A Republican proposal in the Senate that would route up to $1,500 directly into Americans’ health savings accounts has quickly earned President Trump’s enthusiastic backing.
Speaking with reporters aboard Air Force One, the president made clear why the idea appeals to him. “I like the concept. I don’t want to give the insurance companies any money,” he said, blasting the industry for its practices. “They’ve been ripping off the public for years,” he continued, calling Obamacare “a scam to make the insurance companies rich. … Billions and billions of dollars is paid directly to insurance companies.”
The legislation had been expected to reach the Senate floor this week. Its aim is to relieve the financial pressure on roughly 24 million people insured under Obamacare, many of whom are facing higher out-of-pocket costs.
A key feature of the bill is a direct cash allotment into health savings accounts: $1,000 for eligible Affordable Care Act enrollees aged 18 to 49, and $1,500 for those aged 50 to 64.
Eligibility hinges on several factors, including income. Individuals and families must earn no more than 700% of the federal poverty level to receive the benefit — meaning a single enrollee could qualify with income up to $109,550, and a family of four could qualify with income as high as $225,050.
In addition, only those enrolled in bronze-level plans — about one-third of ACA participants — or catastrophic plans are included. These plans come with steep deductibles but differ in premium costs: bronze plans can require paying up to 40%, while catastrophic plans generally carry minimal premiums.
The proposal sets aside as much as $10 billion for these health savings account payments. It explicitly bars any of the funds from being used on abortions or gender-reassignment procedures. Certain legally present immigrants may also qualify.
Notably, those on silver, gold, or platinum Obamacare plans — which offer higher coverage in exchange for higher premiums — do not qualify for the HSA deposits. The same exclusion applies to people insured through their employers, as well as those covered by Medicare or Medicaid.
Sen. Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, one of the bill’s architects, praised the president’s stance. “I absolutely agree with President Trump that we need to redirect subsidies from insurance companies and give patients the power,” he told The Post. He added, “Republicans want real solutions that actually make health care affordable and put money in families’ pockets. I applaud the President for his leadership on this issue.” Cassidy teamed up with Senate Finance Chairman Mike Crapo of Idaho to introduce the bill.
The Senate is expected to weigh this proposal Thursday alongside an $83 billion Democratic measure that would extend every Obamacare subsidy for another three years — a vote Democrats secured through last month’s shutdown-ending agreement.
The debate lands at a time when Trump is shifting his economic messaging ahead of the 2026 midterms, unveiling a slate of populist policies that include possible $2,000 tariff rebate checks and $1,000 Trump savings accounts for children.
Voters, meanwhile, continue to feel the squeeze of the roughly 20% cumulative inflation tied to Joe Biden’s term. Prices increased another 3% over the past year, according to the newest Bureau of Labor Statistics release.
The White House has rejected claims that tariffs are fueling higher consumer prices. Officials point instead to historic private-sector investment in U.S. manufacturing and a rebalancing of global trade agreements that they say benefits American workers.
At a Pennsylvania event earlier the same day, Trump underlined his economic message once more, declaring he has “no higher priority than making America affordable again.” He also defended his trade policies, telling attendees, “If we didn’t have tariffs, you would have no steel. We wouldn’t have one steel mill anywhere in the United States, and that would be really bad for national security.”
Addressing energy costs, he reminded the crowd, “When energy comes down, your other prices come down.”
He then highlighted tax relief already set to take effect. “We’re also putting thousands of dollars in the pockets of hard-working Pennsylvanians with the largest tax cuts in American history: That’s no tax on tips, no tax on overtime, no tax on Social Security for our great seniors,” he said. “And all of that kicks in on Jan. 1.”
The administration also framed the health-care legislation as part of its broader effort to fight runaway medical costs. White House spokesman Kush Desai criticized the opposing party’s approach. “The current system is not working to deliver health care at reasonable prices for everyday Americans. Democrats’ push to maintain these high prices by giving more money to insurance companies is not a real solution for President Trump,” he said.
Desai noted the president’s focus on negotiating with drug manufacturers and cracking down on systemic waste. “The President has instead focused on lowering prescription drug costs by hammering out deals with pharmaceutical companies, as well as taking on waste, fraud and abuse in the system to deliver results for patients, and will continue to deliver policy solutions that lower costs in the healthcare market for the American people.”
