attempt to remain in the White House after his term expires.

“I don’t think that he has any plans of leaving the White House,” Biden said.

Asked by Marr about the implications of such a scenario, Biden said the United States would be entering “completely uncharted territory” and should “plan for the worst and hope for the best.”

Biden also called for a political “reckoning” after the Trump presidency and argued that Democrats should consider impeachment proceedings if they regain control of the House, accusing Trump of conduct he said amounted to “high crimes and misdemeanours.”

Despite his increasingly prominent media appearances, Biden told Marr that he has no plans to run for president or seek political office. Instead, he said he wants to devote attention to helping people struggling with addiction, drawing on his own highly publicized history of substance abuse and recovery.

Biden said the intense public scrutiny of his addiction ultimately forced him to confront his problems openly and, “in many ways,” helped save his life.

His accusations concerning Netanyahu and October 7, however, are likely to be among the most controversial remarks from the interview. While serious investigations and reporting have documented major Israeli intelligence and security failures preceding the Hamas invasion, Biden went substantially further by alleging intentional inaction by Netanyahu — a claim for which he offered no substantiating evidence in the LBC interview.

{Matzav.com}

A frightening scene unfolded Wednesday morning on the George Washington Bridge when police officers surrounded an Uber and took its driver into custody at gunpoint, while a yungerman and his family were still inside the vehicle as passengers.

The dramatic arrest came after the Uber driver reportedly fled from the scene of an earlier incident at the Sloatsburg Rest Area in Rockland County.

Video recorded from inside the Uber by the frum passengers captured the tense moments as law enforcement officers approached the vehicle with their weapons drawn and ordered the driver out.

The yungerman and his family had apparently entered the Uber as ordinary passengers and suddenly found themselves caught in the middle of a police operation involving their driver.

According to initial reports, authorities had been searching for the driver in connection with an incident that occurred earlier at the Sloatsburg Rest Area. Precisely what took place there remains unclear.

Authorities were investigating whether the original incident involved an assault or a possible stabbing. No additional details regarding the alleged victim, the circumstances leading up to the incident or the driver’s alleged role had been publicly confirmed as of the initial report.

The Uber was ultimately intercepted on the George Washington Bridge, where officers conducted the high-risk traffic stop.

The driver was ordered from the vehicle at gunpoint and taken into custody as the stunned family watched from inside.

Despite the alarming circumstances surrounding the arrest, there were no immediate reports that the passengers were injured.

Authorities have not yet publicly released the driver’s identity or announced what charges, if any, have been filed against him.

The precise sequence of events — including when the frum family entered the Uber, whether the driver was already being sought by police at that point and how authorities tracked the vehicle to the George Washington Bridge — also remained unclear.

{Matzav.com}

Vice President JD Vance, today one of President Donald Trump’s closest political allies, privately sought contact with Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign in 2016 and offered strategic advice aimed at stopping Trump from winning the White House, according to a newly published Vanity Fair investigation. Vance’s office strongly disputes the characterization that he was attempting to help Clinton win.

The revelation adds a previously unreported chapter to Vance’s well-known opposition to Trump during the 2016 campaign. While Vance’s public criticism of Trump at the time has long been documented, Vanity Fair reports that his efforts extended behind the scenes, where he sought access to senior Clinton campaign officials and offered specific recommendations for winning working-class voters in crucial Midwestern states.

According to Vanity Fair, Vance contacted an intermediary connected to the Clinton campaign and asked to be put in touch with Jake Sullivan, then one of Clinton’s senior policy advisers and later President Joe Biden’s national security adviser.

“JD called me and said, ‘Can you put me in touch with Jake Sullivan?’” the intermediary recalled.

When the intermediary initially indicated that Sullivan was too busy, Vance reportedly persisted.

“He called me again and he said, ‘I hate Hillary. But I hate Trump more. Trump can’t win. He can’t win. Hillary’s going to lose, but she doesn’t have to,’” the source told Vanity Fair.

Vance reportedly went beyond expressing his opposition to Trump and laid out a concrete strategy he believed Clinton should follow. He urged her campaign to devote immediate attention to Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania — working-class states that would ultimately prove decisive in Trump’s victory.

