Feed aggregator

Rav Shimon Galai shared a remarkable personal story involving the Steipler Gaon at a gathering marking the 25th yahrtzeit of Rav Avrohom Yaakov Pam zt”l, founder of Shuvu, offering a powerful message about the continued influence of tzaddikim after their passing.

The gathering was held at Rav Galai’s home with leaders of Shuvu, the kiruv organization founded by Rav Pam and with which Rav Galai serves as a member of its presidium.

Addressing the concern that Rav Pam’s passing might mean that Shuvu no longer benefits from his assistance as it did during his lifetime, Rav Galai said the opposite is true: A tzaddik who accomplished great things in this world can continue working on behalf of others from Shomayim with even greater strength.

“The Steipler told me a fundamental principle, and it is clear to me that it is true,” Rav Galai related. “What a tzaddik did here, they do there in Shomayim with far greater strength. I asked him about someone who was connected to a certain rov, and the rov passed away, and that person felt that his world had gone dark.”

Rav Galai then recounted the Steipler’s emphatic response.

“The Steipler told me: Tell him that I said that what they did here, they do there with far greater strength. It is nothing. Tell him, do you understand Yiddish? You understand Hebrew. He repeated it ten times. Tell him that I said that what they did here, they do there with far greater strength. If here he worried about him, he will worry about him. If here he davened for him, he will daven for him.”

Rav Galai connected the Steipler’s words directly to Rav Pam’s legacy and the future of Shuvu, saying there should be no concern over whether the Torah and kiruv work he championed will continue.

“You ask how the Torah and kiruv will continue after Rav Pam passed away? We already heard what the Ponovezher Rov said after the Holocaust, that we have no concern about how the Torah will continue. Hakadosh Boruch Hu promised, ‘For it will not be forgotten from the mouths of his descendants and his descendants’ descendants.’ The only question is who will merit to be part of it.”

Rav Galai then spoke with humility about his own involvement in Shuvu’s work.

“I am nothing. I am only a shamash. I truly try to do whatever I can to help kiruv. It is clear that the Torah will continue, Shuvu will continue, the talmidim will continue. The only question is who will merit to be part of it.”

He concluded by addressing the message that should be conveyed to those who support Shuvu financially, saying that while people sometimes approach him seeking guarantees of success or blessing, the true promise comes from Hakadosh Boruch Hu.

“People come to me so that I should promise. Right? I don’t know how to promise, but Hakadosh Boruch Hu promises. If you make Mine happy, I will make yours happy. There is no greater joy for Hakadosh Boruch Hu than when another one of His children is brought to say Shema Yisrael.”

{Matzav.com}

A former Meta safety researcher delivered damaging testimony Wednesday in a landmark federal trial, accusing Mark Zuckerberg and his company of deliberately avoiding child-safety problems on Facebook and Instagram when addressing them could threaten profits.

Arturo Béjar, who worked on safety issues at Meta for years and later emerged as a prominent critic of the company, told jurors in California federal court that Zuckerberg wielded enormous authority as CEO but failed to adequately confront the dangers the platforms posed to young users.

“You just cannot trust Mark Zuckerberg with kids,” Béjar said on the witness stand.

Béjar became the first witness presented by a coalition of 29 state attorneys general suing Meta. The states allege that the company intentionally designed addictive features that contributed to anxiety, depression and even suicide among teenagers, while also improperly collecting children’s personal information without parental permission.

The attorneys general are asking the court to order significant changes to Meta’s platforms and impose substantial financial penalties for the alleged violations. Attorneys representing the states have suggested damages could approach $200 billion, while Meta has argued that the potential figure under the plaintiffs’ calculations could climb as high as $1.4 trillion.

Béjar headed a safety-oriented team at Meta between 2009 and 2015 before returning as a consultant from 2019 through 2021. During his testimony, he accused Zuckerberg of creating a misleading public picture of how seriously the company treated the welfare of young users.

“I felt that he created a false and misleading impression of Facebook’s commitment to young people,” said Béjar, who estimated that he spoke to Zuckerberg about safety issues at least 100 times during his tenure.

