Feed aggregator

Americans are virtually certain to turn their clocks back again on Nov. 1, with legislation to make daylight saving time permanent stalled in the Senate despite overwhelming House approval and an increasingly aggressive campaign by President Donald Trump to get the measure passed.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune has expressed serious doubts that the Sunshine Protection Act can attract the 60 votes necessary to advance through the Senate, leaving the bipartisan measure without a clear path forward before this year’s return to standard time.

The timing alone effectively guarantees another clock change. The Senate adjourned last week ahead of the Nov. 3 midterm elections and is holding only pro forma sessions during the recess. Senators are not expected to resume their regular legislative schedule until the week of Nov. 9 — more than a week after daylight saving time ends.

Under current federal law, daylight saving time will end at 2 a.m. on Sunday, Nov. 1. In most of the country, clocks will move back one hour, giving Americans the familiar extra hour of sleep while bringing sunset an hour earlier.

The House overwhelmingly approved the Sunshine Protection Act in July by a bipartisan 308-117 vote, with 193 Republicans and 114 Democrats supporting the measure. The legislation would end the twice-a-year clock changes and establish daylight saving time as the year-round standard for most of the country.

States that already remain on standard time throughout the year would not be forced to adopt daylight saving time, and the legislation provides a mechanism for states to choose permanent standard time instead.

Trump has thrown his weight behind the effort, repeatedly pressing Senate Republicans to act and portraying the issue as a simple quality-of-life change that enjoys broad public support. He has argued that additional evening daylight would benefit families, businesses, sports and recreation while also improving public safety.

The president’s campaign for permanent daylight saving time has become unusually intense in recent days, particularly because of opposition from Sen. Tom Cotton of Arkansas, a Republican who is ordinarily a close Trump ally.

“Everybody in Arkansas, Tom Cotton, a friend of mine, is holding up a very important Bill. It’s called, ‘The Sunshine Protection Act’ or, ‘We Don’t Want to Change Our Clocks Twice a Year Act,’” Trump wrote on Truth Social over the weekend.

Trump subsequently urged Arkansas residents to contact Cotton and publicly posted what he identified as the senator’s personal cellphone number.

“To the Great People of Arkansas, please let your Senator know it would be a GREAT Bipartisan WIN for the United States Senate, and for America, itself,” Trump said.

The pressure campaign quickly attracted widespread attention, and Cotton’s voicemail was reportedly full after Trump posted the number. Cotton, however, has shown no indication that he intends to change his position.

Cotton agrees that changing clocks twice each year is unpopular, but he strongly opposes making daylight saving time permanent. His principal concern is that doing so would push sunrise much later during winter, forcing many children to travel to school before daylight and requiring workers to commute in darkness.

“No one likes changing the clock, me included, but Congress has enacted permanent Daylight Savings Time multiple times before and repealed it each time once Americans experienced absurdly late sunrises in the winter. Arkansans don’t want their kids going to school in the pitch dark, and I’ll always put Arkansas first.”

The disagreement reflects the larger obstacle that has repeatedly prevented Congress from settling the daylight saving time debate: while there is substantial support for ending the twice-yearly clock changes, lawmakers remain divided over which time should become permanent.

Supporters of permanent daylight saving time favor keeping more sunlight in the afternoon and evening, arguing that later sunsets encourage outdoor activity, recreation and consumer spending. Businesses connected to golf and other outdoor activities have been among the proposal’s supporters.

Opponents argue that standard time more closely follows the body’s natural circadian rhythm and avoids exceptionally late winter sunrises, particularly in northern parts of the country. Parents and school-safety advocates have also raised concerns about children waiting for buses or walking to school in darkness.

Those geographical differences have complicated the politics of the bill. Senators representing southern and coastal states have generally shown greater enthusiasm for permanent daylight saving time, while some lawmakers from northern states have been more skeptical because winter sunrise already comes relatively late in their communities.

Thune, whose home state of South Dakota would experience particularly late winter sunrises under permanent daylight saving time, has acknowledged that concern. He previously voted against the proposal in committee and has questioned whether supporters can assemble the 60 Senate votes needed to overcome procedural hurdles.

Other Republican senators have also voiced reservations, while Democrats are divided as well, making the dispute considerably less partisan than many other issues currently before Congress.

Sen. Eric Schmitt of Missouri said Monday that he favors having more daylight later in the day but remains uncertain that Congress can reach an agreement on the legislation. Sen. John Kennedy of Louisiana has also expressed opposition to the permanent daylight saving time approach.

The United States has tried permanent daylight saving time before. Congress enacted year-round daylight saving time during the 1970s energy crisis, but the experiment quickly became unpopular, particularly as Americans encountered dark winter mornings. Congress ultimately reversed course.

Advocates say circumstances have changed considerably since then and argue that Americans increasingly organize work, school, shopping and recreation around evening hours. Critics contend that the basic problem of winter darkness in the morning has not changed at all.

The current legislation has been championed in the House by Florida Republicans Vern Buchanan and Greg Steube and in the Senate by Sen. Rick Scott of Florida. Florida lawmakers have pursued the change for years; the state approved its own Sunshine Protection Act in 2018, but federal law prevents Florida from implementing permanent daylight saving time without congressional action.

Steube celebrated the House vote in July as the culmination of an effort he began while serving in the Florida Legislature, recalling that frustration over the clock change first caught his attention during a conversation in a barbershop years ago.

Trump has continued to insist that the Senate should finish the job, presenting permanent daylight saving time as a broadly popular accomplishment Congress could deliver before the midterms. The White House has described the proposal as a bipartisan reform that would preserve evening daylight when Americans are most likely to be awake and active.

But barring an unexpected development while the Senate is away, the immediate question has effectively been settled for this year. Most Americans will once again move their clocks back one hour at 2 a.m. on Nov. 1, while the larger battle over whether the country should ever have to do it again remains unresolved.

{Matzav.com}

President Donald Trump has approved the execution by U.S. Army firing squad of Nidal Malik Hasan, the Army psychiatrist who murdered 13 people and wounded 32 others in the 2009 terrorist attack at Fort Hood, clearing a major legal hurdle toward what would be the first U.S. military execution in more than 65 years.

Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell announced the decision Monday night, saying Secretary of War Pete Hegseth recommended that Hasan be put to death by firing squad and Trump gave his approval. The secretary of the Army will now determine the date and location of the execution.

“Judgment day for Hasan has finally come,” Parnell wrote.

Hasan, now 56, has been on military death row at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, since being convicted and sentenced to death by a court-martial in 2013. He was found guilty of 13 counts of premeditated murder and 32 counts of attempted premeditated murder.

The massacre unfolded on November 5, 2009, at Fort Hood, the sprawling Army installation in Texas now known as Fort Cavazos. Hasan, then an Army major and psychiatrist, entered the Soldier Readiness Processing Center, where troops were preparing for deployment, and began firing on the unarmed soldiers and others inside.

Witnesses said Hasan shouted “Allahu Akbar” as he opened fire. Twelve active-duty soldiers and retired Chief Warrant Officer Michael Cahill were killed, while dozens of others were wounded.

Investigators determined that before the attack, Hasan had attended noon prayers at a mosque and then traveled to the processing center armed with a pistol and a .357 revolver. He deliberately went to an area where he knew large numbers of soldiers would be gathered and unarmed.

Hasan later made his intent unmistakable in a sanity board report.

“I shot to kill,” Hasan stated.

The shooting ended when Hasan exchanged gunfire with law enforcement officers. He was struck multiple times and left paralyzed from the chest down.

The investigation into Hasan also uncovered contacts with Anwar al-Awlaki, the American-born radical Islamic cleric who became a senior al-Qaeda figure in Yemen and was later killed in a U.S. drone strike. Hasan had communicated with al-Awlaki before the massacre, and evidence presented in connection with the case documented his increasingly radical views.

During his 2013 court-martial, Hasan represented himself and made little effort to contest that he had carried out the killings. At one point, he said his actions were intended to protect “the Taliban, the leaders of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan.”

His court-appointed standby attorneys became so concerned about his approach to the case that they argued he appeared to be deliberately seeking a death sentence. Hasan called no witnesses during the guilt phase and did not testify in his own defense.

A military jury convicted him in August 2013 and sentenced him to death. Under the military justice system, the sentence automatically triggered an extensive appeals process.

The U.S. Army Court of Criminal Appeals upheld Hasan’s conviction and death sentence in 2020, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces upheld the sentence again in 2023.

Hasan subsequently asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review his case, raising procedural objections involving the conduct of his trial, including the handling of disputes between Hasan and the attorneys assigned to assist him. On March 31, 2025, the Supreme Court declined to hear the appeal.

Hegseth later moved to bring the lengthy case to an end. In September 2025, he publicly made clear that he wanted Hasan’s execution carried out.

“I am 100 percent committed to ensuring Nidal Hassan’s execution.”

“This brutal terrorist deserves the harshest legal punishment for the 2009 Fort Hood shooting,” Hegseth said at the time. “The victims and survivors deserve justice without delay.”

Trump’s approval is required under military law before a military death sentence can be carried out. The Pentagon said Monday that Hegseth recommended an Army firing squad as the method of execution and that Trump approved the recommendation.

Hasan is one of only a handful of prisoners currently under military death sentences. No member of the U.S. military has been executed since Army Pvt. John Bennett was hanged at Fort Leavenworth on April 13, 1961, following his conviction for the rape and attempted murder of an 11-year-old girl in Austria.

A military execution by firing squad would be even more historically unusual. The U.S. military has not carried out an execution by firing squad since 1945.

President George W. Bush approved another military death sentence during his presidency, but the planned execution was blocked by a federal court in 2008 and never carried out.

Hasan may still attempt additional litigation in federal court challenging the implementation of his death sentence, meaning Trump’s authorization does not necessarily guarantee that the execution will take place immediately.

For now, however, the final scheduling authority shifts to the Army, with the secretary of the Army responsible for setting the time and place of Hasan’s execution.

{Matzav.com}

President Donald Trump escalated his criticism of Fox News on Sunday, accusing the network of failing to adequately cover his recent campaign rallies and warning that MAGA viewers could abandon the channel if it continues to give what he considers insufficient attention to his events.

Trump’s broadside followed a rapid series of campaign appearances in Oklahoma, Texas, Alabama and Ohio as Republicans step up their efforts ahead of the November midterm elections. The president has been using the rallies to promote Republican candidates and his administration’s record while also offering praise for television personalities and outlets whose coverage he views favorably.

His immediate complaint Sunday centered on Fox & Friends and its coverage — or lack of coverage — of his Saturday night rally in Vandalia, Ohio.

“Sad to see that Fox & Friends is not covering our packed house and incredibly enthusiastic (beyond!) Rally that took place in Ohio last night, or the ones in Alabama, Texas, or Oklahoma over the past two days,” Trump wrote on Truth Social.

Trump argued that the rallies provided a more accurate picture of enthusiasm among Republican voters than viewers would receive from watching Fox’s programming.

“These Election Rallies were representative of what is really happening with our great Republican Party,” Trump continued, saying the events were sold out with thousands more supporters seeking admission.

Trump then directly warned Fox that viewers loyal to his political movement may simply stop tuning in if they believe the network is ignoring events they want to see.

“Our people want to see our Rallies, and reports on our Rallies, on FoxNews, or they will very quickly stop watching (like I am doing right now!),” Trump wrote.

A review of Fox’s recent coverage found a more complicated picture than a complete blackout of Trump’s campaign appearances. Fox & Friends Weekend did not report on the Ohio rally Sunday morning, the specific omission that triggered Trump’s criticism, but Fox has carried or covered some of his other recent rallies. Hannity, for example, aired coverage of Trump’s Oklahoma appearance last Thursday.

Trump has nevertheless been voicing growing dissatisfaction with the network, arguing that Fox gives too much airtime to Democrats and commentators critical of his administration while failing to adequately showcase the support he receives at rallies.

“Fox spends more time talking to Communists, Socialists, and Dumocrats, often without rebuttal, and MAGA is not, to put it mildly, happy,” he wrote on Truth Social. “We don’t like stupid [Democrat co-host] Jessica Tarlov, and all of the others, that are forced down MAGA’S throats.”

Trump’s criticism of Fox comes despite the network’s continued close relationship with numerous figures in his administration and political orbit. Several prominent Fox personalities have attended administration events, and multiple people who previously worked at the network have gone on to serve in senior positions in Trump’s second administration.

At the same time, Trump has repeatedly praised Newsmax and some of its personalities. During his Oklahoma rally Thursday, he specifically mentioned several of the network’s primetime hosts.

“Greg Kelly. Rob … We have, I mean, you take a look at Finnerty. You take a look at Schmitt,” Trump said at the rally.

“There are a lot of great shows,” he said of Newsmax. “We have more support than you think.”

