Feed aggregator

Years after the debate over COVID-19’s origins first erupted, Dr. Ashish Jha, who served as the White House COVID-19 Response Coordinator under President Joe Biden, now says he believes the pandemic most likely began with an accidental laboratory leak rather than a natural outbreak—a notable shift from the position he held when he entered the administration.

Jha made the remarks during an interview with CNN’s Dana Bash, who pointed to a social media post he had shared from commentator Jamie Metzl arguing that the virus likely originated at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

Although the lab leak theory was heavily disputed during the early stages of the pandemic and many social media platforms restricted related posts under COVID-19 misinformation policies, Jha wrote earlier this year, “I pretty much agree with everything here.”

Asked about that statement during the interview, Jha confirmed that it accurately reflected his current thinking, explaining that his assessment has changed since he first joined the White House.

“This is going to surprise some people. You know, when I went into the White House, my view was, ‘This was almost surely a natural outbreak, maybe a lab leak,’” he said. “Based on information I learned and based on information I‘ve seen, I have come to conclude that it is more likely to have been a lab leak.”

Jha emphasized that he was offering his personal assessment rather than claiming definitive proof, noting that Chinese officials remain the only people who could conclusively answer the question.

“Here‘s the bottom line. No one in the United States knows for sure. The only people who know for sure are people — officials in China — and we still need transparency and accountability on that. So that is my best assessment. I‘m not suggesting I know for sure, but I‘m saying my best assessment is that it probably was a lab leak,” he said.

Bash responded by acknowledging the significance of Jha’s revised position.

“That is definitely news to hear that from you for sure,” Bash replied. “And shows that we‘re just, we‘re still learning, which is really important.”

After the interview aired, Jha shared the exchange on X and elaborated on his position, saying he has held this view since his time in the White House.

“My view on COVID origins isn’t new — I’ve held it since my time at the White House,” he wrote. “Here’s the truth: no one in America knows for sure. Anyone telling you they do is selling you something Based on strong circumstantial evidence I’ve seen, I think lab leak is much more likely. Not engineered. Not deliberate. Accidental Reasonable people can look at the same evidence and disagree.”

The origins of COVID-19 became one of the most contentious issues of the pandemic, fueling broader debates over public trust in government agencies, scientific institutions, and the media. While the lab leak hypothesis has gained wider acceptance as a plausible explanation in recent years, many experts and public officials initially argued that the virus most likely emerged naturally, possibly through a wildlife market in China.

Several major news organizations, including CNN, MSNBC, The New York Times, and The Washington Post, at one point characterized the lab leak theory as a “debunked” conspiracy theory before later acknowledging that the possibility had not been ruled out. Media critics have argued that those early dismissals further eroded public confidence in the press.

National Public Radio was among the outlets that came under scrutiny. In April 2020, NPR published multiple reports portraying the lab leak theory as a discredited conspiracy associated with political conservatives. One article carried the headline, “Scientists Debunk Lab Accident Theory of Pandemic Emergence,” which critics later argued overstated the available evidence.

CNN also faced criticism over several aspects of its pandemic coverage, including reports citing Chinese government vaccination data and an article highlighting China’s centralized political system as an advantage in responding to the outbreak.

“For those still reluctant, China has a powerful tool in its arsenal: a top-down, one-party system that is all-encompassing in reach and forceful in action, and a sprawling bureaucracy that can be swiftly mobilized,” two CNN journalists based in Hong Kong wrote. “The top-down approach has been touted by officials as a strength of the Chinese system that helped curb the virus – and has again been deployed to accelerate inoculations.”

The pandemic also sparked intense disputes over free speech and online censorship. The Biden administration faced a major First Amendment lawsuit alleging that federal officials pressured social media companies to suppress posts questioning official COVID-19 narratives.

Under the resulting settlement, the Office of the Surgeon General, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency are prohibited for the next decade from threatening or coercing social media companies to remove or suppress constitutionally protected speech. The agreement also bars federal officials from directing or overruling platforms’ content moderation decisions.

{Matzav.com}

Senate Republicans scored a major victory Monday in their effort to prevent another government shutdown after Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer threw his support behind a short-term funding measure, giving the legislation crucial bipartisan momentum as lawmakers race to keep the government operating through the November midterm elections.

The Senate voted with bipartisan support to clear the first procedural hurdle for a continuing resolution that would extend government funding into early December. The move comes nearly two months before the Sept. 30 funding deadline and marks a significant step toward avoiding another shutdown battle.

For months, Republicans had warned that Democrats might once again force a government shutdown in an effort to gain political leverage ahead of the November elections. Monday’s vote, however, suggested a willingness from both parties to avoid another fiscal standoff.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune argued there was no reason to wait until the last minute, saying Congress should provide stability now instead of prolonging uncertainty.

“There’s been enough uncertainty this last year, and, you know, unfortunately, I think through two government shutdowns that extended for a long period of time, it’s better for everybody if there’s predictability, certainty,” Thune said.

Congress has already endured multiple shutdowns during President Donald Trump’s second term, including two of the longest government closures in American history while Republicans controlled Congress.

The first shutdown occurred last year and lasted more than 40 days, centering on a dispute over Obamacare tax subsidies that ultimately expired without a lasting resolution.

A second shutdown earlier this year stretched beyond 70 days after Democrats abandoned a bipartisan funding agreement following the killing of Renee Nicole Good in Minnesota by immigration enforcement agents. Republicans ultimately bypassed Democratic support and approved immigration enforcement funding on their own.