According to Béjar, Meta possessed technology capable of identifying underage users who circumvented the company’s safeguards, but effectively adopted a “don’t ask, don’t tell” approach because younger users represented valuable future customers.

“Where the youngest kids are is where the users are going to be in the future,” Béjar said.

Béjar previously played a major role as a witness in separate litigation brought by New Mexico Attorney General Raul Torrez. In that case, he described the disturbing experiences of his daughter after she joined Instagram at age 16, including receiving sexually explicit messages and “unsolicited penis pictures.”

During cross-examination Wednesday, a Meta attorney questioned Béjar about his decision to permit his daughter to use Instagram. Béjar acknowledged that he had not anticipated the extent of the dangers she would encounter on the platform.

“I kept an eye on how distressing it was for her,” Béjar said. “She got a good following, at the price of harm.”

The multistate trial is expected to continue for approximately six weeks and is set to feature testimony from some of Meta’s most prominent executives. Zuckerberg and Instagram chief Adam Mosseri are both expected to take the witness stand.

Meta has denied the allegations against it and maintains that the attorneys general are pursuing financial penalties far beyond what the case could legitimately justify.

During opening arguments Tuesday, Meta attorney Paul Schmidt defended the company’s record, arguing that Zuckerberg and other executives have repeatedly worked to make Facebook and Instagram safer for children. He pointed to measures including parental supervision features and tools allowing limits to be placed on the amount of time young people spend on social media.

President Trump is set to sit down for an interview with Michael Cohen, his onetime personal attorney and fixer who later became one of his fiercest critics, in a remarkable public reunion following years of bitter legal and personal warfare between the two men.

Cohen, who acknowledged arranging payments to adult film actress Stormy Daniels ahead of the 2016 presidential election over an alleged affair with Trump, said the interview comes after he and the president recently put their long-running feud behind them.

After years of publicly attacking one another following their dramatic falling-out, Cohen revealed earlier this summer that he and Trump had reconciled and were once again on better terms.

Segments of Cohen’s interview with Trump are scheduled to be broadcast Thursday night on New York’s 77 WABC radio, Cohen said in a social media post. Additional portions are expected to air Sunday during a program Cohen is hosting on the station.

MS NOW had earlier reported that Trump would appear with Cohen for an episode of the attorney’s podcast. Cohen disputed that account in his post, saying the interview was instead conducted for the WABC radio program.

The Hill said it contacted the White House seeking confirmation that Trump would participate in the interview.

Cohen disclosed last month that his relationship with Trump had changed dramatically after years of hostility, explaining that an unexpected message from a mutual friend helped open the door to ending their feud.

“Out of nowhere, when I was sitting with my wife at a restaurant, my phone buzzed and it was a text from that friend who expressed to me the president’s genuine empathy for the hell that I was being dragged through … I deeply appreciated that text,” Cohen told John Catsimatidis and Rita Cosby on WABC’s “Cats & Cosby” radio talk show.

Cohen said the message prompted him to reach out directly to Trump in hopes of finally bringing their years-long battle to a close.

“I actually texted the president. I thanked him. Expressed my sincere hope that this long, exhausting feud between the two of us could finally end,” Cohen added.

{Matzav.com}

The United States has crossed a historic and troubling fiscal threshold, with the national debt climbing above $40 trillion as federal borrowing continues to grow and long-term projections point to an increasingly severe financial burden.

Treasury Department figures released Wednesday show that total outstanding public debt reached $40.047 trillion on Tuesday, jumping from $39.987 trillion just one day earlier.

Debt held by the public, which excludes certain obligations the government owes to itself, now totals approximately $32.3 trillion. That figure is equal to about 101% of the nation’s gross domestic product, a debt burden not seen at this scale since the World War II era. In 2001, following four straight years of federal budget surpluses, publicly held debt stood at only 31.5% of GDP.

The climb to $40 trillion did not happen suddenly. It is the product of more than two decades of major wars, tax reductions, economic downturns and massive federal spending programs.

The federal government’s finances began deteriorating in the early 2000s following the collapse of the dot-com bubble, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and a series of tax cuts that reduced federal revenue.

