Feed aggregator

Former White House press secretary Ari Fleischer sharply challenged Vice President JD Vance on Wednesday over the reasons behind Republicans’ midterm election losses, arguing that the political damage came not from President Donald Trump’s decision to attack Iran, but from Washington’s failure to finish the military campaign and secure a decisive victory.

Fleischer, who served as press secretary under President George W. Bush, took issue with Vance’s assertion that the Iran war had contributed significantly to Republican defeats in Tuesday’s congressional elections. He maintained that the administration’s decision to agree to a ceasefire before achieving its objectives had prolonged the conflict’s economic and political consequences.

“The problem was not the Iran War. It was the cease fire,” Fleischer wrote on social media, directly challenging the vice president’s assessment.

“If you start a war, you need to win it and finish it – otherwise don’t start it,” he added.

According to Fleischer, American forces should have continued their offensive until Iran’s ruling regime was sufficiently weakened to collapse. He argued that a decisive military victory six months earlier could have reopened the Strait of Hormuz, restored international oil shipments and prevented the prolonged instability that has weighed on the American economy.

Although Fleischer defended Trump’s original decision to use military force against Tehran, he criticized the administration for suspending operations without eliminating the threat posed by Iran’s leadership.

“Once the decision was made, we should not have stopped until the regime fell,” Fleischer wrote.

He also contended that the unfinished campaign had left American troops deployed in the region while energy prices remained elevated, creating precisely the kind of economic pressures and foreign-policy uncertainty that could hurt Republicans at the ballot box.

Vance, however, offered a substantially different explanation for the election results, pointing to public frustration with the war itself and its consequences for American households.

“The reason we lost is the war. The president himself said so last night,” Vance wrote on social media.

The vice president referred to polling of voters who backed Trump in the 2024 presidential election but supported Democratic candidates in 2026. According to Vance, those voters identified ending the Iran conflict, reducing inflation, putting American interests first and reconsidering Washington’s relationship with Israel among their leading priorities.

Trump, questioned Wednesday about his vice president’s remarks, indicated that he agreed with Vance’s assessment while insisting that the military operation had been essential to American national security.

“I thought it was good. I knew that when I went in. We stopped them from having a nuclear weapon, and they’ll never have a nuclear weapon,” Trump said.

The president also defended his original decision to authorize strikes against Iran, saying he would make the same choice again despite the political fallout.

“If I had it to do again, I’d have to do it again, because long term it’s the only answer. You can’t let Iran have a nuclear weapon.”

{Matzav.com}

A senior member of Shas’s rabbinic leadership has expressed support for a possible unity government bringing together Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and former IDF Chief of Staff Gadi Eisenkot, even indicating that he would accept an agreement allowing Eisenkot to serve as prime minister on a rotating basis. However, he made clear that Shas’s participation would depend on legislation protecting yeshiva bochurim from military enlistment requirements.

Rav Moshe Maya, a prominent member of the Shas Moetzes Chachmei HaTorah, outlined his position in recordings obtained by i24NEWS, offering a potential framework for a broad coalition amid negotiations over the formation of Israel’s next government.

According to the recordings, Rav Maya favors an arrangement that would bring Eisenkot into a government alongside Likud, the chareidi parties and Bezalel Smotrich’s Religious Zionism faction.

הקלטות הרב הבכיר מש"ס: "שתהיה ממשלת אחדות, גם ביבי וגם אייזנקוט". התנאי – "פטור ללומדי התורה, לא מכסות ולא כלום" | חשיפה של @aronkalman1#המהדורההמרכזית עם @MiriMichaeli pic.twitter.com/a1n2c8ch7A

— i24NEWS (@i24NEWS_HE) November 4, 2026

“I’m in favor of unity only with Eisenkot and Bibi: Likud, the haredim, and Smotrich,” he said.

Rav Maya also indicated that he would be prepared to support Eisenkot’s appointment to one of the government’s most powerful positions.

“Eisenkot could be appointed defense minister,” he suggested.