“We have such great support and support based on pure common sense,” Trump added.

Trump’s latest clash with Fox also comes amid lingering controversy surrounding the September departure of longtime Fox News and Fox Business anchor Maria Bartiromo, who left the company after more than 12 years.

Fox announced on September 3 that Bartiromo was no longer with Fox News Media, thanking her for her years at the network and wishing her well. The company did not initially provide a reason for the sudden departure and subsequently described it as a “business decision.”

Reports at the time claimed that the dispute involved Bartiromo sharing internal Fox guidance concerning the network’s treatment of Trump-related coverage with members of the White House. Bartiromo’s attorney disputed reports that she had been fired, while Fox declined to elaborate beyond describing the separation as a business decision.

White House senior counselor Peter Navarro later said Bartiromo had sent him information concerning Fox’s internal guidance and that he forwarded it because he believed he had an obligation to do so.

Trump on Sunday explicitly tied Bartiromo’s departure to his complaints about the network’s treatment of him.

“Who makes these decisions at FoxNews?” Trump wrote. “Probably the same loser that fired the great Maria Bartiromo because she complained about not being allowed to cover ‘TRUMP.’ She’ll end up bigger and better than ever – watch!”

Navarro has separately urged Trump administration officials to stop appearing on Fox News until he believes the network changes its approach.

“Fox News is much more dangerous to MAGA, much more dangerous to the Republican Party because they wear our colors when they’re in fact helping the other side undermine the president,” Navarro said on RAV.

Navarro has specifically argued that prominent administration officials — including Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer and Secretary of State Marco Rubio — should refrain from appearing on Fox. He has simultaneously praised Newsmax’s treatment of the administration and encouraged viewers to watch the network.

The tensions have not prevented Fox from continuing to bring Trump allies into its lineup. On Monday, the network announced that Karoline Leavitt, who stepped down as White House press secretary in August, will become a Fox News contributor beginning November 1, an indication that the relationship between Fox and Trump’s political orbit remains substantial despite the president’s public attacks on the network.

Trump, however, made clear Sunday that he believes Fox risks alienating the conservative audience that helped make it the dominant cable-news network if its editorial decisions continue to anger MAGA viewers.

“Cover our ‘happenings,’ and not the opposition to Greatness for America,” Trump wrote, “or FoxNews will soon have the ratings of FAKE NEWS CNN or MSNOW (MSDNC).”

{Matzav.com}

The United States abruptly withdrew all 12 B-1 bombers stationed at RAF Fairford in Britain after receiving intelligence that Iran may have been preparing a drone attack against the aircraft and hundreds of American personnel at the base, according to a new report detailing the threat that prompted the extraordinary weekend evacuation.

The suspected operation was believed to involve Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and may have included several methods of attack against RAF Fairford, the strategically important base in southern England that has been used by American bombers during the U.S.-Israeli war against Iran.

The new details provide the clearest explanation yet for the sudden decision to return the entire B-1 contingent to the United States over the weekend. American officials had previously acknowledged a threat to the base but had stopped short of publicly describing its precise nature.

Vice President JD Vance said Monday that the Pentagon moved the aircraft “out of an abundance of caution trying to protect our guys.”

“We do feel with some confidence that the Iranians are trying to do what the Iranian state has done for 49 years, which is engage in acts of terrorism against the United States and against a lot of other people as well,” Vance told reporters at Joint Base Andrews. “We are being extremely cautious.”

President Donald Trump also confirmed that the bombers were removed because of threats against them.

“There were some threats,” Trump told reporters. “Why should we leave them there?”

The suspected Iranian operation was reportedly more extensive than a simple attempt to fly drones directly from Iran toward the British base. Intelligence examined by Western officials raised concerns about an attack launched from much closer to Fairford, potentially involving operatives or recruits inside Britain.

Officials reportedly feared a complex, multipronged operation intended to destroy American aircraft and inflict casualties on U.S. personnel. One possibility under examination was an attack involving drones launched from relatively close range, potentially accompanied by a diversion or other form of assault.

The concept bore similarities to Ukraine’s Operation Spiderweb in June 2025, when drones concealed and transported inside Russia were launched near military airfields and struck Russian strategic bombers. The operation demonstrated how comparatively small drones positioned close to their targets could threaten valuable aircraft located thousands of miles from the country directing the attack.

The Fairford threat emerged against the backdrop of a dramatic counterterrorism operation near the base on September 27.

Five British men were arrested after three suspicious white vans were spotted near RAF Fairford in the middle of the night. Police were called shortly after 12:45 a.m., and armed officers descended on the area. Approximately 85 nearby homes were evacuated as bomb-disposal specialists examined the vehicles.

The men were initially detained on suspicion of explosives offenses and preparing terrorist acts. Although investigators ultimately found no viable explosive devices in the vans, petrol and other accelerants were reportedly discovered. The five suspects were released on bail the following day while the investigation continued.

A British-Iranian dual national was subsequently arrested on suspicion of preparing terrorist acts. He, too, was later released as investigators continued examining possible connections among the suspects and any potential involvement by Tehran.

Investigators have reportedly considered whether the activity involving the vans could have served as a diversion connected to a larger operation against the base, although British authorities have not publicly established that such a coordinated plot existed.

U.S., British, German and Israeli officials have been examining whether the suspected operation was connected to the IRGC or another Iranian military command. Iran has denied involvement.

RAF Fairford had already been considered a potential Iranian target because of its role in American military operations against Tehran. Iran’s Revolutionary Guards previously warned that bases used to facilitate attacks against Iran could be considered legitimate targets.

The American response to the intelligence was dramatic. The B-1s were rapidly flown out of Britain and returned to their home stations in the United States, temporarily removing the large concentration of American strategic bombers from Fairford.

The sudden withdrawal came despite British assurances that the installation remains secure. British officials have emphasized that the country maintains established procedures for protecting military facilities and that the investigation into the September 27 incident remains active.

British Defense Secretary Wes Streeting said Britain has “tried and tested approaches to defend our bases around the country and throughout the world.”

American officials, however, determined that leaving a dozen highly valuable bombers concentrated at one location while intelligence agencies investigated a possible Iranian attack presented an unnecessary risk.

Trump indicated that Washington had information about those behind the threat, telling reporters, “We actually know the people who made the threat.”

Asked whether the aircraft had specifically been moved because of the threat, Trump responded: “Yeah, I think we can say that. They didn’t fly out by accident.”

The investigation is continuing into whether Tehran or Iranian-linked operatives were preparing an attack on RAF Fairford and whether the suspicious activity near the base was connected to the broader threat that ultimately prompted Washington to pull the bombers out of Britain.

{Matzav.com}

LISTEN:

​​For more info, email bitachon4life@gmail.com.

LISTEN:

Israel was prepared to shoot down Flydubai Flight 1073 — despite more than 150 Israelis being aboard — if the hijacked passenger jet had continued toward the country and was determined to be heading for Ben Gurion Airport, the Azrieli towers or another major target, according to Israeli officials with direct knowledge of the dramatic military response to last week’s attempted terror attack.

The extraordinary details reveal how close the September 30 incident came to forcing Israel’s leadership to confront one of the most agonizing decisions imaginable: destroy an airliner filled largely with Israeli passengers or risk allowing terrorists to use it as a weapon in a 9/11-style attack that could kill hundreds or thousands more on the ground.

Two Israeli sources familiar with the response said Israel has long maintained and rehearsed procedures for precisely such a scenario. Those protocols were activated within minutes after Flydubai Flight FZ1073, traveling from Dubai to Tel Aviv, suddenly plunged thousands of feet and stopped responding to Israeli Air Force attempts to contact the cockpit.

The Boeing 737 MAX was carrying more than 170 passengers, most of them Israelis, when co-pilot Hamam al-Hammami allegedly attacked Captain Smit Machchhar in the cockpit with an emergency crash axe and attempted to seize control of the aircraft. Investigators now believe al-Hammami had planned the attack before he was even hired by Flydubai and intended to crash the jet into Ben Gurion Airport.

Flight-tracking information and accounts from officials indicate that the aircraft lost more than 14,000 feet in a matter of seconds during the struggle in the cockpit. Some flight-tracking data showed an even larger plunge of more than 16,000 feet. Israeli officials said the Air Force detected that the plane had deviated from its expected course and was descending at an alarming rate.

Israeli controllers attempted to establish communications with the cockpit but received no response. An emergency alert subsequently indicated that the aircraft was facing a hijacking rather than an ordinary mechanical problem.

The Israeli response was almost immediate. A previously designated emergency committee was activated, a command center was established, Israeli airspace was closed and fighter aircraft were scrambled. Officials involved in the response were already considering the possibility that Israel was facing an attempted repeat of the September 11 attacks in the United States.

According to Israeli officials, the decision to close Israeli airspace came roughly 90 seconds after the seriousness of the incident became apparent. Fighter jets were ordered into the air seconds later, with the critical sequence unfolding in only two to three minutes.

The Israeli fighters ultimately did not have to intercept the aircraft. While still roughly 400 miles from Israel, Flight 1073 turned toward Saudi Arabia, and Saudi fighter aircraft were scrambled to respond. Once Israeli officials understood that the plane was moving away from Israel and that Saudi forces were taking action, the Israeli jets were recalled.

Had the Flydubai aircraft continued toward Israel and crossed a predetermined threshold, however, Israeli fighter jets would have been dispatched into Jordanian airspace to intercept and investigate it, according to officials familiar with the protocol.

The Israeli pilots would first have approached the airliner as closely as possible and attempted to visually inspect the cockpit, including trying to establish visual contact with whoever was at the controls. They would then have examined the passenger cabin for indications of panic, violence or other evidence that the aircraft had been hijacked.

Their observations would have been transmitted back to the Air Force and the emergency committee. If authorities concluded that the aircraft had indeed been seized and those controlling it remained radio-silent and made no demands, the situation would have been escalated directly to Israel’s defense minister and prime minister.

Under Israel’s established protocol, an unresponsive rogue aircraft determined to be approaching Israel as a weapon can ultimately be shot down. The authority to give that final order, however, rests with the prime minister.

Israeli officials said that in such a nightmare scenario, destroying an aircraft containing more than 150 Israelis could be considered necessary if the alternative were allowing the plane to strike Ben Gurion Airport, Tel Aviv’s Azrieli towers or another “high-value target.”

The disclosure adds a new dimension to the extraordinary events aboard Flight 1073, where the passengers had no idea that Israeli military authorities were simultaneously preparing for the possibility that the aircraft itself might have to be destroyed.

The catastrophe was averted largely because Machchhar, despite suffering severe injuries in the cockpit attack, managed to fight back long enough to unlock the cockpit door. His action allowed Flydubai personnel and Israeli passengers to enter the cockpit and overpower al-Hammami.

Machchhar has since described how the attack began after his co-pilot asked for permission to pray. Several minutes later, while the captain was looking away, al-Hammami allegedly struck him repeatedly from behind with the cockpit’s emergency axe.

“But then, after that, the blows kept coming, one after the other,” Machchhar later recalled. “That’s when I realized that it’s not the aircraft, it’s the other guy who was in the cockpit with me.”

Although badly wounded and struggling to see, Machchhar succeeded in opening the reinforced cockpit door. Passengers and crew then rushed in and subdued the alleged attacker. Two off-duty pilots traveling aboard the flight subsequently took control of the aircraft and diverted it to Tabuk, Saudi Arabia, where it landed safely.

The entire airborne emergency lasted roughly 15 minutes, according to officials familiar with the response.

The investigation has since produced increasingly disturbing evidence suggesting that the incident was a premeditated terror plot rather than a spontaneous attack.

An Israeli official said al-Hammami told interrogators in the United Arab Emirates that he had conceived of the attack before joining Flydubai. Investigators believe his objective was to seize an aircraft bound for Israel and crash it into Ben Gurion Airport.

Investigators are also examining reports that al-Hammami had previously considered carrying out an attack on another flight but abandoned the plan because someone he knew was aboard. Authorities are reviewing his previous trips, contacts and travel to determine whether he was recruited, assisted or directed by a terrorist organization.

The current Israeli assessment is that al-Hammami probably acted as a lone wolf, but officials have stressed that the investigation remains active and that other possibilities have not been eliminated.

Al-Hammami was initially taken into custody in Saudi Arabia following the emergency landing and was subsequently transferred to the United Arab Emirates. Israeli Shin Bet personnel have traveled to the UAE and are participating in the investigation alongside Emirati authorities.

The investigation is also focusing heavily on how al-Hammami was permitted to become a Flydubai pilot despite apparent warning signs in his background.

According to officials familiar with his history, al-Hammami had previously worked as a co-pilot trainee with Oman Air and was identified as a security concern in 2024 after extremist material was allegedly discovered in his possession. He was grounded from flying for approximately a year but was permitted to remain with the airline in an administrative position before later leaving Oman Air.