Another major blow came with the 2007-09 recession, which caused tax receipts to plunge while Washington responded with expensive economic stimulus measures aimed at stabilizing the financial system and reviving the economy.

Federal borrowing accelerated dramatically again during the COVID-19 pandemic, when trillions of dollars were spent on direct relief payments, assistance for businesses and numerous other programs designed to prevent a broader economic collapse.

Long-term demographic changes have added another layer of pressure. An aging U.S. population has driven spending higher for Social Security and Medicare, while federal revenues have consistently failed to grow enough to cover the government’s overall expenditures.

Current forecasts indicate that the gap between spending and revenue is likely to become substantially larger in the decades ahead.

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that debt held by the public will climb to 120% of GDP by 2036. That would eclipse the previous record of 106% reached in 1946 following World War II.

The longer-term outlook is even more dramatic. Assuming current laws remain largely in place, the CBO projects publicly held federal debt could soar to approximately 175% of GDP by 2056.

Meanwhile, annual federal deficits are hovering around 6% of GDP — levels that historically have been associated with major wars or serious recessions. The difference today is that Washington is running deficits of that magnitude without the country being in the midst of a major economic downturn.

Despite the enormous borrowing, investors have not abandoned the market for U.S. government debt. Treasury securities continue to be regarded around the world as highly liquid, relatively safe assets, allowing the federal government to keep financing its obligations without producing an immediate fiscal crisis.

The mounting expense of paying interest on that debt, however, is becoming a growing concern for the federal budget.

According to CBO projections, annual net interest costs will increase from 3.3% of GDP in 2026 to 4.6% by 2036. By 2056, interest payments are projected to consume 6.9% of GDP, meaning the government would spend more simply servicing its debt than it would spend individually on either Social Security or Medicare.

As interest payments consume a larger portion of federal revenue, lawmakers will have less flexibility to finance other government priorities. The problem can also become self-reinforcing, since interest obligations themselves cannot simply be eliminated when Congress attempts to reduce spending.

Finding sufficiently large spending reductions presents its own political obstacles.

A substantial share of federal expenditures goes toward Social Security, Medicare and other benefits paid directly to individuals. Other government expenses — including federal employees, government facilities and law enforcement — account for a much smaller portion of total federal spending, limiting how much deficit reduction can realistically be achieved without addressing the largest programs.

With the national debt now beyond $40 trillion and projected to continue rising, policymakers face increasingly consequential options: collect more revenue through higher taxes, reduce benefits and government spending, or keep adding to a debt load that the Congressional Budget Office has warned cannot continue growing indefinitely.

{Matzav.com}

A coalition representing immigrant-owned grocery stores and other small businesses across New York City is preparing to sue Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s administration over its taxpayer-funded supermarket initiative, with legal action potentially coming as soon as this week, the NY Post reports.

The Multicultural Business Coalition, an umbrella organization made up of 50 chambers of commerce representing businesses from a wide range of ethnic communities, made one final attempt Wednesday to bring City Hall to the negotiating table before proceeding with litigation.

“Although we have not heard from you since May 2026, we are open to resolving this matter amicably with more sensible solutions to feed working class people with nutritious essential food items at affordable prices,” coalition president Kenneth Roldan wrote in a letter to the administration.

Roldan said Wednesday that attorneys are still deciding whether to bring the challenge in state court, federal court, or pursue cases in both jurisdictions.

“We are at the 11th hour — we have multiple versions of the lawsuits that have been prepared,” Roldan said. “The federal case will be based on antitrust and predatory pricing. The state cause of action will be tortuous interference and possibly discriminatory practices by the administration.”

The coalition represents businesses owned by members of New York’s Asian, African, Caribbean, Hispanic, Middle Eastern and Jewish communities. According to Roldan, the organization has repeatedly attempted to secure meetings with City Hall since May but has been turned away.

The escalating legal threat comes as the Mamdani administration moves ahead with plans for five government-owned supermarkets at an estimated taxpayer cost of $70 million. The city recently issued a request for proposals seeking operators for the stores, with bids due by Oct. 16.

In its letter, the coalition argued that the request for proposals “demonstrates a lack of understanding of the supermarket industry and raises questions about the efficacy of the plan.”