When questioned about whether his willingness to accommodate Eisenkot extended to a rotation arrangement with Netanyahu for the premiership, Rav Maya responded without rejecting the possibility.

“He will get a rotation deal.”

Despite his openness to a broad political agreement, Rav Maya insisted that any coalition arrangement must include an acceptable resolution to the longstanding dispute over the military draft status of yeshiva students.

“There must be nothing that threatens yeshiva students, no quotas or anything else. Without that, we’re not joining,” he said.

His comments indicated that Shas’s support for a unity government would be conditional on legislation that does not establish enlistment targets or introduce provisions threatening the continued learning of yeshiva bochurim.

Rav Maya also expressed dissatisfaction with previous legislative efforts to address the draft controversy, suggesting that successive proposals had failed to resolve the underlying issue.

“All the legislation we’ve had until now was just a way to buy time,” he added.

The recordings surfaced Wednesday as President Isaac Herzog began consultations with the parties elected to the Knesset to determine which candidate should receive the mandate to form a government.

Shas representatives visited the President’s Residence and formally recommended Netanyahu, expressing hope that he could assemble the 61-seat majority required to establish a coalition.

“We wish him success in reaching 61 seats,” the party’s representatives said.

During the meeting, Shas MK Michael Malchieli spoke about the difficulties experienced by the chareidi community over the past four years, particularly the criticism directed at yeshiva students and the Torah community amid the continuing draft controversy.

“We have been through four very difficult years, during which terrible things were said about our community. It is unacceptable for an entire segment of the Jewish people to feel this way. I call for an end to this and for the protection of those who study Torah,” Malchieli said.

When asked whether Shas would consider participating in a coalition outside Netanyahu’s traditional political bloc, its representatives did not categorically dismiss the possibility. Instead, they emphasized the importance of establishing a stable government capable of addressing Israel’s security and domestic challenges.

“We hope those on the other side will understand the threats facing us, both at home and abroad. The people of Israel want a stable government,” they responded.

Rav Maya’s comments have attracted additional attention because neither Netanyahu nor Eisenkot currently has an obvious path to a governing majority. Both leaders face difficult coalition negotiations following an election that left Israel’s political blocs without a clear 61-seat majority.

According to a separate report, Netanyahu has privately indicated that he is not completely ruling out a rotation arrangement with Eisenkot, despite the reservations expressed by senior Likud figures.

Eisenkot, however, has previously rejected serving under Netanyahu, including through a rotation agreement. His position remains a substantial obstacle to the unity arrangement proposed by Rav Maya.

In another development, Rav Maya was quoted by Mishpacha magazine as describing a Netanyahu-Eisenkot rotation government as a potentially excellent arrangement, lending further weight to his reported willingness to support such a coalition.

The discussions come at a particularly sensitive moment for Shas, which emerged from the election with six Knesset seats. Party chairman Aryeh Deri reportedly considered stepping down following the disappointing result, but members of the Moetzes Chachmei HaTorah instructed him to remain as party leader.

{Matzav.com}

Conservative radio host Sid Rosenberg launched a blistering attack on Vice President JD Vance on Wednesday, declaring that he could never support Vance for president after the vice president suggested that America’s relationship with Israel was among the issues contributing to Republican losses in Tuesday’s midterm elections.

Rosenberg, a prominent New York radio personality and outspoken supporter of President Donald Trump and Israel, accused Vance of undermining the president and taking another swipe at one of America’s closest allies at a time when Republicans were attempting to understand their election defeats.

The criticism followed a lengthy post by Vance on X in which the vice president identified four major factors he believed had contributed to the Republican Party’s poor performance. Among them were the war with Iran and concerns about America’s relationship with Israel.

“I never thought I’d see the day where President Trump would allow anyone in his administration to undermine him, but clearly that day has arrived,” Rosenberg wrote on X, directing his followers to examine Vance’s remarks.

Rosenberg was particularly angered by Vance’s decision to include Israel in his assessment of the election results, viewing the comments as another example of the vice president’s willingness to criticize America’s relationship with the Jewish state.