Al-Hammami subsequently moved to Dubai and was hired by Flydubai. Officials familiar with the case have said Flydubai did not obtain sufficient information from the Omani government about his previous security concerns before placing him in the cockpit.

Investigators have also uncovered social-media material that has added to concerns about his radicalization. At one point, al-Hammami reportedly posted footage of El Al aircraft in Dubai together with an image of slain Al Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri.

The case has triggered investigations and reviews beyond Israel and the UAE because al-Hammami had studied or spent time in several countries. Authorities are examining his history to determine when his alleged radicalization occurred and whether anyone assisted him in preparing the attack.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has ordered a broad review of security procedures involving foreign airlines flying into Israel, particularly the vetting of foreign pilots and other crew members who are permitted to enter Israeli airspace and land at Ben Gurion Airport.

The episode has raised serious questions about how an individual previously identified as a potential security risk could pass through multiple layers of airline, government and Israeli aviation screening and ultimately serve as co-pilot on a passenger aircraft bound directly for Israel.

Flydubai has said that “an altercation occurred in the flight deck” and that the aircraft “was successfully secured by on-duty FlyDubai crew traveling on the flight, who diverted and landed the aircraft safely” in Saudi Arabia.

The airline has also said that “all passengers and crew are safe and accounted for,” while cautioning that “at this early stage, the underlying reasons and motives behind this event are unknown and remain subject to a formal investigation.”

{Matzav.com}

A prominent posek in Yerushalayim’s Minchas Yitzchok neighborhood has issued an unusually sharp public warning after what was presented to local families as a children’s Nisuch Hamayim gathering allegedly became a forum promoting aliyah to Har Habayis, prompting him to instruct parents to make clear to their children that ascending the site is completely contrary to the position of the gedolei haposkim.

Rav Chaim Aharon Bleier, author of Chukei Chaim and a longtime moreh hora’ah in the Minchas Yitzchok neighborhood, released the letter under the heading “Hishamru Lachem Alos Bahar — Beware of ascending the mountain.”

The letter, dated Hoshana Rabbah 5787, says that Rav Bleier was deeply disturbed after learning that hundreds of children from Minchas Yitzchok had attended a gathering in the neighborhood auditorium that was ostensibly connected to the avodah of Nisuch Hamayim in the Bais Hamikdash.

According to Rav Bleier, those responsible for the gathering presented it as an innocent educational program connected to the Bais Hamikdash and did not disclose what he says was another purpose of the event.

“Painful news has reached us that unscrupulous people held a gathering of hundreds of children from our holy neighborhood in the auditorium located on Rechov Minchas Yitzchok, and those people hid under the guise of an institution for strengthening the holy work performed in the Bais Hamikdash, and advertised that they would hold a gathering presenting the avodah of Nisuch Hamayim in the Bais Hamikdash, without writing what they had concealed in their net,” Rav Bleier wrote.

The letter does not identify the organizers by name, and Rav Bleier does not state in the letter itself which municipal body financed the gathering. Claims circulating with the letter say that the event was funded by the Yerushalayim municipality; that detail has not yet been independently confirmed.

What Rav Bleier says happened during the program, however, is the reason for his extraordinary warning to parents.

According to the posek, a speaker appeared in the middle of the gathering dressed in traditional chareidi clothing and identified himself as belonging to a chassidic family. Rav Bleier writes that the speaker began discussing aliyah to Har Habayis and presented what Rav Bleier describes as “a foreign spirit” that directly contradicts the position of the leading poskim.

“We were horrified to hear that in the middle of the gathering, one person dressed in chassidic clothing from a well-known chassidic family stood up and began speaking about the matter and instilling a foreign spirit contrary to the opinion of the great poskim,” Rav Bleier wrote.

The letter says the remarks were delivered before hundreds of children and bochurim from Yerushalayim, and that the speaker openly encouraged interest in ascending Har Habayis.

Rav Bleier writes that this was done “in front of hundreds of children and bochurim of Yerushalayim” and says the message ran contrary to “the words of the great poskim of the generation zt”l and yblch”t from all the eidot and chugim.”

The speaker was the chairman of the Har Habayis Administration, who used his appearance to discuss the subject of Jews ascending Har Habayis. The letter itself does not name the speaker or identify his organizational title, so that specific identification remains an allegation accompanying the document rather than something stated by Rav Bleier in the letter.

Rav Bleier writes that the speaker ultimately “spoke to the hearts of the participants regarding the importance of ascending Har Habayis in our time,” thereby, in Rav Bleier’s words, “spreading the impurity of Har Habayis in this time, when we do not have a Bais Hamikdash, while presenting it as though this is the opinion of the gedolei Yisroel.”

The issue of aliyah to Har Habayis has long been the subject of significant halachic discussion. The longstanding position of the Chief Rabbinate and leading poskim has been to prohibit Jews from ascending Har Habayis because of the severe issurei kareis associated with entering areas of the site while tamei.

Rav Bleier issued a direct instruction to parents: “Because of the seriousness of the matter and the things that occurred in our holy neighborhood, I hereby strongly protest against those unscrupulous people, and I hereby issue an urgent call to the dear parents whose children participated in this gathering to speak to their children and correct the distortion, and tell them the true path that the gedolei Yisroel zt”l and yblch”t transmitted to us, that the matter is prohibited with the utmost severity,” Rav Bleier wrote.

He added that parents should explain to their children that what they heard at the gathering was directly contrary to the accepted daas Torah of the community.

Rav Bleier wrote that parents must explain “that what they heard was in complete contradiction to the opinion and instruction of our holy rabbonim, so that the evil words should not influence them.”

The posek said similar incidents have taken place several times in the Minchas Yitzchok neighborhood during the past two years, each time through a different organization or framework.

“We hereby call upon anyone who has the ability to act to ensure that such things do not occur again within our camp,” Rav Bleier wrote, adding that “this has already happened several times in our neighborhood during the last two years, each time under a different guise.”

Rav Bleier warned parents “to check every gathering and place to which they send their precious children, to see who stands behind the organizers, because we are promised that they will not cease attempting to influence innocent and holy children with their false ideas.”

{Matzav.com}

Avinatan Or, who survived 738 days as a hostage of Hamas in Gaza, has revealed that even while enduring captivity himself, he opposed an agreement to secure his freedom if the price would encourage Hamas to carry out future kidnappings, saying he believed Israel had to emerge from the war victorious.

In his first extensive television interview since returning home, Or spoke with Ilana Dayan on Keshet 12’s “Uvda” about his more than two years in Hamas captivity, the calculations he made about his own possible release, his relationship with his parents, and a deeply personal prayer he made after 70 days as a hostage.

Or was abducted from the Nova music festival near Re’im during the Hamas massacre on October 7, 2023, together with his partner, Noa Argamani. Footage of their abduction became one of the most recognizable images of the attack, showing Argamani being taken away on a motorcycle while reaching toward Or as terrorists marched him away.

Argamani was dramatically rescued by Israeli forces from Nuseirat in June 2024, together with Almog Meir Jan, Andrey Kozlov and Shlomi Ziv. Or remained in Gaza for another 16 months before finally being released on October 13, 2025, after 738 days in captivity.

During his captivity, Or said, he was able at times to see television coverage from Israel, including demonstrations demanding an agreement to bring the hostages home. Despite knowing that such an agreement could mean his own freedom, he said he was convinced that his parents were not participating in those protests.

“The debate was over matters of life and death, whether you save lives now or protect lives in the future,” he explained. “It was clear to me that if we made a deal then, I would be released, but later, someone else would be sitting in my place.”

Or said his position was not an abstract view developed after his return to Israel. It was what he believed while he himself remained in Hamas hands and had no assurance that he would survive long enough to come home.

“It was clear to me that we shouldn’t make a deal at any cost. Israel needed to emerge victorious from this war,” he said.

Or described conveying essentially the same message directly to one of the terrorists guarding him. Rather than allowing his captors to believe that the passage of time would eventually break him or force Israel to meet their demands, he told the terrorist that he was prepared for the possibility of remaining there for years.

“I told my captor: I’ll stay here for a day, two days, a year, two years, even ten years. Eventually, you’ll understand that I’m not worth holding, and that will be the victory.”

Or’s ordeal lasted more than two years. He was held largely alone, and in portions of his captivity was confined underground in darkness. In another portion of the interview, he revealed that he had attempted to devise a way to escape, drawing on lessons he remembered from his military service about the impossibility of creating a completely impenetrable defensive system.

“In the army they always told us, there’s no such thing as a 100% perfect defense, there will always be some weak point,” he explained.

While confined in an underground cell, Or felt his way around his surroundings and discovered a section constructed with sandbags. He could feel air moving through the area, leading him to conclude that there might be a route toward the outside.

“That doesn’t happen in a tunnel,” Or said.

His captivity also included severe physical deprivation. By the time he returned to Israel, Or appeared gaunt after spending more than two years cut off from his family and Argamani, who had spent much of that period publicly campaigning for his return after her own rescue.

One of the most personal moments Or described involved neither his captors nor the political argument surrounding a hostage agreement, but a conversation he said he had with God on his 70th day in Gaza.

“On the 70th day, I spoke to God and said: ‘Listen, I know I haven’t spoken to You in seven years, and it’s hypocritical of me to ask You for something now, especially when there’s a good chance I’ll forget You once I get out. So I’ll speak to You frankly: the Torah commands us to honor our parents, and I tried to do that even before October 7. Now it’s Your turn to fulfill the part that promises long life in the land.’”

Or’s comments about the hostage negotiations also shed new light on the approach taken publicly by his parents, Yaron and Ditza Or, during the long campaign to bring him home. Unlike some hostage families who became prominent participants in demonstrations demanding an immediate deal, his family generally advocated continued pressure on Hamas and resisted calls for Israel to accept an agreement at any price.

When Or finally returned to Israel in October 2025, one of his first reunions was with his parents. He said their initial words to him reflected the burden they had carried while making decisions about how best to fight for their son without knowing what he himself wanted them to do.

“When they saw me, they said, ‘We hope you’re not angry with us.’ I answered them, ‘I’m not angry with you. I’m proud of you.’ My parents fought for me like crazy.”

Or was also reunited with Argamani after more than two years apart. The couple had been violently separated during their abduction on October 7 and followed radically different paths through captivity: Argamani was held with other hostages before being rescued after approximately eight months, while Or remained in Hamas captivity until the hostage agreement of October 2025.

{Matzav.com}

A Brooklyn public-school teacher who allegedly declared “Long live Yahya Al-Sinwar” in a private group chat returned to his Park Slope school on Monday with his face covered, even as outraged parents demanded that the city remove him from the classroom and education officials launched an investigation into his conduct. Pasted markdown

Damien Neva, 48, began working this school year at PS 77 in Park Slope, where he teaches special education. Before entering education, Neva worked in the fashion industry as a photographer, videographer and social-media director, including positions with major modeling agencies.

The controversy erupted after a recently filed lawsuit involving the Park Slope Food Coop revealed messages Neva allegedly posted in a Signal chat used by members advocating a boycott of Israeli products.

According to the lawsuit, Neva posted his tribute to Yahya al-Sinwar in November 2024, several weeks after the Hamas leader was killed by Israeli forces in Gaza.

“Long live Yahya Al-Sinwar,” Neva wrote, according to the lawsuit.

Sinwar was the Hamas leader who played a central role in planning the October 7, 2023, massacre in southern Israel, when Hamas-led terrorists murdered approximately 1,200 people and abducted 251 others into Gaza.

Neva was back at PS 77 on Monday as the controversy surrounding the comments intensified. Photographs showed him covering his face while leaving his Brooklyn home and again while walking to the school.

Parents interviewed outside PS 77 expressed anger that Neva remained in the classroom while the allegations were being investigated.

“It’s disgusting,” one fifth-grade father said.

“If he’s still teaching here, it’s disgusting, both on him and on the school that’s holding on to him. No one who praises terrorists deserves to be a teacher,” the furious father raged.

“If you praise a guy like [Sinwar], that means that some part of you believes that murdering innocent people is morally justifiable.”

Another relative of children attending the school, a grandmother, said she distinguishes between support for Palestinian statehood and glorification of the Hamas leader responsible for the October 7 attack.

“I believe the Palestinian people deserve statehood, but Sinwar was a terrorist,” she said.

“He killed for the sake of killing, and to speak of him like he did something good – that’s not okay, and [Neva] is not someone I want near my grandchildren.

“They should fire him. I’m surprised they haven’t fired him already.”

The controversy surrounding Neva reaches beyond the single message praising Sinwar. The lawsuit that brought the comment to public attention stems from the bitter, years-long fight over Israel inside the Park Slope Food Coop, the prominent member-owned grocery cooperative on Union Street in Brooklyn.