The group also warned that subsidized city-owned supermarkets “could paralyze their operations, reduce their slim profit margins or even force some out of business entirely.”

Mark Jaffe, the coalition’s legal counsel and president of the Greater New York Chamber of Commerce, said business owners would still prefer negotiations over a courtroom battle.

“We are asking the mayor to avoid litigation to sit down with us,” Jaffe said. “But we have to try to stop this if they won’t listen to us.”

Under the city’s proposal, private grocery operators would be selected to manage the five supermarkets. Because the stores would operate in government-owned properties, they would not face the rent and tax expenses borne by competing privately owned supermarkets.

The operators would also be required to offer a 30% discount on staple foods, including produce, meat, milk, cheese and bread.

City Hall estimates that the program could reduce participating shoppers’ grocery expenses by approximately $90 per month, or about $1,000 annually, amounting to an overall savings of roughly 15% on their grocery bills.

Nearly $40 million has already been designated for the first two planned locations, one in Harlem and another at Hunts Point in the Bronx. Locations have not yet been finalized for the remaining three supermarkets.

Opponents have raised particular concerns about the impact on existing stores located close to the proposed government-subsidized supermarkets. Roughly 15 bodegas and grocery stores currently operate within five blocks of La Marqueta in East Harlem, one of the areas involved in the initiative.

A Food Bazaar supermarket, meanwhile, sits directly across the street from one of the proposed subsidized locations — a situation critics say illustrates the competitive disadvantage private businesses could face.

“How can a Food Bazaar right across the street from La Marqueta not be affected by such discounts?” Jaffe said.

{Matzav.com}

Mossad chief Roman Gofman held a rare high-level conversation with Syrian Foreign Minister Asaad al-Shaibani just days before Israel launched airstrikes against a Syrian airbase, reportedly warning Damascus about Israel’s concerns over an expanding Turkish military presence in the country.

The phone conversation took place on August 14, Reuters reported Wednesday, citing three people familiar with the matter. Several days later, Israel struck the Abu al-Duhur airbase in the eastern Idlib countryside amid concerns that Turkish forces were preparing to establish a presence there.

The reported discussion between Gofman and al-Shaibani represents one of the most senior direct contacts known to have taken place between Israeli officials and Syria’s new government since Bashar al-Assad’s regime collapsed in December 2024.

The Prime Minister’s Office, which responds publicly on matters involving the Mossad, confirmed Tuesday evening that Israel’s strikes were driven by security concerns surrounding the prospective Turkish deployment.

“Israel and Syria agreed to a status quo in security matters, which Syria was on the verge of breaching by permitting Turkish troops to deploy at an airbase near Aleppo,” the Prime Minister’s Office said.

“Israel repeatedly warned Syria that such a deployment would pose a threat to Israel’s security. Syria chose to ignore these warnings. Israel will not tolerate threats to its security, and would welcome a return to the status quo,” the statement added.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu addressed the issue Wednesday, publicly warning that Israel will not accept a Turkish military deployment in Syria that it considers a threat to Israeli security.

“We will not tolerate a Turkish military presence in Syria that threatens Israel. We made the message clear: Don’t. Apparently, they didn’t hear it clearly enough, so we made sure they understood it better,” he said.

According to reports in Arab media, four airstrikes targeted the runway at Abu al-Duhur early Tuesday morning. The reports did not identify the aircraft responsible but said the attack caused damage to the runway. No injuries were reported.

The tensions surrounding Turkey’s presence in Syria come as Israel continues to closely monitor military developments across its northern frontier and warns against the establishment of forces it views as potentially hostile.

On Wednesday, IDF Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Eyal Zamir visited the 210th Division and toured the Israeli security zone in southern Syria, where he warned that the military is closely following changes taking place across the Syrian front.

“We see what is happening and are monitoring the changes on the Syrian front – we must prepare for them accordingly. We will not allow hostile forces to establish themselves on our borders, and we will know how to use our operational capabilities precisely where and when needed,” Zamir said.

The IDF, Zamir added, must simultaneously prevent terrorist organizations from developing infrastructure near Israel and stop the emergence of a substantial conventional military threat along the border.