He described Israel as America’s “best ally in the world” and suggested that Vance’s remarks reflected a troubling approach to the U.S.-Israel alliance.

Rosenberg also referred to a previous personal encounter with Vance, saying the two had avoided discussing Israel and conservative commentator Tucker Carlson, another figure who has become a source of controversy among pro-Israel Republicans.

According to Rosenberg, neither subject came up because Vance understood that he would be unable to satisfy Rosenberg’s concerns about either issue.

The radio host concluded his criticism with an unequivocal declaration about Vance’s political future.

“Today’s tweet from the Vice President is further proof that I could never vote for this guy for President of the United States!” Rosenberg wrote.

Vance’s remarks came after Democrats won control of both chambers of Congress in Tuesday’s elections, prompting intense debate among Republicans over the causes of their defeat.

In his post, Vance said polling of voters who had supported the Trump-Vance ticket in 2024 identified four principal demands: ending the Iran war, addressing inflation and the cost of living, putting American interests first, and changing the United States’ relationship with Israel.

“The reason we lost is the war,” Vance wrote, arguing that Republican turnout had been relatively strong but that many voters who previously supported Trump had become dissatisfied with the administration’s policies.

The vice president’s position has attracted particular attention because of his growing differences with pro-Israel conservatives over the Iran conflict. Vance has advocated diplomatic efforts to end the fighting and has publicly criticized Israeli officials who opposed negotiations with Tehran.

In October, Vance also declined to endorse Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu for reelection, despite Trump’s public support for the Israeli leader. Vance said at the time that he preferred not to involve himself in Israel’s elections.

The vice president has nevertheless maintained that Israel is an important American ally. During an appearance before the Republican Jewish Coalition in Las Vegas in September, he emphasized Israel’s importance to American national security and condemned antisemitism.

Vance’s relationship with Tucker Carlson has also generated criticism from some Jewish Republicans, particularly following Carlson’s decision to provide a platform to Nick Fuentes, whose antisemitic statements have drawn widespread condemnation.

The controversy comes as Vance is widely viewed as a potential contender for the Republican presidential nomination in 2028. His foreign policy positions, particularly regarding Israel and American military involvement overseas, are emerging as points of contention within the party.

{Matzav.com}

By Rabbi Pinchos Lipschutz

We live in interesting times, and sometimes we become so immersed in what is happening that we lose sight of who we are and what really matters. We get caught up in elections, analyzing the results, debating who the real winners and losers are, and speculating about what the outcomes portend for the future. People need things to talk about, subjects to fill the empty spaces in their lives, and they become absorbed in the latest news development, the latest hock, controversy, or scandal. Before long, they can become so consumed by the events and distractions of the moment that they forget who we are, where we come from, and what we stand for.

Elections consume enormous amounts of attention. There are campaigns, personalities, predictions, victories, disappointments, maneuvering, and endless analysis. In Eretz Yisroel, the political debate touches the very foundations of Jewish life, the future of the country, and the relationship between the Torah world and the broader society. In America, as well, elections can become all-consuming, with people passionately debating the direction of the country and what the results will mean for the future.

These matters are important. They affect our lives and the lives of our children, and we cannot afford to be indifferent to what happens around us. But they are not the entirety of our lives, nor should they become the measure by which we define ourselves. The question is not only what happens today, who wins or loses, or which political forces gain ground. It is also what we are building for tomorrow, what we stand for, and what we are passing on to the generations that follow us.

That lesson is reflected in the life of Avrohom Avinu. Following the passing of Sorah Imeinu, Avrohom does not remain absorbed in the past, dwelling only on the life they shared and all they had accomplished together. After arranging for Sorah’s burial in the Me’oras Hamachpeilah, he turned his attention to the future and sent Eliezer to find a wife for Yitzchok.

Avrohom understood that what he and Sorah had begun had to be carried forward, nurtured, and strengthened by those who would follow them. Their responsibility was not merely to live lives of greatness, but to establish a legacy that would endure.