{Matzav.com}
A federal court has once again stepped into the standoff between Washington and Sacramento, with U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer ordering that California must regain authority over its National Guard units currently stationed in Los Angeles. His ruling on Wednesday temporarily blocks the Trump administration from continuing to deploy those troops without the state’s consent, though he paused the injunction until Monday.
State officials had gone to court arguing that the circumstances used to justify the troop activation were no longer relevant. When President Donald Trump initially assumed command of the California National Guard in June, more than 4,000 service members were mobilized. By late October, that presence had dwindled dramatically, leaving only “a 100 or so troops” positioned in the Los Angeles area, California noted.
The administration defended the continued deployment, insisting that Guard forces were still needed to bolster security around federal staff and facilities. “U.S. Justice Department lawyers said the administration still needed Guard members in the Los Angeles area to help protect federal personnel and property.” Requests for comment submitted to the White House on Wednesday were not answered.
The political confrontation intensified when the Republican administration extended the mission through February and pushed to send California Guard troops to Portland, Oregon, as part of a broader attempt to move federal forces into cities governed by Democrats—despite repeated objections from local officials.
California maintained throughout the legal battle that the Guard was being conscripted into service as a presidential security arm, contrary to long-standing restrictions on domestic military involvement. “California argued that the president was using Guard members as his personal police force in violation of a law limiting the use of the military in domestic affairs.”
The origins of the dispute trace back to large demonstrations against Trump’s expanded immigration enforcement. In response, Trump assumed command of the Guard without a gubernatorial request—the first such move in decades—and placed troops around a downtown Los Angeles federal detention center where protesters had gathered. Units were also assigned to accompany immigration agents during arrests in surrounding neighborhoods.
California quickly filed suit, prompting Judge Breyer to initially issue a temporary restraining order requiring control of the Guard to revert to the state. That ruling was later frozen by an appellate court panel while the case proceeded.
For its part, the administration argued that the judiciary had no authority to interfere with the president’s determination that unrest surrounding the protests amounted to conditions in which “violence during the protests made it impossible for him to execute U.S. laws with regular forces and reflected a rebellion, or danger of rebellion.”
After a full trial, Breyer concluded in September that the federal deployment violated the governing statutes. His decision aligned with rulings from other courts that had similarly blocked attempts to send National Guard units to Portland and Chicago as part of the administration’s urban enforcement strategy.
{Matzav.com}
Intense consultations inside the Religious Zionist party — including a gathering of its leading rabbonim — have led to a developing consensus that the faction may ultimately support the government’s proposed draft law, even though it grants wide exemptions to the chareidi tzibbur. The matter drew unusual public scrutiny, prompting the party to convene a serious, in-depth gathering on Tuesday to address the wave of criticism over the possibility of backing the bill.
At the closed-door meeting, party MKs sat together with rabbonim, who were invited to express their views on the bill’s long-term consequences for Klal Yisroel. Among those who came to weigh in were Rabbi Chaim Gantz, Rabbi Chananel Etrog, Rabbi Shimon Cohen, Rabbi Chaim Wolfson, Rabbi Eliyahu Blumenzwieg, Rabbi Yaakov Medan, Rabbi Yoel Manovitch, Rabbi Eyal Greiner, Rabbi Yigal Levenstein, Rabbi Yehuda Sadan, Rabbi Shmuel Haber, and Rabbi Eliezer Shinwald.
The party later explained that the purpose of the gathering was to “examine ways to enable significant chareidi enlistment to the IDF,” particularly given the sharp disagreements over the proposed framework. A range of perspectives was voiced. Some argued that the bill was unlikely to produce meaningful results on the ground, while others cautioned that pushing it through without revisions could weaken trust between the party and its core dati leumi supporters — especially after repeated commitments to the Hesder yeshivos were, in their view, not adequately honored.
By the end of the discussion, the assembled rabbonim had reached a unified recommendation: the party should insist on substantial amendments. Party chairman Minister Bezalel Smotrich accepted the guidance of the rabbonim and committed to pursue changes that would reshape the proposal into one that is workable, fair, and aligned with the party’s responsibilities to the tzibbur.
In its statement, the party emphasized that it will continue the internal dialogue and intends to push for revisions that ensure any final law includes genuine, actionable mechanisms to encourage chareidi enlistment, while safeguarding Torah values and maintaining respect for those who already serve.