The coop, which has more than 16,000 members, voted in May to boycott Israeli products following years of internal battles between pro-Israel members and activists seeking to remove Israeli goods from its shelves.

Neva is described in the lawsuit as one of the organizers of the boycott effort. The complaint was filed on September 28 in Kings County Supreme Court by five Jewish members challenging both the boycott and the process by which it was adopted.

The plaintiffs allege that the campaign was accompanied by hostility and discrimination against Jewish and pro-Israel members and that coop leaders failed to adequately address the conduct. The coop itself is not accused of endorsing Neva’s statement praising Sinwar.

According to the lawsuit, shortly before writing his message about Sinwar, Neva was discussing the political strength of opponents of the Israel boycott.

“That lot does not have the votes to block our campaign,” Neva allegedly wrote, referring to pro-Israel and Jewish members of the coop.

He then posted, “Long live Yahya Al-Sinwar,” with at least one other participant reportedly reacting approvingly to the message.

The lawsuit also alleges other episodes of hostility toward Jewish members during the boycott battle. In one incident cited in the complaint, a coop member wearing a “Peace, Love, Israel” shirt was allegedly confronted and called “disgusting,” “a racist and a genocide supporter,” and told to leave the coop.

The controversy over Neva has intensified because he subsequently became responsible for teaching children in New York City’s public-school system.

Before beginning his teaching career, Neva worked for years in fashion photography and social media. His previous professional experience included work with Next Management, Ford Models and Calvin Klein. He described his move into education in a since-deleted social-media post as an “enforced career change.”

Other material attributed to Neva on social media has also drawn scrutiny. His accounts reportedly included an image depicting an Israel sticker being shredded, another showing a Star of David painted over the Statue of Liberty, and a comparison between Warsaw in 1944 and “Palestine” in 2024.

The New York City public-school system has confirmed that the allegations concerning Neva have been referred for investigation.

“Antisemitism and support for terrorist organizations have absolutely no place in our school system,” a Department of Education spokesperson said in response to the allegations.

“This allegation has been reported and referred for investigation, in accordance with Chancellor’s Regulations.”

The controversy has also drawn condemnation from elected officials.

State Assemblyman Jeffrey Dinowitz, a Bronx Democrat and longtime member of the Assembly, described the allegations as “appalling.”

“Hamas is a terrorist organization that has killed countless people, including Americans,” Dinowitz said.

“I don’t think someone like that should be teaching our kids.”

Dov Hikind, the former New York state assemblyman and founder of Americans Against Antisemitism, has also called for Neva to be removed from his teaching position.

The pressure is also coming from within New York’s education community.

Karen Feldman, a New York City teacher and founder of The NYC Public School Alliance, said the episode raises broader questions about the standards the school system applies to educators entrusted with children.

“This is not about one offensive post or one teacher’s political views. It is about who NYCPS [New York City Public Schools] is allowing to stand in front of our children. This teacher publicly praised Yahya al-Sinwar, the Hamas leader and murder mastermind responsible for the October 7 massacre,” Feldman said.

“And he is not an isolated case,” she continued.

“This is not about policing political beliefs. It is about professional judgment, student safety and the basic responsibility of a school system to know who it is putting in front of children. Our classrooms should be safe places for all children.”

The revelations come amid continued controversy over antisemitism and anti-Israel activism within New York City schools since the October 7 massacre and the subsequent war in Gaza. Jewish parents and educators have repeatedly raised concerns about political activism entering classrooms and about whether existing disciplinary procedures adequately address antisemitic conduct by school employees.

Neva has not publicly responded in detail to the allegations. When a reporter attempted to approach him at his Brooklyn home on Sunday, he reportedly contacted police rather than answer questions.

{Matzav.com}

President Donald Trump offered a stark assessment Monday of the suspected pneumonic plague incident unfolding in Siberia, calling the situation a “big problem for Russia” and saying the United States is prepared to help Moscow as nearly 200 people remain under medical observation following the unexplained death of a 28-year-old employee at a Russian anti-plague research institute.

Trump’s comments came as the United States, European officials and international health experts closely monitored developments surrounding the death of Daria Shipilova, a laboratory technician at the Irkutsk Anti-Plague Research Institute of Siberia and the Far East. Russian authorities have not confirmed that Shipilova contracted plague and insist that tests have so far found no microorganisms associated with her work.

Speaking to reporters Monday afternoon as he left the White House for a campaign rally in Nebraska, Trump described plague as a dangerous disease that he suggested has become more difficult to combat.

“It’s a rough disease. You know, that’s a disease we used to be able to control, but somehow those microbes have got stronger and smarter, they’re like an army,” Trump told reporters.

“The germs have really become relatively stronger than they were, and things that used to work on pneumonia don’t work as well anymore. So we’ll help.”

Trump said he had not yet spoken with Russian President Vladimir Putin about the situation but indicated that Washington would be willing to provide assistance if needed.

The president’s remarks followed growing international attention to Shipilova’s death and conflicting accounts emerging from Russia about exactly what happened inside the Siberian research facility.

According to independent Russian media reports, Shipilova accidentally broke a test tube containing the bacterium responsible for pneumonic plague on September 25 while working at the institute. She became seriously ill several days later, was hospitalized on September 29 with severe pneumonia and died during the night of October 1-2.

Russian authorities have not confirmed the account involving the broken test tube. Rospotrebnadzor, Russia’s federal public-health agency, said Shipilova suffered from “pneumonia of unknown etiology” and that additional testing prompted by the nature of her work did not detect microorganisms connected to her professional activities.

The agency has also said that no accident involving pathogenic microorganisms was officially recorded at the institute.

Despite those assurances, authorities have undertaken extensive precautionary measures. Nearly 200 people who had direct or indirect contact with Shipilova have reportedly been placed under medical observation or isolation, with more than 100 monitored in hospitals.

More than 60 employees of the anti-plague institute were reportedly confined inside the facility beginning October 2 while awaiting test results. Relatives told independent Russian media that some employees were sleeping on floors and chairs because the facility was not equipped to house them overnight.

Several medical facilities in the Irkutsk region have also imposed quarantine restrictions, while an aluminum plant in nearby Shelekhov introduced mask requirements. Public events have reportedly been restricted in some areas, and authorities have taken additional precautions involving travelers.

Irkutsk Governor Igor Kobzev has sought to reassure residents, saying that the sanitary and epidemiological situation remains stable and that those identified as close contacts have shown no signs of the suspected disease and tested negative.

There is currently no publicly confirmed evidence that pneumonic plague is spreading among residents of Irkutsk or that Shipilova transmitted the disease to another person.

The Trump administration nevertheless began publicly pressing Moscow for greater transparency as reports of the possible laboratory exposure circulated internationally.

Earlier Monday, the State Department urged Russian authorities to “share accurate information quickly and openly” about what occurred.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio said Washington is working with federal health officials to follow the situation and cautioned that an infectious disease outbreak cannot be viewed as purely a domestic Russian matter.

“There’s very limited travel between the US and Russia, obviously. But like anything else, something like that gets out, it could certainly spread,” Rubio told reporters as he departed Washington for Europe.

“So we’re watching and monitoring it closely. I don’t think it’s cause for alarm but it is cause for focus and a cause just to keep an eye on it.”

The White House had already confirmed Sunday that the administration “is aware, monitoring the outbreak, and assessing options.”

European officials are also watching developments. The European Commission said Monday that it was following the suspected incident “very closely” and was prepared to coordinate with member states if circumstances required a broader public-health response.

Pneumonic plague is caused by Yersinia pestis, the same bacterium responsible for other forms of plague. Unlike bubonic plague, which is most commonly transmitted through infected fleas or contact with infected animals, pneumonic plague affects the lungs and can spread directly between people through respiratory droplets during close contact.

The disease can progress rapidly and can be fatal without prompt treatment. Modern antibiotics, however, are generally effective when administered early, which is one reason public-health experts have cautioned against assuming that the suspected Russian incident represents the beginning of a major international outbreak.

Some infectious-disease specialists have said that even if Shipilova’s death is ultimately confirmed as pneumonic plague, the combination of antibiotics, contact tracing, isolation and modern infection-control procedures makes a large outbreak far less likely than during earlier periods of history.

Questions have nevertheless been raised about the precise circumstances of Shipilova’s reported exposure. Russian epidemiologist Mikhail Favorov publicly questioned the broken-test-tube explanation, noting that workers handling plague pathogens would ordinarily be wearing specialized protective equipment.

“It’s laughable,” Favorov said. “Someone working at the Anti-Plague Institute in Irkutsk wears a protective anti-plague suit.

“If you break a test tube, the likelihood of infection is actually very low. In short, it doesn’t matter to the general public – they’ll believe the ‘broken test tube’ story. It’s absolutely hair-raising. We will not be told what really happened.”

The Irkutsk institute operates as a high-containment research facility dealing with dangerous infectious diseases. Public reporting has described it as a Biosafety Level 3 facility, a classification used for laboratories working with pathogens capable of causing serious or potentially lethal disease through respiratory transmission.

The incident has also renewed attention on the Soviet Union’s extensive biological-weapons program during the Cold War. Soviet scientists conducted research involving Yersinia pestis and reportedly developed antibiotic-resistant strains of plague bacteria as part of an offensive biological-weapons effort.

There is no public evidence, however, that Shipilova was working on a biological weapon, that the Irkutsk institute is currently conducting offensive plague-weapons research or that the suspected incident involved an engineered strain of Yersinia pestis.

The U.S. government has separately maintained that Russia continues activities inconsistent with its obligations under the Biological Weapons Convention. Moscow denies maintaining an offensive biological-weapons program and says its work involving dangerous pathogens is defensive and public-health related.

The questions surrounding the Siberian incident have inevitably revived memories of the bitter international debate over the origins of COVID-19 and whether the virus emerged naturally or through a laboratory-related incident in China. The origin of COVID-19 remains unresolved, in part because of continuing disputes over access to information and data from China.

Trump’s comments about microbes becoming “stronger and smarter” also come amid the broader global problem of antimicrobial resistance, in which bacteria can evolve resistance to drugs used to treat infections. There is currently no confirmed evidence that the suspected Irkutsk case involved an antibiotic-resistant strain of plague.

Historically, pneumonic plague has produced devastating outbreaks. An epidemic in Manchuria beginning in 1910 killed roughly 60,000 people before being brought under control. Los Angeles experienced an outbreak in 1924 that killed approximately 30 people, the last major urban plague epidemic in the United States.

Bubonic plague was responsible for the Black Death that devastated Europe in the 14th century, killing tens of millions of people and, by some estimates, eliminating a massive share of the continent’s population.

Plague has not disappeared. Human cases continue to occur each year, particularly in parts of Africa, Asia and the Americas, although cases are now rare in developed countries and are generally treatable with antibiotics when recognized promptly.

For now, the central question in Siberia remains unanswered: Russian officials have acknowledged Shipilova’s death from severe pneumonia and implemented significant containment measures, but they have not confirmed that she was infected with plague at all.

Rubio said that uncertainty is precisely why Washington wants Moscow to provide reliable information rather than allow speculation to fill the vacuum.

“So we’re watching and monitoring it closely. I don’t think it’s cause for alarm but it is cause for focus and a cause just to keep an eye on it.”

{Matzav.com}

Newly declassified documents are revealing an even broader picture of the surveillance carried out during the federal investigation of President Donald Trump, showing that FBI agents tracked the travel of Melania Trump and Barron Trump while preparing to search Mar-a-Lago and later monitored the phone activity of Susie Wiles, including her contacts with Trump, his attorneys, campaign advisers and journalists.

The records, released Monday by the White House Government Transparency Task Force, shed new light on the investigation internally known as “Plasmic Echo,” the classified-documents probe that ultimately came under the direction of special counsel Jack Smith.

The newly disclosed material follows earlier revelations about surveillance techniques used in investigations involving Trump and his associates. But the latest documents provide new details about the extent to which investigators were monitoring people in Trump’s immediate family and political orbit while building the Mar-a-Lago case.

As FBI officials prepared in 2022 to obtain and execute a search warrant at Trump’s Palm Beach estate, internal communications show that investigators were specifically determining the movements of Melania and Barron Trump, apparently as part of their effort to decide when the search could be conducted.

One FBI planning document listed among the bureau’s tasks: “Finalize FBI understanding of FPOTUS/FLOTUS/minor son’s travel (type of aircraft and specific timeline),”

The same list included final preparations for obtaining the search warrant and coordinating the operation among the FBI, Justice Department and Secret Service in West Palm Beach.

Another document made the intended timing explicit: “Any search warrants would be served after the former President departs Mar a Lago,”

The documents indicate that the sensitive investigation was approved at the highest levels of the Justice Department during the Biden administration.