According to the intermediary, Vance believed Clinton was failing to understand the frustration of voters in communities like his hometown of Middletown, Ohio. He urged her to spend less time appearing alongside celebrities and instead personally visit those communities and address issues that had alienated working-class voters.

The source said Vance specifically argued that Clinton should come to the Midwest rather than remain “down with Beyoncé in Miami” and should apologize for her vote authorizing the Iraq War. Vance believed that decision continued to resonate in communities where families had sent sons and fathers to fight overseas.

Clinton, then a senator from New York, had voted in 2002 to authorize the use of military force against Iraq. She later described that vote as a mistake.

Vanity Fair reports that Vance eventually succeeded in speaking directly with Sullivan roughly six weeks before the November 2016 election. A person close to Sullivan confirmed that a conversation occurred, although the source did not recall Vance specifically laying out his proposed strategy for Clinton’s campaign in the so-called Blue Wall states.

The source did, however, remember Vance focusing on the political damage caused by Clinton’s widely criticized “basket of deplorables” remark about some Trump supporters.

Vance reportedly believed Clinton needed to repair the damage quickly and urged the campaign to sharpen its focus.

“She’s got to focus,” Vance said, according to the source.

The Office of the Vice President pushed back forcefully against Vanity Fair’s portrayal of Vance’s actions, arguing that his discussions about working-class voters should not be interpreted as an effort to elect Clinton.

“A lot of people asked the Vice President for advice in 2016. He never worked for a campaign, but he urged both Republicans and Democrats to care about working class towns like Middletown, Ohio. We 100 percent reject the characterization that he was trying to help Hillary win,” Vance spokeswoman Taylor Van Kirk said.

The episode occurred during a period when Vance, fresh off the success of his memoir Hillbilly Elegy, was emerging as a nationally recognized commentator on working-class America and was also an outspoken conservative critic of Trump.

Vance repeatedly criticized Trump during the 2016 campaign. In an August 2016 NPR interview, he said he could not “stomach” Trump and described him as “toxic,” arguing that Trump was leading white working-class voters toward “a very dark place.” At one point, Vance said that if he believed Trump had a genuine chance of winning, he might have to “hold my nose and vote for Hillary Clinton.”

His criticism extended well beyond that interview. Vance famously described Trump as “cultural heroin” and, in a private message that later became public, wondered whether Trump might be “America’s Hitler.”

Vance ultimately did not vote for either Trump or Clinton in 2016. He has said he cast his ballot for independent conservative candidate Evan McMullin.

The newly reported contact with the Clinton campaign provides additional context for Vance’s subsequent political transformation. Vance eventually abandoned his opposition to Trump, embraced much of his political agenda and ran for the U.S. Senate from Ohio in 2022 with Trump’s endorsement.

After winning the Senate seat, Vance became one of Trump’s prominent allies in Washington. Trump selected him as his running mate in 2024, and Vance became vice president following their election victory.

Vance has publicly addressed his change of position over the years, saying his earlier assessment of Trump was wrong and pointing to Trump’s record in office as a major reason he reconsidered his views.

Vanity Fair’s report also quotes White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles discussing Vance’s evolution. According to the profile, Wiles characterized the transformation as “political,” occurring as Vance moved toward a Senate run.

The newly disclosed episode is drawing attention because it indicates that Vance’s 2016 opposition to Trump included direct communication with figures in the campaign of Trump’s Democratic opponent. Vance’s office, however, rejects the contention that those conversations were undertaken for the purpose of helping Clinton defeat Trump.

Chris Whipple, the author of the Vanity Fair profile, also discussed his reporting with NPR, describing Vance as privately urging the Clinton camp to recognize its vulnerability among Midwestern working-class voters and to address the fallout from Clinton’s comments about Trump supporters.

Nearly a decade later, the political circumstances are dramatically different: Vance, who was fiercely critical of Trump during the 2016 election, now serves alongside President Trump as vice president of the United States.

{Matzav.com}

Millions of Americans receiving Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits will see changes beginning Oct. 1, when new federal cost-of-living adjustments take effect, increasing maximum monthly benefits for most households while updated eligibility rules also come into force. The U.S. Department of Agriculture adjusts SNAP maximum allotments, deductions and income standards at the beginning of each federal fiscal year.