“We must prevent the development of terrorist threats, while also preventing the formation of a significant military threat on our borders,” he said.

Zamir cautioned that Israel continues to face threats on numerous fronts and that the military must remain prepared for a sudden deterioration in any one of them.

“We are still in a multi-front war, alert and operating in all arenas – escalation can develop in any one of them, and we must remain in constant readiness for that,” the Chief of Staff said.

During the visit, Zamir also expressed appreciation for the soldiers of the 210th Division and the reservists serving in the area, many of whom have accumulated hundreds of days of reserve duty since the war began.

“The entire people of Israel are deeply indebted to you,” Zamir concluded.

The possibility of a historic breakup within United Torah Judaism is being taken increasingly seriously, with senior Agudas Yisroel figures quietly examining whether the Chassidic party could cross the electoral threshold on its own if Degel HaTorah follows through on plans to run separately in the upcoming election.

Against that backdrop, Shlomei Emunim chairman MK Meir Porush and Bnei Brak Mayor Chanoch Zeibert, a senior Gerer representative who also serves as secretary-general of Agudas Yisroel, held a lengthy and highly significant meeting this week after an extended period of strained relations, according to a report by Kikar HaShabbat.

The meeting came as Degel HaTorah is reportedly giving serious consideration to separating from Agudas Yisroel for the upcoming election, not merely as a negotiating tactic but because of fundamental disagreements over the draft issue and the future political direction of the Chareidi parties.

Relations inside Agudas Yisroel have themselves long been marked by deep tensions, particularly between Porush and Ger. Those differences have traditionally been temporarily set aside before national elections, producing what amounts to an uneasy truce until the campaign is over.

According to the report, the latest meeting between Porush and Zeibert was initiated by Ger and took place in a Chareidi-majority city. The two sat together for several hours.

A major portion of the discussion centered on Degel HaTorah’s potential departure and whether Agudas Yisroel could realistically survive electorally without the Litvish party.

Such a campaign would likely require an unprecedented mobilization of the Chassidic electorate, including communities and individual Chassidim who traditionally do not vote. Agudas Yisroel would need those voters to rally behind the party in order to demonstrate the Chassidic community’s true electoral strength and ensure that the party clears the threshold.

A senior Agudas Yisroel official described the Porush-Zeibert meeting as extraordinary given the hostility that has developed between their respective camps.

“The meeting is dramatic, since the gaps between the two warring sides are only growing all the time, especially in light of the draft law. The sides despise each other, and the fact that they met is already an important statement,” the official said.

He said Porush continues to harbor serious grievances over Ger’s conduct in recent years, including its actions during municipal elections and its approach to the draft controversy.

“What Ger has done in recent years, both regarding the municipal elections and regarding the draft, are serious and unacceptable events from Porush’s perspective, and therefore the very fact that he agreed to meet with Ger and give legitimacy to running with them, instead of joining Degel HaTorah, shows the matter-of-fact approach he is taking in the story with Ger,” the official said.

Despite the discussions, the official said there remains considerable skepticism that Degel HaTorah would actually leave Agudas Yisroel to fight for its political survival alone.

“According to what I know, no one thinks that Degel HaTorah will leave the Chassidim to contend with the electoral threshold alone, because then Chareidi Jewry would certainly lose at least three mandates and perhaps even seven,” he said. “At the meeting, the sides tried to understand whether the move is realistic at all and with whom they have a chance to unite in order to safely cross the electoral threshold. The issue of establishing the Tzeva Shachor party and the rumors that those promoting the issue are Gerer Chassidim also came up at the meeting.”

Still, the series of private meetings and political briefings surrounding the issue has led senior figures to believe that this year’s threatened split is considerably more serious than previous attempts by Degel HaTorah to improve its bargaining position within United Torah Judaism, such as demands for the chairmanship or additional realistic slots on the electoral slate.

Degel HaTorah leaders are closely watching developments inside Agudas Yisroel and have reportedly reached the conclusion that if they can establish with sufficient confidence that the Litvish party can cross the electoral threshold without Chassidic support, they are prepared to take the dramatic step of running independently.

Supporters of the idea point to Degel HaTorah’s success in running separately in several municipal contests as evidence that the strategy could also succeed nationally.