That remains our responsibility as a people. Our mission extends beyond any particular administration, election, or political contest. Governments come and go, political fortunes rise and fall, and the issues dominating the headlines today will give way to the controversies of tomorrow, but the obligations of Klal Yisroel remain. We must be mindful of the values, traditions, faith, and commitments we are transmitting to our children, and of the kind of world we are preparing them to inherit.

The posuk states, “Vayihiyu chayei Sorah,” and Rashi cites the familiar words of Chazal, “Kulon shovin letovah — All her years were equally good.” Sorah lived through upheaval, uncertainty, displacement, and enormous personal challenges. She left her birthplace and family, wandered from place to place, endured years of waiting, and experienced trials that would have overwhelmed most people. Yet her life was not defined by the turmoil surrounding her. Her identity and sense of purpose came from her relationship with Hashem, her emunah, her kedusha, the good she did, and her many accomplishments.

Sorah did not allow the circumstances of the moment to obscure the larger purpose of her life. She remained steadfast in her mission, and the years of her life were woven into one continuous tapestry of faith and devotion to Hashem. The world around her changed, circumstances shifted, and challenges arose, but her inner compass remained fixed.

That is a message we need today. We can follow the news, care about elections, debate political developments, and worry about the future of America and Eretz Yisroel. We can recognize that the decisions made by those in positions of power have consequences for our families, our communities, and our people. But we cannot allow the stream of information, speculation, and controversy to displace the things that give our lives meaning.

We cannot become so preoccupied with what is happening around us that we forget what is happening within us, what we are responsible for, and what Hashem expects of us. The study of Torah and our dedication to mitzvos are the constants of life and should be the constants of our lives.

What endures is not the commotion of the moment, but the life we build, the values we embody, and the legacy we leave behind.

Every generation has its tests. Each period presents unique challenges, and every generation tends to believe that the difficulties it faces are more formidable than anything its predecessors had to endure. The nature of the tests changes, the circumstances are different, and the pressures take new forms. Many of the challenges confronting us today involve self-control and discipline in an age of unprecedented plenty, convenience, and virtually unlimited access. The struggle is often not how to obtain what we need, but how to restrain ourselves from indulging in everything that is available.

It was not that long ago there were only a handful of wealthy individuals, and few could have imagined today’s degree of communal wealth and material comfort. Life was simpler, material expectations were more modest, and the temptations that accompany prosperity were less pervasive. People had fewer choices, fewer luxuries, and fewer opportunities to indulge themselves.

In the generation before that, our communities were largely made up of immigrants who had come to this country fleeing hunger, persecution, and death. They faced an entirely different set of challenges. Institutions of Jewish education were underdeveloped, employment opportunities for shomrei Shabbos were inadequate, and the fear of not having enough to feed one’s family was a very real concern. They were forced to make do with little, and maintaining a Torah life required much sacrifice. Only those with tremendous strength of character and faith were able to withstand the pressures and transmit their mesorah to their children. Millions were lost to assimilation, while those who remained loyal to Torah did so through courage, determination, and extraordinary mesiras nefesh.

Yet they drew the strength to persevere by looking beyond themselves and the circumstances of their generation, studying the lives of those who came before them, beginning with the avos and imahos, whose experiences, struggles, and triumphs are recorded in the Torah so that we can draw inspiration and guidance from them. Their lives are the foundation of our identity and an enduring source of strength for every generation that follows.

The posuk (Bereishis 24:22) relates that after Eliezer determined that Rivkah was the girl destined to marry Yitzchok and become one of the imahos of Klal Yisroel, he presented her with a golden nose ring weighing a beka and two golden bracelets weighing ten zohov.

Rashi explains that these gifts carried profound significance. The beka alluded to the shekolim of Klal Yisroel, about which the posuk says “beka lagulgoles.” The two bracelets represented the two Luchos, while the words “asorah zohov mishkolom” alluded to the Aseres Hadibros.