For most recipients, the increase will be relatively modest. A one-person household in the 48 contiguous states and Washington, D.C., will be eligible for a maximum of $306 per month, up from $298. The maximum for a family of four will rise from $994 to $1,023, an increase of $29 per month.

Overall, the new maximum allotments represent an increase of roughly 2.9 percent. The annual adjustments are based on changes in the cost of living and USDA’s Thrifty Food Plan, which estimates the cost of providing nutritious, low-cost meals to a household.

Beginning Oct. 1, the maximum monthly SNAP benefits in the 48 contiguous states and Washington, D.C., will be:

Household size New maximum Previous maximum 1 $306 $298 2 $562 $546 3 $808 $785 4 $1,023 $994 5 $1,217 $1,183 6 $1,463 $1,421 7 $1,616 $1,571 8 $1,841 $1,789 Each additional person $225 $218

The maximum allotments are different in Alaska, Hawaii, Guam and the U.S. Virgin Islands, reflecting different food costs. In some rural areas of Alaska, for example, a four-person household will be eligible for as much as $2,027 per month.

Hawaii is an exception to the general increase, with maximum benefits declining slightly. The maximum monthly allotment for a four-person household there will be $1,655.

SNAP provides food assistance to tens of millions of lower-income Americans. Along with the new benefit amounts, recipients and applicants will also encounter updated income standards and other eligibility provisions beginning with the new federal fiscal year. USDA says SNAP eligibility generally depends on household income, resources and other circumstances, although individual states can apply different rules through programs such as broad-based categorical eligibility.

Under the new standards cited in the report, the gross monthly income threshold under regular federal rules will rise to $1,729 for a one-person household and $3,575 for a household of four. Actual eligibility can vary depending on the state, household composition, deductions and whether categorical eligibility rules apply.

The federal resource limit under regular SNAP rules will remain $3,000 for most households and $4,750 for households containing a person who is disabled or at least 60 years old. Many states, however, use categorical-eligibility policies that can raise or eliminate those asset limits for qualifying households.

Eligibility can also be affected by employment, age, disability and immigration status. Federal law includes work requirements for certain SNAP recipients, and legislation enacted in 2025 changed some of those requirements as well as rules governing eligibility for some noncitizens.

Those changes stem in part from President Donald Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act, enacted in 2025. Among other provisions, the law modified work requirements for certain able-bodied adults, changed future treatment of the Thrifty Food Plan and created a system under which states can eventually be required to shoulder a portion of SNAP benefit costs based on their payment error rates.

SNAP participation has fallen over the past year as various changes have begun taking effect. According to the figures cited in the original report, enrollment declined by approximately 13 percent over the one-year period.

States could face additional financial consequences in coming years because the 2025 law links part of their responsibility for SNAP benefit costs to payment error rates. That provision could require states with higher error rates to contribute more toward benefits, adding another significant change to the program beyond the new October benefit levels.

{Matzav.com}

Rep. Gregory Meeks, the ranking Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, announced Wednesday that he will not clear the Trump administration’s proposed $2.8 billion weapons sale to Israel, citing concerns over the potential use of 40,000 2,000-pound bombs in heavily populated areas of Gaza and Lebanon. The hold does not by itself permanently block the transaction.

Meeks, a New York Democrat, stressed that he continues to support Israel’s security and its ability to defend itself from regional threats, but said he wanted additional assurances regarding the use of the powerful munitions.

“I therefore will not clear this sale at this time. The decision does not diminish Congressional support for Israel’s legitimate defense needs; it reflects Congress’s responsibility to ensure that U.S.-funded weapons are used lawfully, responsibly, and with meaningful safeguards for human life.”

The public announcement was unusual because objections raised during the informal congressional review of major foreign weapons sales are generally handled privately while lawmakers and the State Department attempt to resolve outstanding concerns. Meeks’ decision comes amid growing disagreements among congressional Democrats over U.S. military assistance to Israel and the conduct of Israel’s military operations in Gaza and Lebanon.

Under the traditional arms-sale review process, senior lawmakers on the House Foreign Affairs and Senate Foreign Relations committees receive advance notice of major proposed transactions. They can place an informal hold on a package while seeking further information, although an individual lawmaker does not possess an absolute veto over a sale.