The Litvish desire for an independent slate is not new. A similar split nearly occurred before the previous national election but was ultimately stopped by Rav Gershon Edelstein zt”l, who was concerned that Agudas Yisroel might fail to cross the electoral threshold independently.

That same concern remains before the Gedolei Yisroel today as they consider whether the risks of dividing the longtime alliance outweigh the political and ideological benefits of independence.

Adding to the indications that the situation is unusually serious, no election-related meeting has yet been held between Degel HaTorah and Agudas Yisroel, according to the report. That is considered highly unusual this close to an election and differs sharply from previous campaigns.

Sources from both factions reportedly acknowledged privately that preparations for a possible separate run are being examined even as the parties continue to project an image of unity publicly.

A senior Degel HaTorah official said the party has considered going alone numerous times in the past, primarily because Litvish leaders believe their community deserves greater representation based on the number of votes it contributes to United Torah Judaism.

“Until today, there were many times when we intended to run alone, for a variety of good reasons, most of which stem from the desire to receive genuine representation for our public,” the official said.

He argued that Degel HaTorah accounts for more than half of United Torah Judaism’s actual voters and claimed its internal election data supports that conclusion.

“Understand,” he said, “we know that we bring more than fifty percent of the votes to United Torah Judaism. These are numbers that we have in our election headquarters. It is not only that we are larger than the Chassidim; there is also an open secret that everyone knows but does not talk about — many, many people in the smaller Chassidic groups simply do not go to vote, ignore the instructions of the rabbonim, and their Rebbes also do not push them to vote. With us the situation is different. Most — an absolute majority — fulfill ‘V’asisa k’chol asher yorucha’ and go out in huge numbers to vote. In Election Day numbers, we are much larger than the Chassidim.”

This time, however, the official said electoral representation is not the primary force behind the possible separation.

“But this time that is not our trigger for separating,” he said. “For close to a decade, we have been conducting an enormous battle over the draft law. Eight years ago, there was a good draft law offered to us that was acceptable to all of our Gedolei Yisroel, but the problem was that several important rabbonim from the Chassidic sector came along, opposed the law and caused everyone to become more extreme.”

The Degel official argued that following Agudas Yisroel’s more uncompromising elements ultimately proved to be a strategic mistake.

“We were swept along after the extremist elements of Agudas Yisroel, and when looking at it from a long-term perspective, we made a major mistake,” he said. “In the next Knesset, we want to end the draft saga. That is our first goal, and if we are again with Agudas Yisroel, we could once again get into this complication that we do not want and are not interested in.”

He added that Degel HaTorah wants to return to a more traditional style of Chareidi political bargaining, in which its support is determined primarily by what a prospective coalition offers the Chareidi community rather than automatic allegiance to a particular political bloc.

“We have also decided to return to the good old Chareidi politics and no longer take into account considerations of the right-wing bloc or small interests involving Meron and so forth,” he said. “We want to return to conducting politics based on what benefits us. Whoever gives us what we need, we will go with them. Beyond that, we will no longer make other calculations.”

Even the Degel official acknowledged, however, that the final decision has not yet been made and that the danger of losing Chassidic votes could ultimately prevent an independent campaign.

“I don’t know whether this time we will really run alone — because in the end we could lose mandates from the Chassidic public,” he said.

But he revealed that one major structural change has apparently already been decided regardless of whether the parties contest the election together.

“What is clear, and has already been finalized with all the parties, is that immediately after the elections we will separate into two official factions. We will no longer be together.”

{Matzav.com}

A new New York City report finding no significant improvement in Manhattan air quality since congestion pricing took effect is giving fresh ammunition to opponents of the controversial $9 toll, who say the findings prove the program was designed primarily to raise money for mass transit rather than reduce pollution.

The Department of Health analysis found that despite an 11% decline in vehicle trips into Manhattan’s congestion zone compared with the period before the toll began, the reduction in traffic did not produce a measurable improvement in air quality south of 60th Street.

“Did congestion pricing affect air quality in the congestion relief zone? No,” the report said.