As public speculation intensified, the party released a follow-up announcement clarifying: “Contrary to various reports, no practical decisions have yet been made, and the faction is formulating its demands and conditions for supporting the law. The meeting was held as part of an in-depth learning process for faction members and rabbis, focusing on the law, its implications, and ways to correct historical injustices and encourage haredim to enlist in the IDF. At the meeting, various opinions were expressed, both by the rabbis and the faction members, and it was agreed that the discussions would continue.”
The faction underscored that its only guiding principle is the protection of Am Yisroel: “Even now, the entire faction is determined to vote only for a law that will lead to real and swift enlistment of chareidim to the IDF, in order to meet Israel’s security needs and ease the burden on the combat soldiers and their families. The Religious Zionist party, which represents the sector that serves the most, is committed to changing the current situation in practical terms and will make its decisions solely based on the merits of the matter, detached from campaigns and political interests from all sides. The faction has only one consideration before its eyes: the security of Israel and the religious and national obligation of IDF service for all parts of the nation,” the statement concluded.
{Matzav.com}
A series of lawsuits filed Wednesday in Dallas County claims that American-made microchips repeatedly surfaced inside Russian missiles and drones used in lethal attacks across Ukraine, Newsmax reports. The filings come against the backdrop of staggering civilian losses, with the Office of the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights confirming at least 14,775 civilian deaths — including 755 children — while cautioning that the true toll is “likely significantly higher.”
The complaints collectively accuse several major U.S. semiconductor manufacturers of failing to prevent their technology from entering Russia’s weapons pipeline, despite export bans, sanctions, and what the filings describe as “extensive notice” that their electronics were appearing inside President Vladimir Putin’s missiles. The suits argue that the companies ignored clear warnings and allowed sensitive components to be diverted into military systems used to bombard Ukrainian cities.
Each lawsuit names Texas Instruments, AMD, Intel, and distributor Mouser Electronics, asserting that their semiconductors turned up in weapons used in deadly attacks and alleging the firms “armed the Russian military” through what the filings call “domestic corporate negligence.” Plaintiffs say the companies prioritized profits over legal obligations, citing the accusation that they “have chosen to maximize profit ahead of and in favor of their duties to take reasonable, and legally required, steps to keep their products out of the wrong hands.” Newsmax has reached out to the manufacturers for comment.
Below is a complete rewrite of the detailed breakdown of all five lawsuits, preserving every quoted line exactly as written:
Lawsuit 1: Shumylo et al. vs. Texas Instruments, AMD, Intel, Mouser (Attack on Kryvyi Rih – Apr. 4, 2025)
The first case focuses on the April 4, 2025 strike in Kryvyi Rih, alleging that U.S.-origin parts “powered Iskander-M ballistic missiles and drones that Russia used to attack Ukrainian citizens on April 4, 2025, in Kryvyi Rih.” The filing identifies multiple victims, stating: “This strike killed Plaintiff A.K., the daughter of Plaintiff Marta Shumylo; Plaintiff D.N., the son of Plaintiff Nataliia Nikitska; and Plaintiff T.T., the grandson of Plaintiff Valentina Tsvitok.” The lawsuit contends defendants “armed the Russian military by selling semiconductor components … that Russia used as critical components in weapons systems for its attacks on Ukraine and its citizens.” It also argues the companies were repeatedly warned, noting “Defendants had extensive notice … that their products were being diverted to Russian and Iranian weapons programs” but still “failed to implement and enforce reasonable measures to prevent such diversion.” In closing, the complaint asserts the harm was foreseeable, stating: “Defendants’ domestic conduct in Texas … was a substantial factor in causing the injuries suffered abroad.”
Lawsuit 2: Dmytrivna et al. vs. Texas Instruments, AMD, Intel, Mouser (Attack on Okhmatdyt Children’s Hospital – Jul. 8, 2024)
This filing centers on the attack against Ukraine’s largest pediatric medical center and claims the weaponry involved included U.S.-linked components that “powered Kh-101 missiles and Shahed 136 drones” used in the strike. Two of the young plaintiffs, M.D. and S.F., are described as children receiving dialysis at the moment of impact, with the filing noting they “were patients at the children’s hospital receiving kidney dialysis care when the Russian military launched the attack,” and emphasizing that the blast “killed multiple civilians, including a hospital doctor.” Medical staff were also endangered, with the complaint stating that Dr. Olha Babicheva and nurse Viktoriia Didovets were “treating patients at the hospital when it came under attack,” making clear they were “directly in harm’s way as Defendants’ products enabled greater strike precision.” The filing cites political warnings as well, including the statement: “Looking the other way when you know your products continue to empower Russian slaughter is not just morally dubious, it is against the law.” This lawsuit argues the assault was facilitated through “the illicit flood of semiconductors into Russia … enabled by the knowing neglect or willful ignorance of American companies.”
