Feed aggregator

Reb Shuey Englard z”l

Matzav -

[Levayah broadcast below.] It is with great sadness that Matzav.com reports the passing of Reb Shuey Englard z”l of Lakewood, who was niftar following an illness. He was 50 years old.

Reb Shuey was an exceptionally sweet and gentle Yid, a warmhearted person whose kindness and pleasant demeanor endeared him to all who knew him. A friend to everyone, he possessed a natural warmth and goodness that left an impression on those fortunate to cross his path.

In his youth, Reb Shuey learned at Yeshiva Torah Temimah in Brooklyn, where he spent his formative years immersed in Torah.

Throughout his life, Reb Shuey was distinguished by his kindheartedness and gentle nature. He treated others with warmth and respect, and his friendly disposition made people feel comfortable in his presence. His passing leaves his family, friends and the wider Lakewood community deeply bereaved.

Reb Shuey is survived by his wife, Rivky, and their family.

The levayah is being held now at Arlington Shul, located at 501 Arlington Avenue in Lakewood.

Yehi zichro boruch.

WATCH THE LEVAYAH:

{Matzav.com}

Senate Blocks Landmark Crypto Bill in Major Defeat for Industry

Matzav -

WASHINGTON — A sweeping cryptocurrency bill that had been one of the digital-asset industry’s biggest priorities in Washington collapsed in the Senate on Tuesday, after lawmakers failed to muster the 60 votes needed to advance the legislation.

The Senate voted 49-50 against moving forward with the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act, effectively putting the legislation on ice as Congress prepares to leave Washington ahead of November’s midterm elections. The defeat marked a major setback for an industry that has spent hundreds of millions of dollars on lobbying and political campaigns while pressing Congress to establish a comprehensive federal regulatory system for digital assets.

The Clarity Act was designed to establish clearer rules governing the roughly $2.3 trillion cryptocurrency market, including defining the respective roles of the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. Supporters said the legislation would end years of regulatory uncertainty and give crypto companies firmer legal ground on which to operate in the United States.

The measure had already passed the House last year, but negotiations repeatedly stalled in the Senate over a series of contentious issues, including regulation of stablecoin rewards, protections for software developers and ethics provisions governing public officials with financial interests in cryptocurrency.

Republicans had hoped that a revised version unveiled over the weekend would attract enough Democratic support to clear Tuesday’s procedural hurdle. The new draft included 126 substantive changes requested by Democrats, according to its Republican authors.

President Donald Trump had also agreed to new ethics restrictions as part of an effort to help move the legislation forward. The revised language would impose limits on crypto-related activities by elected federal officials, other government officials and their spouses and would give state attorneys general a role in enforcing conflict-of-interest provisions.

But the changes failed to win over enough Democrats, many of whom argued that the ethics provisions did not go far enough to address concerns surrounding Trump’s own cryptocurrency interests and those of his family.

Trump’s financial involvement in the industry became one of the central obstacles during months of negotiations. His family has interests in World Liberty Financial, and Trump has also been associated with a meme coin. Democrats argued that any major rewrite of federal cryptocurrency law needed stronger provisions preventing a sitting president from financially benefiting from digital assets while simultaneously overseeing the federal agencies responsible for regulating them.

Republicans countered that the revised bill incorporated substantial concessions on ethics and accused Democrats of allowing political disagreements involving Trump to derail legislation intended to establish rules for an increasingly important financial sector.

Sen. Cynthia Lummis (R-Wyo.), one of the leading architects of the legislation, had urged senators before the vote to seize what she described as a rare opportunity to enact comprehensive crypto regulations.

“The Clarity Act is right in front of us and this moment won’t come along again for years,” Lummis wrote ahead of the vote. “Let’s take the win and get this done.”

Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) also made the case for the legislation Tuesday, arguing that the federal government needed to provide clear rules for digital assets while ensuring that cryptocurrency innovation remained in the United States.

Thune said the legislation would distinguish between the regulatory responsibilities of the SEC and CFTC while requiring the agencies to coordinate their rules. He also argued that the measure would prevent digital-asset companies from evading securities laws applicable to other financial products.

Democrats remained unconvinced, particularly over the ethics language. Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.) said Monday that while negotiators had made some progress, the changes were insufficient.

“There’s been some movement. I don’t think the ethics provision is near enough,” Warner said. “And again, it’s frustrating because we’ve had these same three issues outstanding for six, eight weeks, and why this couldn’t have been dealt with earlier? I’m really concerned.”