To someone observing the encounter between Eliezer and Rivkah, it appeared to be an ordinary exchange of gifts. There was a man traveling with a caravan who had found a suitable young woman and was presenting her with valuable jewelry. Nobody watching could have understood the extraordinary significance concealed in those gifts. Only through the Torah and its meforshim, with the benefit of understanding what unfolded and what was to come, can we appreciate the depth of Eliezer’s shlichus and the way he went about finding Yitzchok’s basherte.

Rivkah’s brother, Lovon, the very embodiment of deceit and chicanery, was captivated by Eliezer, the gold he had given his sister, and the impressive caravan of camels accompanying him. While Eliezer understood that he was participating in an undertaking that would shape the future of Klal Yisroel, Lovon couldn’t see past the jewelry and the wealth. Eliezer saw the mission; Lovon saw the opportunity. One perceived the hand of Hashem guiding events, while the other was preoccupied with what he could gain from them.

That contrast is not limited to Lovon. People are often so taken by what is immediately visible that they never stop to consider what may lie beneath the surface. We judge situations by what we see, measure success by what we possess, and determine whether things are going well by the circumstances confronting us at a particular moment. We see the immediate development but fail to recognize that there may be a much larger picture unfolding, one that we are not yet capable of seeing.

But as maaminim and descendants of Avrohom Avinu, we know that nothing is random, that Hashem guides our lives in particular and the world in general, and that, quite often, His plan is beyond our comprehension.

Recognizing this requires a certain kind of self-mastery as well. The yeitzer hora wants us to see only what is directly in front of us, to become consumed by the moment, and to lose sight of the larger picture. The yeitzer hora encourages impatience, resentment, and despair. Emunah teaches us to look beyond the immediate circumstances, to recognize that Hashem is directing events, and to trust that there is a purpose even when we cannot discern it.

There is always what we see and experience on the superficial level, and then there is the deeper reality, which we cannot always perceive or appreciate. Eliezer understood that reality. Lovon did not. The difference between them is the difference between living with emunah and being governed by the appearances of this world.

We spend so much time discussing elections, analyzing political victories and defeats, debating personalities, and repeating the latest gossip, convinced that we are examining the important developments of the day. Some of these matters are indeed consequential, and we have a responsibility to pay attention to them. But how often do we become absorbed in the surface of things, arguing over what happened and who came out ahead, without considering the deeper questions of where events may lead and what they mean? We scrutinize the latest headlines, dissect the words and actions of public figures, and eagerly pass along the latest hock, while overlooking the larger picture unfolding before us.

Avrohom Avinu teaches us that a person must learn to look beyond the immediate scene. Where others see only what is visible at the moment, a person guided by emunah understands that what we see unfolding is Hashem’s plan. We have to develop the depth and discipline to see beyond the immediate, to look ahead, and to believe in the future.

The great builders of Torah weren’t dissuaded by the news of the day. They remained focused on their mission no matter who was in power, which way the stock market was moving, or which side appeared to be gaining the upper hand.

The parshiyos we learn during these weeks inspire us to recognize that we are bnei Avrohom, Yitzchok v’Yaakov. They remind us of the greatness of our heritage, the responsibilities that come with it, and what we must do to succeed in the roles Hashem has entrusted to us. Each of us has a mission. The road does not always unfold as we planned, and life often brings us circumstances we never anticipated. But what may seem to us like an interruption or a detour is all part of Hashem’s plan. With emunah and bitachon, we can maintain our dignity, our confidence, and our sense of purpose.

Our confidence in a better tomorrow must never be shaken. We cannot allow the yeitzer hora to depress us, diminish our ambitions, or persuade us that our efforts are futile. We cannot control everything that happens around us, the decisions of others, the political climate, or the twists and turns of our personal lives. We cannot always choose the circumstances in which we find ourselves, but we can choose the people we become as a result of them. We can decide whether to be governed by anger, jealousy, fear, and disappointment, or whether to remain anchored in Torah and emunah. That is the deeper meaning of being moshel b’chol asher lo, mastering ourselves rather than allowing the world around us to master us. We cannot determine what tomorrow will bring, but we can determine whether we will face it as people who know who they are and Whom they serve.