Lawsuit 3: Babich et al. vs. Texas Instruments, AMD, Intel, Mouser (Attack on Kryvyi Rih – Jun. 13, 2023)
The third suit revisits another devastating attack in Kryvyi Rih, alleging U.S. electronics were used in weapons that “killed Plaintiff Anton Babich … Plaintiff A.R. … Plaintiff Khvitcha Khupatsaria … and Plaintiff Vladyslav Kuznetsov.” The filing claims those components “powered Kh-101 missiles and Iranian-made Shahed drones that Russia used to attack Ukrainian citizens on June 13, 2023.” It further accuses the defendants of ignoring overwhelming evidence, asserting they “had extensive notice from government agencies, public advisories, forensic investigations, and media reporting that their products were being diverted,” yet “failed to implement and enforce reasonable measures to prevent such diversion.” The complaint frames this as a breach of responsibility, stating: “Defendants owe a common-law duty of care to the Ukrainian people … to not empower Russia to use their products to facilitate unlawful military attacks on civilians.” As in the earlier filings, it stresses foreseeability: “The foreign injuries were the foreseeable and natural consequences of Defendants’ Texas-based decisions.”
Lawsuit 4: Zaplyvanyi et al. vs. Texas Instruments, AMD, Intel, Mouser (Attack on Uman – Apr. 28, 2023)
This lawsuit focuses on the Uman strike, arguing defendants’ components “powered drones and Kh-101 missiles that Russia used to attack Ukrainian citizens on April 28, 2023, in Uman.” It recounts the human toll, noting the assault “killed multiple civilians, including a 2-year-old child,” and demolished residential buildings. The filing maintains that the companies disregarded clear warning signs, stating they “failed to identify and resolve distribution red flags” despite the fact that “U.S. laws imposed a duty … to exercise reasonable care” to prevent diversion. The complaint then summarizes the accusation: “Defendants’ semiconductor components foreseeably powered missiles and drones that struck Plaintiffs’ homes, workplaces, hospitals, and communities, causing death, severe injury, and widespread devastation.” It additionally charges the firms with complicity in “a conspiracy to evade and/or violate export restrictions to Iran and Russia.”
Lawsuit 5: Tereschenko et al. vs. Texas Instruments, AMD, Intel, Mouser (Attack on Rzhyschiv – Mar. 22, 2023)
The final filing turns to the Rzhyschiv drone strike, alleging that U.S.-made parts “powered Iranian-made Shahed-131 and Shahed-136 drones that Russia used to attack Ukrainian citizens on March 22, 2023,” destroying a high school dormitory. According to the lawsuit, “This strike killed Plaintiffs Natalia Pipchenko, Oleksander Gorgul, and R.Z.,” and left many others injured, including minors V.M. and Z.M., after the building collapsed. The complaint says the defendants “failed to implement adequate export-controls, distributor screening, and diversion-prevention systems — conduct that directly caused the injuries abroad.” It argues that decisions made in the United States “materially contributed to the diversion of semiconductor components overseas” and ultimately enabled the attack. Congress’ warning is quoted once more: “Every day, millions of dollars are made … while American technology is still fueling Russia’s murderous war against Ukraine.”
{Matzav.com}
At a campaign stop in Mount Pocono, Pennsylvania, President Donald Trump ignited a new line of attack against Joe Biden, claiming that key personnel decisions at the Federal Reserve may not hold up legally. Trump told the crowd he had been informed that Biden had used an autopen to sign the documents elevating several Democrats to the Fed’s Board of Governors, a detail he argued could undermine their authority.
Trump used the Pennsylvania rally, billed as an economic address, to raise doubts about whether those appointments conform to federal law. He said he is weighing whether to formally challenge the validity of the signings, noting that he plans to speak with legal advisers before deciding how to proceed.
He folded the Fed appointments into a broader critique of what he called Biden’s “autopen presidency,” maintaining that an array of Biden-era actions lacked legitimacy because the signatures weren’t personally executed. Trump argued that many directives, memos, and administrative decisions “should not carry the force of law” if Biden did not physically sign them.