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and other Democrats also argued that the revised enforcement mechanism remained too weak. Democratic Senate Banking Committee staff contended that the language would still leave the Justice Department with significant control over whether ethics restrictions involving the president were enforced.

The dispute over stablecoins created another obstacle. Banks have warned that allowing crypto companies to offer rewards tied to stablecoin holdings could pull deposits out of traditional financial institutions, potentially reducing the money available for community lending. Crypto companies have argued that excessively restricting those rewards would protect banks from competition and hinder financial innovation.

The latest compromise would have authorized the Treasury secretary to temporarily restrict stablecoin rewards if payment stablecoins caused significant deposit outflows from community banks. The proposed “circuit breaker” could remain in place for up to 18 months after enactment.

The legislation also became entangled in a fight over legal protections for developers of decentralized crypto software. Industry advocates wanted stronger safeguards to prevent developers who do not control users’ funds from being prosecuted as money transmitters. Some of those protections were weakened in the final Senate draft, drawing criticism from portions of the crypto industry itself.

Tuesday’s defeat is especially significant because of the rapidly shrinking congressional calendar. Congress is preparing to leave Washington as lawmakers turn their attention to the Nov. 3 midterm elections, leaving little time to restart negotiations and assemble another bipartisan coalition. Reuters reported that the vote effectively leaves the legislation with little prospect of revival in the immediate future.

The result also represents a dramatic reversal for an industry that entered the current Congress expecting major legislative victories. Crypto companies and executives have poured enormous sums into political activity in recent election cycles, backing candidates they considered supportive of digital assets and seeking a more favorable regulatory environment in Washington.

The industry did score a significant victory last year with enactment of the GENIUS Act, which established federal rules governing stablecoins. Crypto advocates viewed the Clarity Act as the next and far more ambitious step: creating a broader framework governing the trading and regulation of digital assets throughout the United States.

Tuesday’s Senate vote does not prevent federal regulators from continuing to develop cryptocurrency rules on their own. The SEC and CFTC have both been pursuing regulatory changes affecting digital assets. But industry officials have argued that legislation passed by Congress would provide greater permanence and certainty than regulations that could be altered by future administrations.

The failed vote was also felt in financial markets. Bitcoin had already fallen below $77,000 ahead of the Senate action, while shares of major crypto-related companies including Coinbase, Strategy and Robinhood declined as investors anticipated the possibility that the bill would fail.

With Tuesday’s vote, the crypto industry’s long-running effort to secure a comprehensive federal market structure law now faces an uncertain future — and, with Congress rapidly running out of legislative days before the midterms, another attempt may have to wait until a new Congress convenes.

Massie Moves to Impeach Hegseth Over Iran War, Setting Up House Showdown

Matzav -

Rep. Thomas Massie introduced articles of impeachment against Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on Tuesday, accusing him of carrying out military operations against Iran without congressional authorization and setting in motion a procedure that could force the House to vote on the measure within days.

Massie (R-Ky.) made the unexpected move on the House floor, arguing that Hegseth violated the War Powers Resolution of 1973 by continuing U.S. military involvement in the Iran conflict without the approval of Congress.

“Peter Brian Hegseth, in his capacity as Secretary of Defense has executed unlawful orders in contravention of Section 2(c) of the War Powers Resolution of 1973,” Massie declared.

“Secretary of Defense Peter Hegseth, by such conduct, has demonstrated that he will remain a threat to the Constitution if allowed to remain in office, and has acted in a manner grossly incompatible with his duties and the rule of law.”

Massie introduced the impeachment measure as a privileged resolution, a procedural designation that requires the House to act on it within two legislative days. Republican leaders could seek to table the resolution rather than hold a direct up-or-down vote on impeachment.

The Kentucky Republican, 55, is serving his final months in Congress after losing his May primary to Ed Gallrein, a Trump-backed challenger. His latest action thrusts the long-running debate over presidential war powers back onto the House floor just weeks before the November midterm elections.

Although Republicans currently control both chambers of Congress, lawmakers in both the House and Senate have passed measures this year calling for an end to U.S. hostilities against Iran without congressional authorization. Massie himself voted in May for a House resolution directing President Donald Trump to remove U.S. forces from hostilities against Iran.

The war began Feb. 28. The Trump administration has maintained that the initial phase of hostilities ended and that subsequent military operations constituted a new phase, an argument with implications for the War Powers Resolution’s time limits. Massie and other critics dispute the administration’s interpretation and contend that Congress must authorize continued hostilities.