The State Department generally attempts to address lawmakers’ concerns before formally proceeding. The Trump administration, however, has previously moved ahead with weapons transfers to Israel despite congressional objections, including by invoking emergency national-security authority to bypass the customary review process.

The State Department did not immediately comment on Meeks’ announcement.

The proposed $2.8 billion package is one of the largest recent U.S. sales of heavy bombs to Israel. It includes 20,000 MK-84 bombs and 20,000 BLU-117 bombs, each weighing approximately 2,000 pounds, as well as 20,000 I-2000 Penetrator warheads.

The MK-84 is a powerful general-purpose bomb designed to inflict extensive damage on hardened targets. Its destructive capacity, particularly when employed in densely populated areas, has been at the center of the debate in Washington over the transfer of such munitions to Israel.

The Biden administration previously suspended a shipment of 2,000-pound bombs to Israel amid concerns about civilian casualties during the Gaza war. The Trump administration subsequently resumed transfers of heavy munitions and has approved or expedited billions of dollars in additional military sales to Israel.

The controversy surrounding the latest package comes as Israel continues military operations against regional adversaries, while critics of Israel’s conduct have pressed Washington to impose greater restrictions on American weapons. Israel has maintained that its military operations are directed against Hamas and other armed groups and that it seeks to minimize civilian casualties.

Despite his decision to hold up the transaction, Meeks emphasized that his objection was directed at the particular weapons package and the assurances surrounding its use, rather than at Israel’s overall defense relationship with Washington.

“I remain firmly committed to Israel’s security and its ability to defend itself against serious regional threats. But the Trump administration’s proposed sale of 40,000 2,000-pound bombs, some of the most destructive munitions in our arsenal, raises grave, unresolved concerns about how these munitions could be used in densely populated areas of Gaza and Lebanon.”

The dispute also reflects a broader shift among House Democrats over military assistance to Israel. While bipartisan support for the U.S.-Israel security relationship remains substantial in Congress, a growing number of Democratic lawmakers have backed efforts to restrict or condition certain weapons transfers.

That divide was demonstrated when Rep. Thomas Massie, a Kentucky Republican, forced a House vote on legislation aimed at ending U.S. military assistance to Israel. The measure attracted support from 103 Democratic lawmakers, illustrating the extent to which opposition to some forms of American military support for Israel has expanded within the Democratic caucus.

{Matzav.com}

Kamala Harris will travel to Michigan next week to campaign alongside Democratic Senate nominee Abdul El-Sayed, marking their first joint public appearance since she endorsed the progressive candidate following his August primary victory.

The appearance comes as national Democrats seek to rally behind El-Sayed following a contentious primary that exposed divisions within the party, particularly over U.S. support for Israel. Harris and El-Sayed have spoken several times since her endorsement, but Tuesday’s event will be the first time they appear publicly together.

Harris and El-Sayed are scheduled to participate in a roundtable Tuesday focusing on Black maternal health, according to his campaign. El-Sayed is a physician who previously headed the health departments in Detroit and Wayne County.

Harris spokesman Eduardo Negrón said the visit is intended in part to encourage Democratic turnout in Michigan.

“Vice President Harris looks forward to returning to Michigan to help turn out the vote in this critical state,” Negrón said in a statement. “It is critical we flip the Senate so we can bring down prices and stand up to Donald Trump’s corruption.”

El-Sayed, whose full name is Abdulrahman Mohamed El-Sayed, will face Republican Mike Rogers in November for the Senate seat being vacated by retiring Sen. Gary Peters. Rogers, a former congressman, and other Republicans have sought to portray El-Sayed’s progressive politics as outside Michigan’s mainstream.

“They believe that they can move the state and the country, by the way, to be more accepting of this socialism,” Rogers told Breitbart News, describing El-Sayed as the “Democratic Socialists of America darling right now” and calling the race “crazy versus common sense.”

El-Sayed has drawn substantial criticism from pro-Israel groups and some Jewish leaders over his rhetoric concerning Israel and the war in Gaza. He has repeatedly accused Israel of committing “genocide” and “apartheid,” advocated ending U.S. military assistance to Israel — including defensive aid — and declined during a CNN interview to say that Israel has a right to exist as a Jewish state.