Then-Attorney General Merrick Garland authorized the investigation following recommendations from senior Justice Department and FBI officials. Then-FBI Director Christopher Wray warned in a May 2022 memorandum that the investigation could reach senior figures connected to Trump and could have significant political consequences if it became public before an election.

According to the memo, the investigation “could potentially be disruptive to the democratic process if publicly disclosed prior to an election.”

Wray nevertheless recommended that Garland authorize the investigation, adding a handwritten message at the bottom of the document: “Merrick, I recomend you approve. CW.”

The newly released records also show that before the FBI searched Mar-a-Lago, at least one agent questioned whether investigators possessed sufficient legal authority to search Trump’s personal office and bedroom and suggested that further discussions with Trump’s attorneys might provide a less intrusive path forward.

The bureau nevertheless proceeded with the search on August 8, 2022. Agents searched numerous areas of the Palm Beach estate, including Trump’s office as well as the bedrooms used by Trump and Melania.

The investigation did not end with the Mar-a-Lago search. The newly released documents reveal extensive monitoring in 2023 of Susie Wiles, who was then helping direct Trump’s political operation as he sought to return to the White House.

Investigators used a pen register and trap-and-trace process connected to Wiles’ cellphone. Such surveillance records metadata — including numbers involved in calls, when calls occurred and their duration — rather than the actual contents of the conversations.

That distinction is significant: the newly released material does not establish that investigators were listening to Wiles’ conversations. Instead, it shows that agents were systematically documenting whom she communicated with and when.

The monitoring reportedly captured Wiles’ contacts with at least 21 attorneys associated with Trump, along with campaign officials, political advisers and at least five journalists. The records also identified communications involving Kash Patel, who was outside government at the time and is now FBI director.

The surveillance ran at least from February through May 2023, according to the documents, with FBI memoranda recording individual calls in striking detail.

Investigators also tracked Wiles’ communications with Trump himself. Bureau records referred to one of Trump’s telephone numbers as the “FPOTUS Vanity Number,” apparently because it was a vanity number spelling a memorable word.

One May 19, 2023, entry recorded: “2:05 pm The FPOTUS Vanity Number called WILES for 16 minutes and 11 seconds.”

The records show that Wiles’ phone was extraordinarily active, with calls sometimes arriving or being placed only minutes apart. On March 9, 2023, investigators recorded 39 calls involving Wiles over the course of the day.

Among the entries from that day were contacts identified only by categories because the names remain redacted.

“6:00pm – Campaign 9 called Wiles, and they spoke for 39 seconds.”

“6:10pm – Lawyer 10 called Wiles for 49 seconds.”

“6:22pm – Wiles attempted to call Campaign 4”

“6:22pm – Wiles called Campaign 8 and they spoke for 56 seconds.”

“6:27pm – Campaign 4 called Wiles.”

“6:39pm – Lawyer 12 alled Wiles for 6 minutes and 50 seconds.”

“8:10pm – The FPOTUS Vanity Number called Wiles for 4 minutes and 1 second.”

Other FBI communications reveal agents following specific interactions between Wiles and Trump’s lawyers.

The bureau’s Washington Field Office noted “that [Lawyer 7] called Wiles at 2:04pm this afternoon for 41 seconds,” according to one March 24, 2023, email.

Another agent documented previous contacts involving the same attorney: “[Lawyer 7] first called Wiles at 2:10pm EST on March 21, and Wiles returned his call for 1 minute and 34 seconds later that day at 2:59pm,” the agent wrote. “These are the only contacts we have observed between the two of them since the PR/TT’s inception.”

Journalists communicating with Wiles also appeared in the surveillance records. The newly disclosed documents indicate that reporters associated with outlets including ABC News, The Washington Post, Politico and Just the News were among those whose contacts with Wiles were recorded.

One February communication from an FBI intelligence analyst specifically noted that “an ABC News reporter called her at 8:48 AM for 2 minutes and 36 seconds.”

The documents suggest that investigators were particularly interested in whom Wiles contacted immediately before and after interactions with the FBI itself.

Wiles sat for an FBI interview in Jacksonville, Florida, in April 2023. Investigators subsequently examined her telephone activity surrounding that interview to determine whom she had contacted.

“On 10 April 2023, WFO [redacted] reviewed WILES’s telephonic activity to determine contacts of interest on the date of her FBI interview,” another memo noted.

On that date, records showed Wiles communicating with Trump and several of his attorneys. She also received calls from journalists with The Washington Post and Politico.

The tactic has drawn attention because law-enforcement officials can use communications metadata to map relationships among individuals even without obtaining the contents of their conversations. A pen register can reveal who is communicating, how frequently and at what times, potentially allowing investigators to reconstruct patterns of contact among attorneys, political advisers and others.

The White House has portrayed the documents as evidence that federal law enforcement crossed the line from legitimate investigation into improper surveillance of Trump’s political operation. Critics of the investigation have also raised concerns about the collection of information involving defense lawyers and journalists.

Sen. Mike Lee of Utah reacted to the latest disclosures by calling the surveillance “objectively a bigger scandal than Watergate.”

Smith, however, has consistently denied that his investigations of Trump were motivated by politics. Testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee last week, he defended his conduct and rejected accusations that he had acted as a partisan prosecutor.

“I am not a politician and I have no partisan loyalty,” Smith said. “My career has been dedicated to serving our country by upholding the rule of law and the core principles upon which our country was founded.”

At the time investigators were monitoring Wiles, the classified-documents inquiry was examining whether Trump had unlawfully retained national-security material after leaving the White House and whether there had been obstruction of government efforts to recover documents from Mar-a-Lago.

The case ultimately resulted in federal charges against Trump, but it never went to trial.

In July 2024, U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon dismissed the classified-documents prosecution after concluding that Smith had been unlawfully appointed as special counsel by Garland because his appointment violated the Constitution’s Appointments Clause.

The newly released Plasmic Echo records have now placed the investigative methods used to build that case under renewed scrutiny, particularly because they involved Trump’s family, his lawyers, his campaign operation and journalists during a period when Trump was preparing his campaign to return to the presidency.

The White House sharply condemned the surveillance following Monday’s document release.

“Jack Smith’s surveillance operation was a disgraceful abuse of government power,” White House spokesperson Lauren Bis said in a statement. “Spying on political opponents is weaponization of law enforcement, plain and simple. Those responsible must be held accountable.”

{Matzav.com}

Urban warfare expert John Spencer delivered a scathing assessment of the controversial documentary NAZA after watching the film in full, accusing it of spreading falsehoods and distortions about Israel’s conduct in Gaza and singling out its assertion that Israel killed more than 73,000 Palestinians as particularly egregious.

Spencer, who serves as Chair of Urban Warfare Studies at the Modern War Institute at West Point and has extensively studied Israel’s military operations in Gaza, said the documentary crosses a line even beyond the claims made by Hamas itself.

“Worse than Hamas propaganda,” Spencer wrote in a post on X after watching the documentary in its entirety. “Over three years, I’ve tried not to be surprised by ignorance, disinformation, and distortions relating to war, but this is at the top for many reasons.”

NAZA, directed by Israeli filmmakers Yuval Abraham and Rachel Szor, has become the focus of an escalating international controversy since its premiere at the Venice Film Festival last month. The approximately 80-minute film features testimony from 24 anonymous Israeli military and intelligence personnel and purports to expose the systems used by Israel to select and strike targets in Gaza.

The documentary was produced by The Guardian together with producer James Wilson, while Jonathan Glazer, the director of The Zone of Interest, served as an executive producer. Abraham and Szor previously worked on the Oscar-winning documentary No Other Land.

The film takes its name from what its creators describe as an Israeli military acronym referring to the anticipated number of civilians who could be killed in a strike. Its subjects were filmed largely at night on rooftops in Tel Aviv, with their identities concealed and their appearances and voices digitally altered.

NAZA won the Special Jury Prize at the Venice Film Festival after receiving a lengthy standing ovation and has since begun screening internationally, including at the New York Film Festival and the Hamptons International Film Festival. A wider theatrical rollout is underway, with the film expected eventually to be made available online.

The film has simultaneously drawn fierce condemnation in Israel. IDF Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Eyal Zamir has described it as being based on “blood libels, deliberate distortions of reality and grave, false accusations against IDF soldiers and commanders”. The IDF has disputed major allegations presented in the documentary and questioned the reliability and level of knowledge of some of its anonymous sources.

The filmmakers have rejected those criticisms, saying their work was based on interviews with more than 100 sources in addition to the 24 people who appear in the film. They have said their reporting included senior officers and personnel involved at different levels of the targeting process and was corroborated through documents and additional reporting.

Spencer said he intends to issue a much more extensive examination of the documentary and its claims. For now, however, he focused on a declaration displayed prominently during the film: “Israel has killed more than 73,000 Palestinians in Gaza.”

“Not even Hamas says this,” Spencer wrote.

His objection centers on the difference between a reported total number of deaths in Gaza and the claim that every one of those deaths was caused by Israel. Spencer argued that the documentary effectively takes the overall reported death toll and assigns responsibility for all of it to Israeli military action.

Spencer noted that Hamas itself has killed Palestinians in Gaza, including in efforts to suppress opponents and maintain its grip over the territory. Armed confrontations have also erupted between Hamas terrorists and anti-Hamas clans and other Palestinian groups, producing additional Palestinian casualties unrelated to Israeli strikes.

He also pointed to the thousands of rockets launched toward Israel by Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad that failed to reach their intended targets and instead landed inside Gaza. Spencer said that as many as 20% of the roughly 12,000 rockets fired toward Israel by the terrorist groups fell short inside the Gaza Strip.

Such failed launches have repeatedly endangered Gaza residents, he argued, making it impossible to simply attribute every Palestinian death during the war to Israeli military action.

Spencer additionally challenged the way casualty figures originating with Hamas-controlled authorities have been presented. He said more recent Hamas reporting has included natural deaths among the overall lists of people who died during the war period, another factor that he said undermines any blanket claim that the entire reported toll consists of Palestinians killed by Israel.

“To say every person that died in Gaza was killed by Israel is a vulgar lie,” he charged.

The casualty figure is particularly significant because the film presents itself as an investigative documentary and has received extensive international media attention and major film-industry recognition. Spencer argued that presenting a disputed aggregate death figure as a count of people specifically killed by Israel fundamentally changes its meaning.

The controversy over NAZA extends well beyond its casualty statistics. The documentary alleges that Israeli intelligence and military personnel relied heavily on artificial-intelligence-assisted targeting systems during the war and that permissible civilian-casualty thresholds were loosened dramatically following the October 7 massacre.

Among the film’s most explosive allegations is testimony claiming that a strike against a Hamas target was approved despite an expectation that as many as 500 civilians could be killed. The IDF has strongly rejected that characterization of its targeting procedures and has maintained that its operations are subject to legal review and rules intended to minimize civilian casualties while confronting terrorists embedded within heavily populated areas.

The IDF has also challenged the documentary’s reliance on anonymous witnesses, saying some of those presented as insiders lacked the comprehensive knowledge necessary to make authoritative claims about the military’s targeting policies and approval procedures.

The filmmakers, meanwhile, have defended the anonymity as necessary to protect their sources and insist that the testimony was subjected to extensive verification. They have said the film builds on several years of investigative reporting about Israeli operations in Gaza.

The political reaction in Israel has been equally intense. Culture and Sports Minister Miki Zohar accused Abraham and Szor of harming Israel and called for authorities to examine whether their Israeli citizenship could be revoked. Other Israeli political figures have denounced the film as a defamatory portrayal of IDF soldiers and commanders.

The film has also encountered protests at American screenings. Demonstrators carrying Israeli flags gathered outside its New York premiere at Lincoln Center, while a vehicle displaying messages accusing NAZA of being propaganda circulated outside the venue. Additional protests surrounded a screening at the Hamptons International Film Festival.

Spencer made clear that his criticism goes substantially beyond the disputed 73,000 figure and said he identified numerous other problems while watching the film.

“There are a lot of other lies, lies by omission, and lies of ignorance in NAZA, but this claim is unique,” he wrote, saying that it represents the use of “lies, damned lies, and statistics” to advance accusations that contradict both “the actual number put out by Hamas” and the reality on the ground.

Spencer said he plans to publish a comprehensive analysis detailing his objections to NAZA and its portrayal of the Gaza war.

{Matzav.com}

Israeli authorities had been given the names and nationalities of the passengers and crew aboard Flydubai Flight FZ1073 before it departed Dubai, including information identifying the Omani co-pilot who allegedly tried to seize control of the aircraft and crash it, according to officials familiar with the investigation.

The disclosure has intensified questions over the security failures surrounding the attempted terror attack, particularly because the accused co-pilot, Hamam al-Hammami, was an Omani citizen and had reportedly previously been barred from flying by Oman Air amid concerns over extremist views.