President Trump has meanwhile sought an agreement with Tehran that would end the conflict, address Iran’s nuclear program and restore normal passage through the Strait of Hormuz. In recent days, Trump has said Iran is interested in negotiating and has indicated that he expects the war eventually to end.

Massie, a libertarian-leaning Republican, has repeatedly broken with the Trump administration and Republican leadership on foreign policy and other issues. He has been a persistent critic of the Iran war and has also clashed with the administration over the release of federal files relating to Jeffrey Epstein.

The Pentagon responded to Massie’s impeachment effort by defending Hegseth’s record in office, though its statement did not directly address Massie’s legal argument that continued military action in Iran violated the War Powers Resolution.

“Secretary Hegseth has been a transformative leader for the Department of War. Standards and merit are back, our arsenal is stronger than ever before, and morale and recruitment across every service are at all-time highs,” Pentagon Press Secretary Kingsley Wilson said in a statement.

“Secretary Hegseth has slashed bureaucracy, unleashed innovation, and delivered for our warfighters every step of the way. By every measurable metric, the Department of War is better under President Trump and Secretary Hegseth’s leadership than before. The entire Department is unified behind the Secretary’s vision and will continue working to put our warfighters and America first.”

Massie’s effort is not the first attempt this year to remove Hegseth. Democratic Rep. Yassamin Ansari of Arizona introduced a separate impeachment resolution in April that included allegations concerning the Iran conflict along with other accusations against the defense secretary. The Pentagon rejected those charges at the time.

Massie’s new resolution differs in one important procedural respect: by introducing it as privileged, he can compel the House to address it rather than allowing leadership to leave it pending indefinitely.

Republican leaders can still move to table the resolution, which would effectively kill the impeachment effort without requiring lawmakers to vote directly on whether Hegseth should be removed. The House is expected to confront the resolution later this week.

Judge Blocks Trump Name From Kennedy Center Again as Board Warns Venue Faces Financial Crisis

Matzav -

A federal judge ruled Tuesday that President Donald Trump’s name cannot be restored to the Kennedy Center, dealing another setback to the institution’s board as it pushes to recognize the President for his role in a planned renovation of the Washington performing arts complex.

U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper said the Kennedy Center’s trustees do not have the legal authority to place Trump’s name on the building or designate the surrounding grounds as “President Donald J. Trump Plaza” without approval from Congress.

“Simply put, defendants cannot install memorials for President Trump or anyone or anything else at the Kennedy Center without Congress’s blessing,” Cooper wrote.

The decision is the latest development in a months-long court battle over the iconic arts center, whose official name — the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts — is established by federal law.

The controversy began after Trump reshaped the Kennedy Center’s leadership following his return to the White House. The newly constituted board elected Trump its chairman and, in December 2025, voted to rename the institution the “Donald J. Trump and John F. Kennedy Memorial Center for the Performing Arts.” Trump’s name was subsequently installed on the building’s facade.

Rep. Joyce Beatty (D-Ohio), who serves on the Kennedy Center board by virtue of her congressional position, challenged the action in federal court. She argued that the trustees had exceeded their authority because Congress had established the Kennedy Center as a memorial to President John F. Kennedy and had not authorized the board to rename it.

Cooper agreed in a May ruling, ordering Trump’s name removed from the building and restoring the institution’s original name. He also blocked plans at the time for a two-year closure of the complex for renovations. Trump’s name was physically taken down from the facade in June.

The Kennedy Center appealed, but a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit refused in July to allow Trump’s name to be restored while that appeal proceeded.

The dispute flared again in August when the Kennedy Center board voted 20-3 to pursue new signage reading “The John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts Restored and Renovated by President Donald J. Trump.” The board also sought to name the grounds “President Donald J. Trump Plaza.”

Beatty’s attorneys immediately objected, arguing that the new language was an attempt to circumvent Cooper’s earlier order rather than comply with it.

“This morning’s decision to close the Center and the surprise agenda item to put Donald Trump’s name back on the building was more of the same,” Beatty said after the August vote.

“This latest development is a transparent effort to circumvent the Court’s ruling, and flies in the face of the statutes that Congress passed,” she said. “I will continue to fight for this treasured national monument.”

Tuesday’s ruling made clear that changing the wording surrounding Trump’s name does not resolve the underlying legal problem. Cooper concluded that the statutory restrictions governing the Kennedy Center prevent its board from creating additional presidential memorials on the property without congressional authorization.

The ruling came as the Kennedy Center board was preparing to meet Tuesday to consider whether the building should be shut down for approximately two years for extensive renovations.