During an April CNN interview, El-Sayed was asked whether he considered the Israeli government to be as evil as Hamas.

“Yes, killing tens of thousands of people makes you pretty damn evil,” El-Sayed responded. “It’s not how evil is this one versus that one — Hamas: Evil, Israeli government: Evil. We can say both.”

Asked by CNN in July whether Israel has a right to exist, El-Sayed repeatedly declined to answer the question directly. “Israel exists. The question is whether or not we want a politics where our money is sent over to Israel to do genocide and apartheid instead of investing in our own kids,” he said. When pressed again, he responded, “I’m not — I’m not going to play this gotcha game about whether or not it has a right to exist.”

El-Sayed also faced criticism over his response to a March attack on Temple Israel in West Bloomfield. Although he condemned the attack, he subsequently said, “Hurt people hurt people,” while discussing the attacker’s family history and the Middle East conflict. Some Jewish leaders and political opponents charged that the remark minimized or rationalized the attack. El-Sayed apologized in August for the controversy, saying, “My comments may have been misconstrued to justify something I did not mean to justify,” and adding, “To anyone who feels like my comments might have been hurtful, I’m really sorry.”

His association with left-wing streamer Hasan Piker has generated additional controversy. Piker, who previously campaigned alongside El-Sayed, has made inflammatory statements about Israel and Jewish Americans, including saying Hamas was “1,000 times better” than Israel. After Piker recently faced criticism for remarks suggesting that American Jews who strongly identify with Israel were “making antisemitism worse,” El-Sayed distanced himself from the comments, saying, “nobody speaks for this campaign besides me and my campaign spokespeople.” El-Sayed added, “My commitment to Jewish safety is the same as my commitment to the safety of my own daughters.”

Polling cited in the original report indicated a close contest. A Detroit News/WDIV-TV survey put Rogers at 45.8 percent and El-Sayed at 44.4 percent, after previous polling had shown El-Sayed ahead.

Harris endorsed El-Sayed after his August primary victory, praising his candidacy and emphasizing the importance of the election.

“Dr. Abdul El-Sayed understands that the power is with the people, and that the stakes couldn’t be higher in this election,” Harris said at the time.

White House communications director Steven Cheung responded critically to Harris’ endorsement, writing that Harris “should really re-evaluate her life choices before running for president again.”

The Michigan contest is being closely watched because Democrats are seeking to retain the seat currently held by Peters while attempting to gain control of the Senate. El-Sayed’s narrow primary victory over Rep. Haley Stevens followed a bitter campaign that highlighted Democratic disagreements over Israel and progressive politics. Other prominent Democrats have since moved to support El-Sayed as the party seeks unity ahead of November.

A Manhattan judge has ordered New York City officials to produce communications between Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s administration and the Rent Guidelines Board as part of a lawsuit alleging that City Hall improperly influenced the independent panel before it approved a historic rent freeze.

New York State Supreme Court Justice Brendan Lantry granted the landlords challenging the freeze limited discovery, directing the city to turn over written communications between City Hall personnel and Rent Guidelines Board officials covering the period leading up to the board’s June vote. The ruling does not give the plaintiffs access to internal communications solely among Mamdani administration officials or solely among board personnel.

In explaining why he authorized the unusual discovery request, Lantry pointed to Mamdani’s campaign pledge that rents would be frozen if he became mayor.

“The question naturally arises: How would the Mayor comply with his ‘guarantee’ to the voters to ‘freeze’ the rent unless he, or his staff, communicated with the Board to ensure that the Board refrained from imposing any rental increase?” Lantry wrote.

The order represents the latest development in a lawsuit filed by landlords seeking to invalidate the Rent Guidelines Board’s June 25 decision establishing a zero-percent increase for both one- and two-year leases covering roughly one million rent-stabilized apartments.

Under the board’s decision, the freeze applies to qualifying leases beginning between Oct. 1, 2026, and Sept. 30, 2027.

Mamdani had made a rent freeze a prominent campaign pledge before taking office. In February, he named six members to the nine-member Rent Guidelines Board, including its chair. City Hall described the RGB at the time as an independent body responsible for determining annual rent adjustments for the city’s rent-stabilized housing.