Kathryn Freed, a Lower East Side resident and member of New Yorkers Against Congestion Pricing Tax, which sued the Metropolitan Transportation Authority in an effort to stop the program, said the findings undermine one of the arguments made by toll supporters.

“There hasn’t been any change. Supporters said there would be less pollution if traffic went down in Manhattan. Apparently there’s no environmental benefit at all,” said Freed, a former state judge and councilwoman.

“How can they say traffic went down but not air pollution?”

The findings also contrast with claims made earlier this year by Gov. Kathy Hochul. At a January press conference, Hochul credited congestion pricing with environmental improvements, declaring that “pollution is down more than 20% in one year” because of congestion pricing.

Hochul initially put the congestion pricing program on hold in 2024 before approving its implementation following the November election. The toll ultimately took effect in January 2025 despite lawsuits challenging the plan and opposition from President Trump.

For business owners who regularly drive into the congestion zone, the new findings have renewed anger over the additional expense.

“It was all bullsh-t. It was to put money in the MTA’s pocket,” said Vinnie DiMino, owner of the Sea Breeze Fish Market on Ninth Avenue near the Lincoln Tunnel.

“The report just proved it wasn’t about air pollution. It was all about transit. It’s all a lie – the Democratic politicians lie.”

DiMino said the toll has imposed a substantial daily cost on his business because of the deliveries he makes throughout the area.

“I feel like I have been robbed. It cost me $50-$60 a day to go back and forth, in and out of the [congestion] zone for deliveries. They are killing us.”

The financial burden is scheduled to increase in the coming years, with the congestion toll set to climb to $12 in 2028 and then to $15 in 2031.

Manhattan resident Jill Bowman, who drives several times each week to Brooklyn and New Jersey, similarly questioned the justification for continuing the program.

“We know it’s bullish-t but we can’t do anything about it.

“It’s not about saving lives. It’s about making money,” she said.

Alex Pichado, who has driven for Uber for a decade, said the lack of measurable improvement should prompt officials to reconsider the toll.

“If there is no change [in air pollution], they should stop it. There is no reason to continue with it.”

The Health Department’s findings extended beyond Manhattan. The report concluded that “pollution levels were not significantly different because of congestion pricing” in designated environmental justice communities outside the congestion zone, including parts of the South Bronx.

Supporters of the toll argue that the finding is significant for a different reason. Before congestion pricing began, critics warned that motorists attempting to avoid the charge could reroute through surrounding neighborhoods and create new pollution hot spots.

A separate report released in March had claimed that air pollution worsened in some Bronx neighborhoods following the launch of congestion pricing.

“Opponents of congestion pricing said there would be hotspots for increased pollution. That has not happened,” said John Kaehny, executive director of Reinvent Albany, a watchdog organization that supports mass transit.

Reinvent Albany backed congestion pricing as a way to reduce traffic and generate funding for the MTA, but Kaehny said his organization did not promote major air-quality improvements as a central justification for the toll.

The city report noted that motor vehicles account for only about 14% of particulate matter emissions and approximately 20% of nitric oxide emissions in the atmosphere, limiting how much a reduction in traffic alone could affect overall pollution.

“That congestion pricing would only have a small impact on air quality is consistent” with earlier environmental impact assessments examining the likely effects of the program, the report said.

“Whoever was hyping the air pollution was wrong from the beginning,” Kaehny said.

Opponents in New York City’s outer boroughs remained unconvinced. Staten Island Borough President Vito Fossella, who is among the plaintiffs challenging congestion pricing in court, pointed to increased truck traffic on Staten Island and questioned how that could occur without affecting pollution levels.

“The report reaffirms that congestion pricing was nothing but a money grab. Just come out and say it,” he said.

The MTA, however, rejected the argument that the findings represent a failure for congestion pricing. The agency, which administers the toll and uses its revenue to finance transit improvements, said the study demonstrates that fears of pollution being shifted into other neighborhoods have not materialized.

“Before we turned the cameras on, there was concern about the potential for increased pollution caused by drivers looking to avoid the toll,” MTA Chair and CEO Janno Lieber said in a statement about the city report.

“As this study confirms, that didn’t happen, and congestion pricing is already funding additional investments to further improve air quality.”