Kennedy Center officials say the aging complex is suffering from serious structural and maintenance problems that require major work. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick recently publicized video and photographs showing plaster falling from a ceiling inside the building as the administration made its case for substantial repairs.

The board has also warned of severe financial problems at the Kennedy Center. According to material reviewed by Reuters, officials have argued that Trump’s continued involvement — including his ability to attract federal support and private donations for a renovation — could be crucial to the institution’s financial survival.

The Kennedy Center has experienced declining revenue and programming disruptions amid the prolonged controversy surrounding its leadership and rebranding. A number of performers and organizations canceled appearances following the original decision to add Trump’s name to the institution, while the Washington National Opera ended its decades-long association with the center.

The administration and Kennedy Center officials have argued that a major renovation is necessary because of deteriorating conditions in the building. Opponents have separately challenged both the scope of the proposed closure and attempts to tie Trump’s name to the renovation.

The Justice Department indicated that Tuesday’s Kennedy Center board meeting would focus on what officials described as emergency structural issues rather than another attempt to restore Trump’s name.

The legal fight nevertheless remains unresolved. The Kennedy Center continues to appeal Cooper’s earlier decision, but unless that ruling is overturned or Congress acts, Trump’s name must remain off the Kennedy Center’s facade.

For now, Cooper’s ruling leaves the statutory name unchanged: the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts.

Trump Blasts Supreme Court Over Mail Ballot Ruling: ‘The Supreme Court Has Really Let Our Country Down!’

Matzav -

President Donald Trump sharply criticized the Supreme Court on Tuesday after the justices refused to allow his administration’s new restrictions on mail ballots to take effect ahead of the November midterm elections, calling the ruling “a big loss for Republicans, and America itself.” The decision leaves existing state mail-voting procedures in place for an election in which control of Congress is at stake.

The President’s criticism came a day after the Supreme Court rejected the administration’s request to stay a lower-court injunction blocking a new U.S. Postal Service rule governing the handling of mail ballots. Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas dissented from the decision.

“Republicans just got another bad decision from the United States Supreme Court,” Trump wrote in a lengthy Truth Social post, calling mail-in voting a “disaster” and alleging the ruling would make cheating easier for Democrats.

“The Supreme Court has really let our Country down!” Trump added.

The Supreme Court’s order means that states will be able to proceed with their existing mail-ballot systems during the midterms rather than implementing the new federal requirements. Mail voting has become a significant part of American elections, accounting for nearly one-third of ballots cast nationally.

Under the Trump administration’s plan, states would have been required to comply with new standards for ballot envelopes, including voter-specific barcodes, and provide voter information through a new online portal.

The rule would also have permitted the Postal Service to refuse to deliver ballots from jurisdictions that failed to meet the new requirements.

States and voting-rights organizations went to court to block the regulations, contending that the administration had exceeded its legal authority. They also argued that imposing sweeping new procedures with the election approaching could disrupt mail voting and result in legitimate ballots not being delivered.

Federal courts agreed to halt implementation. U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani in Massachusetts issued a preliminary injunction, and U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols in Washington subsequently entered a similar order blocking the rule.

Alito, joined by Thomas, concluded that the administration had satisfied the legal standard required for a stay and argued that the lower-court injunction should not have been allowed to remain in force.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh agreed that implementing the regulations so close to the midterm elections would be problematic, but indicated that the administration might ultimately have a stronger case once the immediate election-related concerns were no longer at issue.

Trump praised Alito and Thomas in his response to the decision, describing the two justices as “legends” who “strongly disagreed” with the court’s action.

The President went beyond the mail-ballot case in his criticism, pointing to other major Supreme Court disputes involving his administration, including cases concerning tariffs and birthright citizenship.

Trump also accused some members of the court of allowing themselves to be intimidated by Democrats, arguing that a series of decisions by the justices would inflict lasting harm on the United States.

The President acknowledged that publicly criticizing the Supreme Court was not a step he took lightly, but said his position as president required him to speak out when he believed the court had acted wrongly.

“It is not easy for me to write this criticism of the United States Supreme Court,” Trump wrote, adding that he nevertheless felt it was his “obligation and duty, as President,” to do so.

The Supreme Court had previously handed the administration a procedural victory in the same broader fight. In August, the justices allowed the Postal Service to move ahead with developing a mail-ballot regulation, while explicitly leaving open the question of whether whatever final rule emerged would ultimately be lawful.

Pages

Subscribe to NativUSA Portal aggregator