The landlords filed their lawsuit in July, contending that the board did not independently give proper consideration to the financial circumstances facing property owners. Instead, they allege that the process was geared toward producing the outcome Mamdani had promised during his campaign. The city disputes those allegations.

Attorneys for the city and the board have maintained that the Rent Guidelines Board followed the required process and considered extensive research and testimony before reaching its decision. They have argued that tenants were struggling to absorb additional increases and that the record provided a rational basis for the freeze.

“The court acknowledges that discovery in a special proceeding is rare,” Lantry wrote, adding that it was also “unprecedented” for a mayoral candidate to guarantee that an independent board would freeze rents after his election.

Randy Mastro, an attorney representing the landlords, welcomed the decision, saying the communications could bolster their argument that the board’s deliberations produced “a predetermined outcome.”

The broader lawsuit asks the court to throw out the rent freeze and direct the Rent Guidelines Board to reconsider the matter. The challenged rent guidelines remain scheduled to take effect Oct. 1 while the litigation proceeds.

{Matzav.com}

Kim Yo Jong, the powerful sister of North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, has rejected international demands that Pyongyang abandon its nuclear weapons, ridiculing such efforts as “silly talk” and “all noises” while insisting that North Korea’s status as a nuclear-armed state is “absolute.”

Kim, a senior figure in North Korea’s ruling Workers’ Party, issued the comments Thursday as delegates gathering in Vienna for the 70th regular session of the International Atomic Energy Agency’s General Conference considered a resolution addressing North Korea’s nuclear program.

“The human beings who are talking about the change of the present position of our state should clearly understand how miserable it is and how useless it is,” Kim Yo Jong said in a statement carried by the state-run Korean Central News Agency.

She went on to mock those who believe North Korea can be persuaded to reverse course on its nuclear program.

“If they believe that it is really possible, they will only hear the word of idiots who are ignorant of the law of the world.

“In fact, if there are no rogues against the DPRK, many countries will probably not have to waste time on empty talk and will live in a safer and peaceful world.”

Kim brushed aside renewed international demands for North Korean denuclearization as “all noises, not surprising and not new.”

“No matter how desperately the IAEA and the West may hold periodic meetings and talk about the denuclearization according to the fixed scenario, they can have no effect on the will and ability of the DPRK to take all necessary measures to defend the supreme interests of the state,” she said.

She further asserted that North Korea’s possession of nuclear weapons was irreversible and portrayed the country’s arsenal as a means of deterring its adversaries.

“The DPRK’s position as a nuclear weapons state is absolute … and its powerful existence makes a significant contribution to deterring the outrageous acts of international rogues and ensuring peace and security,” Kim Yo Jong continued.

“No matter how rhetorically the hostile forces may deny, the reality in which the nuclear position of the DPRK has been permanently settled physically and legally cannot change even a bit.

“No one and nothing can ever reverse the crucial changes in the strength and position of the DPRK and prevent them in the future, too.”

Her remarks came amid continuing scrutiny of North Korea’s nuclear infrastructure. In his latest assessment of the country’s nuclear activities, IAEA Director General Rafael Grossi said the agency had identified a second uranium-enrichment facility at Yongbyon and detected signs that enrichment operations were continuing at both Yongbyon and Kangson, Reuters reported.

International monitors have also seen indications that nuclear reactors located at the Yongbyon complex remain operational.

The IAEA has been unable to carry out on-the-ground verification work inside North Korea since April 2009. Grossi said Pyongyang’s continued expansion of its nuclear program violates United Nations Security Council resolutions and remains a “cause for serious concern.”

With inspectors unable to enter the country, the IAEA has monitored North Korea’s nuclear developments through satellite imagery and other publicly available information, including photographs released by North Korean state media.

{Matzav.com}

The Trump administration has announced new visa restrictions targeting South African nationals it determines are responsible for or complicit in race-based discrimination, uncompensated land seizures or incitement of violence against racial or ethnic minorities, escalating a long-running dispute between Washington and Pretoria over the treatment of Afrikaners and other minority groups.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio said Tuesday that the new policy was being implemented because “the South African government has not adequately addressed the previously laid out concerns.”