During Biden’s tenure, aides openly acknowledged frequent reliance on the autopen — a device used by multiple past presidents — for routine paperwork or when Biden was out of Washington. The practice was described as a standard procedural tool for managing a high volume of official documents.
Trump has already vowed to roll back a number of Biden-era measures on the grounds that they were finalized with an autopen. He has said that certain regulatory steps and administrative orders will be canceled because, in his view, they lacked direct presidential authorization.
Democrats have rejected that premise, arguing that Trump’s denouncements distort a long-accepted White House practice and create unnecessary confusion about the legitimacy of government processes.
Legal scholars in recent commentary have emphasized that the decisive factor is whether the president authorized the action, not whether the ink on the page came from his own hand. They maintain that Biden’s team consistently met those requirements.
Experts have also pointed out that presidents from both parties — including George W. Bush and Barack Obama — used the autopen to sign routine matters and even time-sensitive legislative items.
Analysts say that the legality of such signatures hinges entirely on the president’s explicit direction, a condition they argue Biden satisfied throughout his term.
Trump closed his remarks in Mount Pocono by suggesting that Biden’s autopen usage raises deeper questions about who was “actually running things” in Washington. He cited reporting from Reuters as justification for raising the issue with supporters.
{Matzav.com}
A highly unusual and distinguished encounter took place when the Ashlag Rebbe visited the bais medrash of the senior kabbalist Rav Dovid Batzri, rosh yeshiva of Yeshivat HaShalom, accompanied by his son Rav Moshe Batzri. The meeting brought together two influential figures in the world of Kabbolah, along with a circle of their leading talmidim.
The Rebbe arrived at the bais medrashin Bnei Brak at the head of a delegation from the editorial team behind the new Zohar edition, Bnei Heichala. Rav Batzri, who has delivered his teachings there for years, welcomed the Rebbe with great honor. During the visit, the Rebbe presented him with the newly released volume of the Zohar featuring the Bnei Heichala commentary, prompting an extended discussion on the essential role of in-depth Zohar study and the commentary’s contribution to greater clarity.
When the Rebbe entered the bais medrash, Rav Batzri was in the middle of delivering an advanced shiur on the inner dimensions of Torah. Surrounding him were prominent talmidim, rabbanim, and fellow mekubalim. After greeting his guest, Rav Batzri was shown the first volume of the new edition, which incorporates the classic Sulam commentary alongside additional layers of analysis.
The Rebbe described the decades of work that went into producing the commentary and supplements. He remarked, “Here, in this place, there is certainly no need to elaborate on the importance of precision in every single word of the Zohar. At times, one word changes the entire picture and the entire understanding.” He demonstrated several examples where a single term in the text significantly shifts the meaning, explaining the necessity of an “analysis” section within the new Zohar edition, one that lays out questions, contradictions, and textual challenges with methodical, deeply grounded answers.
The Rebbe further noted that in the writings of the Arizal there are more than ten thousand citations from the Zohar, yet the Arizal often does not specify the source. “The more one can trace the Arizal’s foundations back to the Zohar itself, the more the entire inner Torah becomes illuminated,” he told Rav Batzri. The senior mekubal expressed profound admiration for the new work, praising its depth, clarity, and rigorous organization.
After closely reviewing the volume, Rav Batzri spoke with extraordinary enthusiasm. “I testify that there has never been a Zohar like this! It is literally like Shulchan Aruch!” he declared before the Rebbe and the assembled talmidim. He lauded the precision and coherence of the edition and offered a heartfelt brocha to the team behind it, expressing hope that it would “make a revolution in the world,” enabling more people to learn the Zohar and thereby come closer to the teachings of the Arizal and the inner essence of Torah.
The Rebbe also shared a story told to him by Rav David Abuhatzeira: that his grandfather, the Baba Sali, studied the Zohar with the Sulam commentary during his years in Morocco and later said that this commentary gave him “very great clarity in the Zohar.”
Throughout the encounter, the two mekubalim explored numerous intricate passages from the Zohar, engaging in deep discussion on the mysteries of Torah. Rav Batzri referenced the teaching of Rav Shalom Buzaglo in his classic Kisei Melech nearly 280 years ago, emphasizing that one hour of Zohar study with understanding is equivalent to tens of thousands of hours of study in the revealed aspects of Torah.
At the conclusion of the meeting, Rav Batzri accompanied the Rebbe out with warm friendship, and the two parted with heartfelt brachos.
{Matzav.com}