Regional officials said authorities in the United Arab Emirates transmitted the passenger and crew information to Israel before the plane took off for Tel Aviv. The information included the names and nationalities of those aboard, and Israeli authorities did not raise a red flag concerning any passenger or crew member.

The officials spoke anonymously because they were not authorized to publicly discuss the continuing investigation.

The information supplied before departure included the identities of the pilots, meaning that Israeli authorities had access to information showing that an Omani national was serving as a co-pilot on a flight bound for Ben Gurion Airport. Oman does not have diplomatic relations with Israel.

The revelation has prompted an increasingly public dispute within Israel over which government body was responsible for examining the information and determining whether anyone aboard the flight presented a security concern.

The Shin Bet has said responsibility for vetting passenger lists on foreign flights belongs to the Transportation Ministry. Transportation Minister Miri Regev has rejected attempts to place responsibility on her ministry, maintaining that aviation security is the responsibility of Israel’s security agencies and saying her ministry received neither a passenger list nor a security warning concerning the flight.

Further reporting has indicated that the flight information was transmitted into Israel’s National Passenger Profiling Center, a government system that receives identifying information about passengers and crew members aboard international flights. The Transportation Ministry is among the government bodies permitted to make use of information held by the system.

The controversy has deepened with reports that the Transportation Ministry had never activated its ability to query the database, despite being authorized to do so. Political commentator Amit Segal subsequently charged that the ministry had failed to authorize employees to access the system, had never submitted a query and had not paid its share of the database’s costs.

The Israel Tax Authority has also confirmed that identifying information concerning the Flydubai passengers and crew was received before the flight departed. The information provided by airlines can include names, nationalities and travel-document details.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has said Israel has longstanding arrangements with foreign airlines under which pilots who are citizens of countries without diplomatic relations with Israel are not supposed to operate flights into the country.

That has raised another fundamental question: how Flydubai assigned al-Hammami, an Omani national, to an Israel-bound flight in the first place — and why his nationality did not trigger intervention either in the UAE or Israel before departure.

The security questions have become still more serious following reports that al-Hammami had previously been removed from flying duties by Oman Air because of concerns about his extremist views. Investigators are examining how that information was handled and whether it was ever communicated outside Oman.

Aviation-security specialists have cautioned that international pilot vetting is complicated by significant differences among countries in the information they collect and the intelligence or personnel records they are legally permitted to share. A pilot can therefore possess the necessary licenses while potentially troubling information remains confined to another country’s internal systems.

The attempted attack occurred aboard Flight FZ1073 from Dubai to Tel Aviv, when al-Hammami allegedly attacked Captain Smit Machchhar with an emergency crash ax stored in the cockpit and attempted to take control of the Boeing 737.

The aircraft plunged thousands of feet before the wounded captain managed to open the cockpit door, enabling passengers and crew members to enter and overpower the co-pilot. Reserve Flydubai pilots who were aboard the aircraft then helped bring the jet safely down in Tabuk, Saudi Arabia.

The UAE has characterized what happened aboard the flight as a terrorist attack. Investigators are examining al-Hammami’s background, communications and travel history as they try to establish whether he acted independently or had assistance or direction from another person or organization.

New information emerging from the investigation indicates that al-Hammami may have been contemplating such an attack even before joining Flydubai. Israeli officials say he intended to crash the aircraft into Ben Gurion Airport and had previously considered carrying out an attack on another Israel-bound flight before abandoning that plan.

The investigation has so far not established that Iran, a terrorist organization or another foreign government directed the alleged plot, although investigators continue examining whether al-Hammami had contacts with outside actors.

The episode has exposed problems extending beyond the background of one pilot. Israeli officials are now examining the entire process by which foreign-airline passenger and crew information is received, distributed and checked, including which agency bears ultimate responsibility for acting on information contained in the lists.

Questions are also being raised over timing. Crew information can sometimes arrive shortly before an aircraft closes its doors, or even after departure, potentially leaving Israeli authorities little time to identify a problem and intervene before an Israel-bound flight is already airborne.

Netanyahu has ordered a comprehensive examination of security arrangements for foreign civilian aviation entering Israel. National Security Council head Shmuel Ben-Ezra has been instructed to appoint an examiner to review “all security aspects regarding foreign civil aviation to Israel.”

The inquiry is expected to examine the responsibilities of the Transportation Ministry and Israel’s security agencies, the operation of the National Passenger Profiling Center, information-sharing with foreign governments and airlines, and how a pilot from a country without diplomatic relations with Israel could have been cleared for an Israel-bound flight despite Israeli authorities already possessing his name and nationality before takeoff.

{Matzav.com}

President Donald Trump declared Monday night that the United States is defeating Iran and predicted that the months-long war will soon come to an end, reiterating that Washington will not permit Tehran to obtain a nuclear weapon and promising that energy prices will fall sharply once the conflict is resolved.

Speaking at a campaign rally in Grand Island, Nebraska, as Republicans intensify their push ahead of the November 3 midterm elections, Trump portrayed Iran as increasingly weakened and said the United States was preventing what he described as a potentially catastrophic nuclear threat.

“We’re saving the world from what could be one of the worst tragedies ever. They won’t have – that’s decided – they will not have a nuclear weapon. They understand that,” Trump said.

Trump says his war with Iran is saving the world. pic.twitter.com/dq4pv0sXwt

— Clash Report (@clashreport) October 5, 2026

Trump then predicted that an end to the fighting would quickly relieve the pressure the Iran conflict has placed on global energy markets and American consumers.

“The war will end very quickly, and prices are going to come down very sharply. You might say, ‘Please, please, sir, it’s going down too fast!’ You watch what’s going to happen in a very short period of time,” he added.

The president’s comments came amid a renewed diplomatic effort to end the conflict, even as Washington continues increasing military pressure on Tehran and moving additional forces into the Middle East.

The USS Theodore Roosevelt Carrier Strike Group and the USS Makin Island Amphibious Ready Group are being deployed to the region, a move expected to add roughly 9,000 American personnel to the U.S. military presence there. The buildup gives Trump additional options if the latest negotiations fail and large-scale American strikes resume.

The administration has simultaneously tightened economic pressure on Iran. New U.S. measures have sharply reduced international flights serving Tehran, while sanctions and American military operations have continued targeting Iran’s ability to move oil and other goods through the region.

Trump has repeatedly argued in recent days that Iran is approaching the point at which it will have little choice but to accept Washington’s terms.

Last Thursday, during an appearance at a Peterbilt Motors facility in Denton, Texas, Trump said Iran was “ready to fold up” and suggested that the war could be concluded around the time of the midterm elections — or even sooner.

“We have a war going on with a country that will never have a nuclear weapon and is ready to fold up. We’ll win very easily right now. I believe right after the election we’ll win, but maybe before the election.”

Trump has maintained that Iran was extremely close to developing a nuclear weapon when the war began at the end of February, repeatedly saying Tehran was only weeks away from reaching that point.

Iran had been “three to four weeks away, maybe sooner” from obtaining a nuclear weapon, Trump said, adding, “And if they have a nuclear weapon, the whole game is over..”

The president has presented preventing a nuclear-armed Iran as a central justification for continuing the military campaign, arguing that the threat must be permanently eliminated before Washington agrees to end hostilities.

Trump has also warned Iranian leaders that the alternative to reaching an acceptable agreement could be devastating.

The conflict would end “one way or the other…either they’ll do something very proper and smart or they won’t be around very long, which is, you know, frankly, I hate to see that, but they won’t be around very long.”

The latest comments follow a period of intense diplomacy involving Washington, Tehran and regional intermediaries attempting to establish terms for another ceasefire.

Trump recently rejected an Iranian proposal that he said did not go far enough, particularly regarding the Strait of Hormuz, the strategically vital waterway through which a significant share of the world’s oil and liquefied natural gas supplies normally pass.

Iran has sought relief from U.S. military and economic pressure and an end to restrictions affecting the Strait, while the Trump administration has demanded terms ensuring freedom of navigation and preventing Tehran from rebuilding capabilities Washington says have already been severely damaged during the war.

Trump said last week that Iran’s proposal offered to reopen only portions of the Strait of Hormuz, which he considered inadequate. U.S. officials have continued communicating with Tehran through mediators as both sides explore whether an agreement is possible.

The diplomatic effort has been accompanied by increasingly confrontational rhetoric from Tehran.

Mohsen Rezaei, secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council and a longtime senior figure in the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, responded to Trump’s claims that Iran was nearing defeat by attacking the president personally.

Rezaei described Trump as “the worst president in American history” and said the president’s rhetoric had “outrun his own fantasies.”

“You can win every day in your own imagination. But reality is shaped by Iran – by its people, its soldiers, and its missiles,” wrote Rezaei.

Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian has also rejected the notion that Tehran is preparing to surrender, saying Iran remains willing to engage in negotiations but will not accept demands that it views as capitulation.

Iranian officials have argued that the country has survived months of American and Israeli military pressure and remains capable of continuing the conflict. Iranian military officials have also claimed advances in their missile capabilities during the war, including the ability to strike moving targets at long range.

The Trump administration, by contrast, says the campaign has inflicted severe damage on Iran’s military infrastructure, including its navy, air force, missile forces and defense-industrial base.

{Matzav.com}

A sweeping redesign of the standard U.S. passport set to debut in 2028 appears to feature an image of President Donald Trump inside the document, raising questions over whether Trump’s likeness will become a standard feature in passports issued to millions of Americans rather than an optional element of the limited-edition commemorative passport currently available.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio unveiled the new passport, dubbed “Flight of the Eagle,” during the Sept. 29 launch of America.gov, the Trump administration’s new portal designed to streamline access to federal government services.

During Rubio’s presentation, images of the redesigned passport showed artwork featuring Trump on the inside front cover. Unlike the limited-edition “Patriot Passport” issued this year for America’s 250th anniversary, the 2028 redesign is intended to replace the regular U.S. passport.

That distinction has drawn particular attention because Americans currently must specifically request the Trump-themed commemorative passport. If the image shown in the 2028 preview remains in the final design, applicants apparently would not have the same choice.

David Alwadish, founder and CEO of passport and visa service ItsEasy.com, said the Trump image on the passport previewed by Rubio “appears to be non-negotiable.”

The State Department, however, has stopped short of explicitly confirming that Trump’s portrait will be included in every standard passport beginning in 2028.

Asked about the matter, a State Department spokesperson instead pointed to the separate commemorative passport, saying, “President Trump’s image is featured on the so-called Patriot Passport commemorating America’s 250th anniversary, available while supplies last.”

That answer left unresolved whether the Trump artwork displayed during Rubio’s presentation represents the final version of the standard 2028 passport or could still be changed before production begins.

Alwadish predicted that even if Trump’s image is included when the passport launches, its long-term presence could depend on which party controls the government after Trump leaves office.

“My gut feeling is that the party in power in the next presidential term will determine whether this new Trump photo is short-lived or limited edition, as it will almost certainly be mandated for change by the next controlling party,” Alwadish said.

For Americans who specifically do not want a passport containing Trump’s image, Alwadish said there may be limited time to obtain the current design before the new books enter circulation.

Anyone in that category “probably has a narrow window to apply,” Alwadish said. “We won’t know if [the government will] mandate that every passport issued as of a specific date must have the new design, regardless of leftover inventory.”

The proposed Trump image is only one element of what will be the most significant visual overhaul of the American passport in years.

The “Flight of the Eagle” passport will retain the familiar blue exterior but substantially change its appearance. “United States of America” will be moved to the top of the cover, while the Great Seal of the United States will become larger and, as Rubio put it, “more gold.”

Inside, the pages will tell a visual story of American history, beginning with the American Revolution and continuing through westward expansion, the transcontinental railroad, the Wright brothers’ pioneering work in aviation, the flag raising at Iwo Jima and American space exploration, including the Artemis program.

A bald eagle will appear in slightly different positions on successive pages. When someone rapidly flips through the passport, the images will create a flipbook-style animation in which the eagle appears to fly across the pages.

“I can see Americans sitting at airports all over the world, like, ‘Why do people keep flipping through the page?’” Rubio said while demonstrating the feature. “It’s either this or some Game Boy for your kids to keep them entertained. They can flip the eagle around.”

The passport will also move to a single 38-page format. The State Department currently offers a standard 26-page passport and a larger 50-page version frequently requested by people who travel extensively.

The government announced earlier this year that the two sizes would be replaced by the single 38-page book when the next redesign is introduced. The department says standardizing the passport size should improve manufacturing efficiency and reduce waste, although frequent international travelers may have to renew their passports more often after the 50-page option disappears.

The new passport will also arrive differently. Instead of being mailed in the relatively plain envelopes traditionally used to deliver passports, the redesigned document will be shipped in a thin white presentation-style box featuring a gold government seal.