Despite those recent confrontations, senators from both parties are now signaling a desire to keep the government funded, at least through the upcoming elections.

Schumer announced Monday that he would support the continuing resolution, describing it as the best available option while broader budget negotiations continue.

He called the measure the “responsible path forward that allows continued bipartisan negotiations on a budget that delivers for American families.”

“For months, Democrats have been clear: we want to fund the government, avoid a shutdown and pass strong, bipartisan appropriations bills that improve people’s lives,” Schumer said in a statement.

Republican leaders are aiming to send the continuing resolution to the House before senators leave Washington for their final scheduled recess ahead of the midterm elections.

Even if the funding measure advances, Congress still faces a packed agenda. Republican leaders are also seeking to confirm more than 70 nominees, move forward with long-awaited sanctions targeting Russia, consider legislation establishing a regulatory framework for cryptocurrency markets, and hold a final confirmation vote on Todd Blanche, President Trump’s nominee to serve as attorney general.

“I think we have a bunch of stuff we have to finish and we’ll just stay until we finish it,” Thune said.

President Donald Trump is reportedly considering removing U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro after her office dropped a felony vandalism case tied to damage at the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool, a move that has reportedly left the president deeply frustrated and sparked a public rift over the high-profile prosecution.

According to CNN, Trump is “furious” over the Justice Department’s decision and it is “highly likely” that Pirro could lose her position after prosecutors filed court papers abandoning the administration’s earlier claim that vandals caused the damage.

CNN cited a senior administration official who said Trump was “blindsided” by the filing, which concluded that the damage resulted from a defective installation of the Reflecting Pool’s liner rather than an act of criminal vandalism.

Trump declined to say Monday whether Pirro’s job is in jeopardy when questioned by a reporter in the Oval Office.

“You’re fake news. Don’t ever talk again,” Trump said.

Later, the president openly criticized Pirro’s handling of the case, accusing her of backing down after prosecutors sought to dismiss the charges.

“She choked” and “folded like an umbrella,” Trump said.

“I’m really disappointed,” Trump told reporters.

Trump also maintained that the Reflecting Pool had been deliberately damaged, asserting that the administration possesses evidence showing individuals slicing the liner with a utility knife.

“We have photographs. We have tapes of people cutting it with a box knife,” Trump said. “Jeanine Pirro made a mistake. It was vandalism.”

On Friday, Pirro’s office formally asked the court to dismiss the felony vandalism charge against David Hearn, a 67-year-old former Olympic canoeist who had been accused of damaging the Reflecting Pool.

In its filing, the Justice Department explained that after Hearn was indicted, the Department of the Interior supplied additional information indicating the damage stemmed from a “rushed and flawed installation” of the pool liner rather than criminal conduct.

Prosecutors acknowledged that the original indictment relied on Interior Department information attributing the damage to vandals. However, later evidence pointed instead to defects associated with the renovation project.

“Had the Department of the Interior been forthcoming with the information clearly in its possession, the government would not have sought a grand jury indictment,” Pirro’s office wrote in the filing.

Trump responded forcefully on Truth Social, saying he disagreed “100%” with Pirro’s decision and insisting the damage was “a pure case of VANDALISM.”

The disagreement is the latest chapter in an ongoing controversy surrounding the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool renovation, a project that has faced persistent problems, including algae growth and sections of liner that have peeled away.

Trump has repeatedly insisted the damage was intentional, at various times claiming there was a 250-foot gash and later describing a 300-yard cut in the liner. Those assertions, however, have been challenged by outside reviews.

A Washington Post investigation, based on satellite imagery and interviews with experts, concluded that the liner appeared to be peeling in several locations, suggesting the issues were more likely related to installation problems than deliberate vandalism.

The restoration project has also attracted scrutiny over its escalating costs. Originally expected to cost about $1.8 million, the renovation reportedly grew to approximately $16 million, prompting Senate Democrats to question the project’s oversight, contracting procedures, quality control, and overall spending.

{Matzav.com}

The Palestinian Authority and the Palestine Liberation Organization suffered a major legal setback on Monday after US Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor refused to halt enforcement of a $656 million judgment awarded to American victims of Palestinian Arab terrorism. The ruling leaves the massive award in place while the PA and PLO continue their efforts to challenge its reinstatement.

According to The Associated Press, the decision comes after the US Supreme Court ruled last year in favor of the victims and the surviving relatives of those killed in the attacks, strengthening their long-running effort to collect damages.

Attorneys representing the PA and PLO had asked the nation’s highest court to temporarily block enforcement of the judgment while they pursued another appeal. In their filings, officials in Ramallah argued that requiring immediate payment of the hundreds of millions of dollars would severely impair the Palestinian Authority’s ability to provide essential public services in areas of Judea and Samaria under its control.

The lawsuit traces its origins to a series of deadly Palestinian Arab terror attacks carried out in Jerusalem during the early 2000s. Those attacks claimed the lives of 33 people and injured hundreds more. Families of the victims and survivors sought damages under the US Anti-Terrorism Act, which allows American citizens harmed by international terrorism to pursue civil claims in US courts.

The litigation has stretched over many years and taken several turns through the federal court system. A federal appeals court in New York had previously thrown out the jury’s verdict against the PA and PLO, but Congress later amended anti-terrorism laws to permit lawsuits of this kind. After reviewing the updated legal framework, the Supreme Court revived the related cases in 2025.

Building on that ruling, the 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals reinstated the $656 million judgment in March. Lawyers representing the victims and their families welcomed the decision, saying it paved the way for “justice to be done” after decades of legal battles.

{Matzav.com}