“The United States will not allow such behavior to go unchecked. These actions directly undermine peace, economic stability, and the rule of law, and they are incompatible with the pillars of America’s foreign policy,” he said.

“We once again strongly urge the South African government to quickly address these egregious actions,” he added.

The latest move follows President Donald Trump’s February 2025 executive order addressing what the administration called “Egregious Actions of the Republic of South Africa.” The order accused Pretoria of pursuing discriminatory policies against Afrikaners and specifically objected to South Africa’s Expropriation Act, which the administration said could permit agricultural property to be taken without compensation.

The executive order also accused South Africa of adopting “policies designed to dismantle equal opportunity in employment, education, and business, and hateful rhetoric and government actions fueling disproportionate violence against racially disfavored landowners.”

Rubio said Tuesday that the administration “remains gravely concerned about racially motivated crime and government-sponsored discrimination occurring against the Afrikaners and other minority populations in South Africa.”

The restrictions do not amount to a blanket prohibition on South Africans traveling to the United States. Instead, they establish a mechanism allowing Washington to deny visas to individuals determined to fall within the categories outlined by the administration. Reports indicated that certain family members of affected individuals could also be covered.

The administration did not publicly identify specific individuals affected by the restrictions or provide a list of South African laws that would automatically result in a visa denial. The policy therefore establishes a framework under which restrictions can be imposed on particular people based on determinations by the U.S. government.

Ordinary South African citizens are consequently not automatically barred from obtaining American visas under the new policy. Applicants who are not deemed to have participated in the conduct targeted by Washington remain subject to the regular U.S. visa process and other existing immigration rules.

In a social media statement Tuesday, Rubio accused South Africa’s leaders of pursuing policies driven by hostility toward the country’s Afrikaner population, saying South Africans have been “failed by a government that is destroying its economy through an obsessive pursuit of racial grievance against the Afrikaner minority.”

“The South African government has consistently failed to adequately address rural crime, violent and dehumanizing rhetoric, and race-based discriminatory policies against Afrikaners and other minority populations,” he said.

South Africa strongly rejected Washington’s characterization of its policies. Foreign Minister Ronald Lamola said Wednesday that Rubio’s announcement “aligns with the mischaracterization of South Africa’s domestic policies by fringe groups who wrongly portray themselves as representatives of ‘minorities’ and Afrikaners in general.”

The South African government defended its efforts to address the legacy of apartheid and maintained that its laws are consistent with the country’s constitutional responsibilities. It asserted a “sovereign right to put in place laws that address the nation’s concern over centuries of racial injustice.”

Land ownership remains one of the central issues in the dispute. White South Africans, who make up a minority of the population, continue to own a disproportionately large share of privately held agricultural land, although estimates vary depending on how ownership is measured. Pretoria has argued that land reform is necessary to address historical racial disparities, while critics have warned against policies that could permit uncompensated confiscation.

President Cyril Ramaphosa signed the Expropriation Act in 2025. The legislation permits expropriation without compensation in specified circumstances when authorities determine that doing so is “just and equitable and in the public interest.” The Trump administration and other critics have argued that the law leaves property owners vulnerable to uncompensated seizures, while the South African government has disputed claims that it amounts to arbitrary confiscation.

The disagreement over land reform forms part of a broader deterioration in relations between Washington and Pretoria. Trump’s 2025 executive order also criticized South Africa over its case accusing Israel of genocide at the International Court of Justice and over Pretoria’s relations with Iran.

U.S. Ambassador to South Africa L. Brent Bozell indicated Wednesday that the visa policy may not be Washington’s final response.

“As has been made absolutely clear, the time for endless “dialogue” has run its course. No more. America has just so much patience,” Bozell said.

“We want strong, and lasting relations with the South African government. It needs to show it wants the same. So far it has shown it cares for neither,” he said.

Bozell then warned that additional U.S. measures could follow if the dispute remains unresolved.

“As a result, the consequences, as I’ve attempted time and again to express, are necessarily going to be severe. This visa restriction policy is only the first step in a series of escalatory measures that will show America’s firm resolve in this matter,” Bozell warned.