The 2028 passport should not be confused with the “Patriot Passport” already being issued in connection with the United States’ 250th anniversary.

That commemorative passport unquestionably features Trump. Its inside front cover displays a portrait of President Trump together with text from the Declaration of Independence, an American flag and Trump’s signature. The inside back cover features an illustration of the signing of the Declaration of Independence.

The State Department originally planned a much smaller release of the commemorative passport, but expanded availability following strong demand. Up to 250,000 of the special passports are now being made available through designated in-person appointments and events across the country.

Americans do not receive a Patriot Passport simply by submitting an ordinary application. Applicants seeking one must specifically pursue the commemorative edition through the State Department’s designated process. Those applying online, by mail or through an ordinary passport acceptance facility receive the regular passport design.

“No one gets that passport without specially requesting it, so there is no risk of getting that passport unexpectedly,” Alwadish said.

The State Department says the commemorative passport contains the same advanced security technology as an ordinary U.S. passport and functions as a normal international travel document.

The Trump portrait itself has already generated political controversy. Democratic senators wrote to Rubio earlier this year objecting to placing the image of a sitting president inside a U.S. passport, arguing that passport artwork traditionally celebrates American history, national landmarks and institutions rather than contemporary political leaders.

The lawmakers pointed to earlier commemorative passports, including a bicentennial passport featuring the Liberty Bell and a special green passport issued in 1993 honoring Benjamin Franklin and the 200th anniversary of U.S. consular service.

The passport overhaul is occurring alongside a potentially much more consequential change for Americans seeking their first passport: the State Department plans to move most of the application process online.

Rubio said the administration’s goal is for the vast majority of Americans to be able to apply for a passport or passport card through America.gov by the end of 2027. Online passport renewal is already available, but first-time applicants traditionally have been required to appear in person with their documents.

“That is where the maze starts,” Rubio said. “You have to know which form to print, you have to schedule an appointment, then you have to go wait in line.”

Under the planned system, applicants would sign in electronically, submit the necessary information, upload their own passport photograph, make payment online and follow the application’s progress through real-time status updates.

“You probably can’t use those filters to make you look 50 years younger, but you can take a picture of yourself on the phone in the comfort of your own home, or you can upload one directly from your own device,” Rubio said.

Applicants would even be able to preview how their photograph will look inside the finished passport and retake it before submitting the application.

The State Department says existing passports will remain valid until their normal expiration dates, meaning Americans will not have to replace an unexpired passport simply because the “Flight of the Eagle” design begins rolling out in 2028.

For now, one important question remains unanswered. The State Department has clearly confirmed Trump’s portrait in the optional 250th-anniversary Patriot Passport, while the presentation of the standard 2028 passport also showed his likeness. But officials have not yet explicitly confirmed that the Trump image displayed in Rubio’s preview will appear in every standard passport once the new design goes into production.

{Matzav.com}

More than 122,000 cases of Gatorade distributed across 37 states, including New York and New Jersey, are being recalled because certain bottles contain artificial food dyes that were not disclosed on their labels, according to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

The sweeping recall covers 122,021 cases of 28-ounce bottles of four varieties: Gatorade Lemon Lime, Gatorade Lemon Lime Zero, Gatorade Orange and Gatorade Orange Zero.

According to the FDA, the affected beverages contain Yellow No. 5 and/or Yellow No. 6, but the presence of those color additives was omitted from the product labeling. Both dyes are permitted for use in foods and beverages but are required to be declared on product labels.

PepsiCo, the parent company of Gatorade, voluntarily launched the recall on Sept. 25. The FDA formally classified the action on Oct. 2 as a Class II recall, and the recall remains ongoing.

Under the FDA’s classification system, a Class II recall applies when use of or exposure to a product could result in temporary or medically reversible health consequences, while the probability of serious adverse health effects is considered remote.

The principal concern involves consumers who are sensitive to the undeclared dyes. Yellow No. 5, also known as tartrazine, and Yellow No. 6 can cause allergic-type reactions in a small number of people, with sensitivities more commonly reported among individuals who also react to aspirin.

Possible reactions can include skin rashes and asthma-like symptoms, although such responses are considered uncommon among the general population. The recall stems from the failure to list the dyes on the labels rather than evidence that the beverages are broadly unsafe for consumers.

The affected Gatorade was shipped to Alaska, Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Iowa, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Mississippi, North Carolina, North Dakota, Nebraska, New Jersey, New Mexico, Nevada, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Washington and Wisconsin.

Consumers in the New York metropolitan area are therefore among those being urged to check their bottles, with both New York and New Jersey included in the distribution area. Pennsylvania is also among the states affected.

The recalled products can be identified by specific lot and date codes printed on the bottles. The affected dates range from April through June 2027.

Among the recalled codes are 072226 DT with a date of APR 18 27; 072426 TL with APR 20 27; 072726 TL with APR 23 27; 072926 TL and 073026 TL with APR 25 27; 073126 TL with APR 27 27; 080126 DL with APR 28 27; 081026 TL with MAY 07 27; 082026 DL with MAY 17 27; 082526 KM with MAY 22 27; 090426 KM with JUN 01 27; 083126 DT and 091026 DL with JUN 07 27; and 091126 DL with JUN 08 27.

The recall comes as PepsiCo has already been moving to remove certain synthetic colors from several Gatorade products. The company previously committed to eliminating certain artificial colors from its Fruit Punch, Lemon Lime and Orange Gatorade Thirst Quencher and Gatorade Zero products beginning in fall 2026 as part of a broader industry shift toward alternative color ingredients.

The timing means the recall coincides with PepsiCo’s ongoing reformulation efforts, although the FDA enforcement action specifically concerns the failure to declare dyes contained in the affected products, rather than the broader debate over the continued use of artificial coloring in foods and beverages.

The recall is listed by the FDA under recall number H-0009-2027.

As of Monday, the FDA had not announced reports of widespread serious illnesses associated with the recalled beverages. The agency also had not issued a separate public press release for the action, with information instead appearing in its enforcement reporting system.

Consumers who have 28-ounce bottles of the four affected Gatorade varieties are being advised to inspect the lot and date information carefully to determine whether their drinks are included in the recall.

{Matzav.com}

A newly released Justice Department report says more than a dozen DOJ and FBI officials raised serious objections to the Biden administration’s 2021 response to angry parents at school-board meetings, warning internally that the initiative appeared political, threatened First Amendment rights and lacked a clear federal law-enforcement basis.

The report, released Monday by the Justice Department’s Weaponization Working Group, revisits Attorney General Merrick Garland’s Oct. 4, 2021 memorandum directing the FBI and U.S. Attorneys to coordinate with federal, state and local authorities in responding to threats against school-board members, teachers and other education officials.

The documents released with the report include hundreds of pages of internal communications and show that concerns about the initiative were being voiced inside the government even before Garland’s memo became public.

Attorney General Todd Blanche, announcing the findings Monday, said the newly released material confirms longstanding concerns about the government’s handling of the controversy.

“Five years ago, Attorney General Merrick Garland issued an infamous memorandum at the urging of the National School Boards Association and White House officials, directing the FBI and United States Attorneys to consider looking for a federal hook to prosecute parents exercising their right to free speech,” Blanche wrote Monday.

“Along with the report, we’ve released hundreds of exhibits and emails that make official and verify what many Americans had guessed: the Garland DOJ worked hand in hand with WH officials and the National School Boards Association to chill free speech and parental rights while they threatened to prosecute parents and label them domestic terrorists,” Blanche added.

The controversy dates to the fall of 2021, when school-board meetings around the country had become increasingly contentious amid disputes over COVID-era restrictions, mask and vaccine policies, school closures, race-related curricula and gender issues.

On Sept. 29, 2021, the National School Boards Association sent President Joe Biden a letter requesting federal assistance and warning that some conduct directed at school officials “could be equivalent to a form of domestic terrorism and hate crimes.”

Five days later, Garland issued his memorandum citing an “increase in harassment, intimidation and threats of violence against school board members, teachers and workers in our nation’s public schools.”

The new DOJ report says the memo emerged despite internal concerns about whether the federal government had evidence demonstrating a nationwide problem requiring such an intervention.

One of the most striking exchanges occurred before Garland’s memo was publicly released. A deputy assistant attorney general objected to proposals involving the DOJ’s Public Integrity Section and the possibility of connecting the school-board initiative to the department’s election-threat work.

The official wrote that the approach appeared so politically motivated that Garland “might as well rename the damn thing the Anti-MAGA Task Force.”

The chief of the Justice Department’s Public Integrity Section responded by calling the proposal “stupid.”

Other officials questioned whether the conduct under discussion belonged within federal jurisdiction at all. The DOJ report quotes internal descriptions of aspects of the proposal as “ridiculous,” “challenging from a First Amendment perspective,” “potentially dangerous ground,” “horrible,” “confusing,” “very messy and political” and involving “nothing remotely federal.”

One official warned that the initiative could appear to be “a partisan exercise aimed at those who do not support the Administration,” while another expressed concern that it could “tarnish reputation as an apolitical law enforcer.”

An FBI counterterrorism official also raised concern about the possibility that the “domestic terrorist” label could be broadly associated with people who “oppose school board actions,” while an attorney in the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division noted that much of the conduct at issue could fall within constitutionally protected speech.

Several Justice Department officials argued that genuine threats or violence against local school officials would ordinarily be matters for state and local law enforcement unless there was a specific federal offense or jurisdictional basis for FBI involvement.

Resistance continued after Garland issued the memo.

On Oct. 5, 2021, one day after its release, an FBI attorney complained that the Justice Department had issued the accompanying announcement without properly coordinating with the bureau.

A deputy assistant director of the FBI’s Criminal Investigative Division wrote that “we were all caught off guard by this announcement,” adding that it had been “unilaterally pushed by DOJ.”

As the Justice Department moved toward creating a task force, officials continued to question the need for the effort.

A deputy assistant attorney general in the DOJ’s National Security Division said he didn’t “see the need for a task force like this” and observed that the department doesn’t “start a narrowly focused task force every time some group believes they are the subject of threat.”

Later that month, the Department of Homeland Security circulated material connecting threats against education officials with increased opposition to masks, vaccines and critical race theory.

An FBI counterterrorism official characterized that material as a “politically charged paper” and expressed opposition to FBI participation in the effort.

The newly released Justice Department report says the FBI ultimately opened 25 Guardian assessments stemming from the Garland memorandum. Guardian assessments are preliminary investigative inquiries used by the FBI to evaluate information about possible terrorism or national-security threats.

One case cited by the DOJ involved a mother who, according to information supplied by an FBI whistleblower, became the subject of an assessment in part because she “is a gun owner” and belonged to a “right-wing mom’s group.”

The report says most of the assessments were eventually closed or discontinued.

The National School Boards Association subsequently apologized for the language in its September 2021 letter to Biden, acknowledging that there was “no justification for some of the language included in the letter.”

Garland repeatedly defended his original memorandum while serving as attorney general, arguing that federal authorities had a responsibility to respond to genuine threats of violence against public officials.

“The obligation of the Justice Department is to protect the American people against violence and threats of violence and that particularly includes public officials,” he said of the memo.

Supporters of Garland’s response have also pointed out that some school-board members and education officials did receive genuine online and written threats during the period, arguing that the existence of constitutionally protected protests did not eliminate the government’s obligation to investigate credible threats or acts of violence.

The dispute, therefore, has long centered on whether Garland’s directive was appropriately targeted at actual threats and violence or whether the federal response swept ordinary political protest and protected parental speech into a counterterrorism-oriented law-enforcement effort.

The new report was produced under the Trump administration’s broader review of alleged political weaponization within the federal government. President Trump signed an executive order on Jan. 20, 2025, directing the government to identify and correct instances in which federal law enforcement or intelligence powers had been used improperly for political purposes.

The Justice Department says the newly released internal communications demonstrate that concerns about the Garland memo were not confined to Republicans or outside critics, but were being raised at the time by career personnel inside both the DOJ and FBI.

The department is now taking several steps in response to its findings. Parents and others who became subjects or targets of FBI Guardian assessments stemming from the Garland memo will be offered an opportunity to review those records.

The DOJ also plans to place disclaimers on Guardian assessments associated with the initiative, warning that the Garland memorandum raised constitutional concerns and that assessments resulting from it should therefore be viewed with caution.

Officials additionally intend to review the files of people investigated under the policy to determine whether their constitutional rights were violated. Where such violations are established, the department says it will issue formal apologies and establish safeguards intended to prevent similar conduct in the future.

The Justice Department is also partnering with the National Association of School Resource Officers through a $1.5 million grant to provide training concerning parental rights, while additional federal resources are being directed toward educating school employees about parents’ First Amendment rights and their role in directing their children’s education.

In a separate action Monday, the Justice and Education departments sent a joint letter to attorneys general in all 50 states emphasizing parents’ rights under federal education and privacy laws, another component of the Trump administration’s effort to reverse what it describes as the previous administration’s approach to parental involvement in schools.

{Matzav.com}

Honda has developed technology capable of wirelessly supplying electricity to electric vehicles — including 20-ton commercial trucks — while they are traveling down the road, with the Japanese automaker preparing for highway trials that could eventually allow EVs to recharge without pulling into a charging station.

The system places power-transmitting equipment beneath the pavement and installs a receiver on the vehicle. As an equipped vehicle passes over the roadway, electricity is transferred wirelessly through magnetic coupling, potentially allowing the battery to recharge while the vehicle remains in motion.

Honda R&D, the automaker’s research and development subsidiary, developed the technology together with Japanese construction giant Taisei Corporation and road-construction company Taisei Rotec Corporation. The three companies have been working jointly on the project since 2025.

Honda says dynamic wireless power transfer could address one of the major practical drawbacks of electric vehicles: the need to stop and recharge. Instead of relying exclusively on home chargers or conventional charging stations, an EV could receive additional power during portions of an ordinary trip.

Honda sees particularly significant potential for the trucking and transportation industries, where lengthy charging stops can reduce the amount of time a commercial vehicle can remain in service. The company therefore intends to focus initially on putting the technology to practical use in logistics and transportation.

The system combines technologies developed by each of the three companies. Honda R&D developed the high-power-density transmitting and receiving units and the vehicle-side system, Taisei developed the high-response direct-current power supply, and Taisei Rotec developed techniques for embedding the charging equipment beneath the roadway.

The road itself contains multiple ground assembly units connected through a direct-current distribution system. A corresponding vehicle assembly receiver mounted on the EV collects the energy as the vehicle travels over the embedded equipment.

Honda and its partners have already conducted tests on a private roadway at Taisei Group’s T-FIELD/SATTE research facility, examining not only whether the system can transfer electricity effectively, but whether the pavement and embedded equipment can withstand the punishment of everyday heavy-vehicle traffic.

One of the major engineering challenges is ensuring that charging hardware buried beneath a highway can survive repeated use by large trucks. The companies say they have developed pavement structures and embedded units intended to withstand commercial vehicles with a gross vehicle weight of approximately 20 tons.

A new phase of testing is scheduled to begin late this year at Taisei Group’s T-FIELD/TAMURA testing facility. There, engineers plan to subject the system to long-term durability testing equivalent to one million wheel loads using actual vehicles.

The companies will simultaneously test how effectively electricity can be transferred to moving vehicles and examine methods of limiting electromagnetic-field leakage from the charging equipment buried beneath the road.

Later testing will push the technology further, including trials of power delivery at up to 150 kilowatts — an output level intended to make the system potentially practical for large commercial vehicles rather than merely passenger cars.

Engineers also intend to determine whether power can be transferred reliably when vehicles are moving at highway speeds, an essential hurdle before the technology could be deployed on major expressways.

The most significant test is expected to begin during Japan’s 2027 fiscal year, which starts April 1, 2027, when Honda and its partners plan to move from private test tracks onto an operating highway.

The companies will participate in the “Tateyama Project,” an initiative being led by East Nippon Expressway Company, known as NEXCO East, on the E14 Tateyama Expressway in Chiba Prefecture.

The project is expected to be Japan’s first demonstration of dynamic wireless power transfer on the main lanes of an expressway in an actual traffic environment. The test area is planned for the vicinity of the Kimitsu parking area on the Tateyama Expressway.

Honda and Taisei will not be the only major companies participating. A separate team consisting of Toyota, Denso and Obayashi Corporation has also been selected for the project, allowing different approaches to in-motion wireless charging to be evaluated under real highway conditions.

Honda has been researching dynamic wireless power-transfer technology since 2021 as part of its broader effort to expand EV charging options. The company says the technology is intended to complement, rather than necessarily replace, conventional charging infrastructure and improvements in battery technology.

A road capable of supplying electricity while vehicles travel could theoretically have another important benefit: reducing the amount of battery capacity an EV needs to carry. If vehicles can replenish energy during a journey, manufacturers may eventually be able to rely on smaller batteries for certain applications, potentially reducing vehicle weight and battery costs.

The biggest unanswered question, however, may be the price of transforming ordinary highways into charging infrastructure. Installing power supplies, wiring and charging equipment beneath miles of pavement would require substantial construction and maintenance, and Honda has not said how much such a network would cost.

A Honda engineer declined to provide an estimate of how the economics would compare with building a conventional network of high-speed charging stations, saying the financial viability of the technology still needs to be evaluated.

The coming tests will therefore determine far more than whether an EV can technically collect electricity while speeding down a highway. Honda and its partners must establish that the equipment can survive years beneath heavily traveled roads, safely deliver large amounts of electricity at highway speeds and ultimately make economic sense on a scale large enough to justify installing it beneath public highways.

{Matzav.com}

President John F. Kennedy’s longtime personal secretary believed his assassination was not simply the act of Lee Harvey Oswald, but a carefully planned political killing involving people inside the U.S. government who wanted Kennedy removed from office, according to an unpublished memoir that has drawn renewed attention more than six decades after the assassination.

Evelyn Lincoln, who worked alongside Kennedy for 12 years and was among the people with the closest day-to-day access to him, laid out her suspicions in an 11-page addendum to an unpublished memoir titled “I Was There,” written during the 1980s and preserved in the John F. Kennedy Presidential Library.

Her assessment was strikingly direct. Lincoln described Kennedy’s death in Dallas on Nov. 22, 1963, as a “deliberate professional political murder” and wrote that she believed it had been planned by people within the government who wanted the president out of office.

The manuscript received relatively little attention when it became publicly available through the Kennedy Library, but Kennedy assassination researchers have recently brought Lincoln’s writings back into public view. Her conclusions are particularly notable because of her extraordinary proximity to Kennedy throughout his political career, from his Senate years through his presidency.

Lincoln did not claim that she knew who ordered the assassination, nor did she definitively accuse any single person or organization of carrying it out. Instead, she compiled a lengthy list of powerful people and factions that she believed had developed reasons to oppose Kennedy and could potentially have wanted him dead.

“I do not point a finger at any one of the individuals or factions,” Lincoln cautioned, saying instead that the coincidences surrounding Kennedy’s enemies “puzzle me.”

Lincoln believed Kennedy had acquired enemies even before entering the White House because of his religion.

“He was a Catholic. That gave him a built-in opposition right from the start,” Lincoln wrote.

She pointed specifically to the Ku Klux Klan and other anti-Catholic forces, noting that similar opposition had been mobilized against Democratic presidential candidate Al Smith in 1928. Those forces, she wrote, later “tried hard to defeat” Kennedy when he ran for president in 1960.

Once Kennedy became president, however, Lincoln believed the number and power of his enemies increased dramatically.

One major source of hostility, she wrote, was the Kennedy administration’s civil-rights agenda. The administration sent federal protection for Freedom Riders and intervened in battles over school integration in Mississippi and Alabama, putting Kennedy directly at odds with the KKK, segregationists and other organizations bitterly opposed to the civil-rights movement.

Lincoln also focused on longtime FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover and his contentious relationships with members of the Kennedy administration.

Hoover intensely opposed civil-rights leader Martin Luther King Jr., Lincoln wrote, and “did everything possible to destroy him.”

She also pointed to Hoover’s famously difficult relationship with Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy, who as the president’s brother wielded enormous influence inside the administration and exercised authority over the FBI through the Justice Department.

Lincoln’s list of potential Kennedy enemies extended much further. She examined Teamsters leader Jimmy Hoffa, organized crime, anti-Castro Cuban exiles, elements of the CIA, extreme right-wing organizations, the John Birch Society, communists, opponents of the civil-rights movement and “Texans who hated him.”

Hoffa, she believed, had a particularly strong reason to despise the Kennedy administration. Robert Kennedy had pursued Hoffa and organized crime while serving as chief counsel to the Senate Rackets Committee and continued that campaign after becoming attorney general.

Lincoln wrote that “If any member of organized crime” wanted to hire an assassin, Hoffa “would certainly” have possessed a motive.

Much of Lincoln’s analysis centered on the tangled relationships among the CIA, organized crime, Cuban exiles and militant anti-Communist groups following Fidel Castro’s takeover of Cuba.

The disastrous Bay of Pigs invasion in April 1961 was particularly important to her thinking. Kennedy refused to commit U.S. military forces to rescue the CIA-backed Cuban exile invasion after it began collapsing, infuriating some Cuban exiles and leaving bitter resentment among people connected to the operation.

Organized crime had its own reason for wanting Castro removed. Mafia figures had enjoyed lucrative gambling and other operations in pre-Castro Cuba, only to lose them after Castro seized power.

Lincoln believed those overlapping interests helped create a dangerous convergence among groups that otherwise might not have been natural allies.

“A linkage grew between the Mob, the CIA and right-wing extremists,” Lincoln concluded, connecting their hostility to Kennedy’s policies toward Castro, civil rights, peace and his administration’s campaign against organized crime.

Lincoln also examined what she considered a “strange alliance” involving Richard Nixon, Cuban exile figures and people associated with the CIA and the Bay of Pigs operation. She noted that some individuals associated with those circles would later emerge again in connection with Watergate and political “dirty tricks.”

Her list even extended overseas. Lincoln pointed to Madame Nhu, the outspoken sister-in-law of South Vietnamese President Ngo Dinh Diem.

Diem and his brother Ngo Dinh Nhu were killed during a South Vietnamese military coup in November 1963, just weeks before Kennedy’s assassination. Madame Nhu subsequently lashed out at Kennedy and called him a “murderer,” according to Lincoln’s account.

Lincoln additionally wondered whether Kennedy’s policies concerning Vietnam had created enemies inside the national-security establishment. She noted indications that Kennedy was considering reducing American involvement there, while Defense Secretary Robert McNamara had discussed reductions in U.S. forces and, shortly before Kennedy’s trip to Dallas, prospective cuts in defense spending.

Kennedy’s broader pursuit of reduced Cold War tensions following the Cuban Missile Crisis also figured into Lincoln’s thinking about why powerful interests might have turned against him.

Perhaps the most politically explosive portion of Lincoln’s account concerned Vice President Lyndon B. Johnson, who became president immediately after Kennedy’s assassination.

Lincoln had previously written that Kennedy told her shortly before the Dallas trip that he was considering dropping Johnson from the Democratic presidential ticket when he sought reelection in 1964.

Johnson at the time was politically vulnerable because of the Bobby Baker scandal and other controversies surrounding people in his political orbit.

In her unpublished account, Lincoln noted that Johnson had returned to his Texas ranch several weeks before Kennedy’s visit and that associates were with him there. She also wrote about Johnson’s relationship with Hoover and his access to information contained in the FBI director’s secret files.

Lincoln further claimed that Johnson “initially maintained that there had been a conspiracy” following Kennedy’s assassination before the government “hurriedly set the wheels in motion to build a case against Lee Harvey Oswald as being the lone assassin.”

Lincoln’s suspicions about Johnson and several other powerful figures became even more explicit toward the end of her life. In a 1994 letter, she identified five parties she personally believed had been involved in a conspiracy: Johnson, Hoover, the Mafia, the CIA and anti-Castro Cubans in Florida.

That letter did not provide evidence establishing that those parties participated in Kennedy’s assassination, and Lincoln’s unpublished memoir itself was more guarded. There, she emphasized that she was identifying potential motives and troubling connections rather than claiming to possess proof identifying the killers.

She was particularly struck by the presence of so many people and groups hostile to Kennedy in Texas when the president traveled to Dallas.

“It is ironic,” she wrote, that so many hostile factions “had their people in or around Dallas” when Kennedy arrived.

She cited organized crime figures, members of the John Birch Society and hostile Texans among those whose presence or connections she considered noteworthy.

“Any one of these factions,” Lincoln reasoned, could have hired a killer.

Ultimately, however, Lincoln believed the relationships among the various groups were more significant than any individual suspect viewed in isolation.

“There is definitely an intertwining of people and factions,” Lincoln wrote, in the efforts to “stop” or destroy Kennedy.

Lincoln’s suspicions remain just that — her conclusions and theories, rather than proof overturning the official findings regarding Kennedy’s assassination. The Warren Commission concluded in 1964 that Oswald acted alone in shooting Kennedy from the Texas School Book Depository and that it found no evidence that either Oswald or Jack Ruby was part of a conspiracy.

A later congressional investigation reached a different conclusion on the broader question. The House Select Committee on Assassinations concluded in 1979 that Kennedy was probably killed as the result of a conspiracy, although it did not identify the other conspirators and said it found no evidence implicating the Soviet or Cuban governments, organized crime as an organization, the CIA, FBI or Secret Service as institutions.

{Matzav.com}