We must be as resolute as our grandparents were when they arrived in a strange country, surrounded by an unfamiliar language and customs. They did not know what tomorrow would bring, and life presented them with hardships, disappointments, and temptations aplenty. Every morning, they arose with an awareness of their great heritage and the obligations that accompanied it. They had a Chumash, a Gemara, a Tehillim, and a siddur to remind them who they were, what they were living for, and how to look beyond the difficulties and threats of the day. Their circumstances did not define them. Their identity came from the Torah and mesorah they carried with them.

They bequeathed that strength to us. They left us the ability to withstand adversity, maintain the proper perspective, and face life with confidence. Their outlook was not dependent on circumstances or the latest turn of events. It was rooted in the immutable truth that Hashem runs the world, and our responsibility is to remain faithful to Him and to the mission He has given us. When things happen to us or to the world around us, when we cannot understand what is unfolding or know what to do next, we should ask ourselves: What would Avrohom Avinu have done? What would Eliezer have done? What would our grandfathers and grandmothers have done? What would our rabbeim and their rabbeim have done? Their example can help us see beyond the immediate circumstances and respond with the wisdom, restraint, and emunah that have sustained our people throughout the generations.

But that perspective does not come by itself. We need to learn, to reflect, and to work on ourselves. Study the parsha with the meforshim. Study the seforim hakedoshim such as Chovos Halevavos, Mesilas Yeshorim, the works of the Chofetz Chaim, the Sefas Emes, and so many others. Find seforim that speak to you, that you can understand and learn consistently. Review them. Learn with a chavrusa or a rebbi. Pick up the phone and speak to a rebbi or a rov when you need guidance. There is no reason to just drift through life when we can easily find direction and purpose.

We should care about what happens in America, in Eretz Yisroel, and throughout the world. We should be informed and involved. But we must not allow the events of the day, the latest controversy, or the endless stream of gossip and speculation to consume us. The headlines will change, political fortunes will rise and fall, and today’s great controversy will soon be replaced by tomorrow’s. Our mission, however, remains the same and will never change. We must continue learning, growing, strengthening our middos, and reaching higher, so that we can fulfill the purpose for which Hashem placed us in this world.

The news from Eretz Yisroel is troubling, Torah is under attack, and we fear what the next couple of weeks may bring. But if we keep ourselves rooted in Torah and inspired by the examples of the avos and imahos and those who came before us, we will have the strength to persevere.

May Hashem enable us to grow in what is important and live each day in a way that brings us closer to the coming of Moshiach Tzidkeinu.

A chareidi man arrested during a demonstration in Yerushalayim’s Meah Shearim neighborhood was released without conditions after his attorney presented video evidence in court proving that he was not the individual who had thrown a stone at police officers, despite an officer’s written statement identifying him as the perpetrator.

The incident, reported Tuesday by Liran Tamari of Ynet, has raised questions about the circumstances of the arrest and the reliability of the police identification that resulted in the suspect spending an entire night behind bars.

According to the report, the man was taken into custody during a protest in Meah Shearim after a police officer claimed to have witnessed him throwing a stone toward security forces.

In his official incident report, the officer maintained that he had personally observed the suspect committing the alleged offense and had maintained continuous visual contact with him until the arrest was carried out.

Relying on that account, police detained the man overnight and brought him before a judge the following day, requesting that his detention be extended for an additional five days.

The police application was based on the officer’s identification and the assertion that the suspect had participated in violent disturbances targeting officers.

However, the case took a dramatic turn during the court hearing when the detainee’s defense attorney produced video footage of the incident.

The recording showed that the individual who had thrown the stone was someone else entirely, contradicting the officer’s account and establishing that the arrested man had been mistakenly identified.

After reviewing the footage, the police representative withdrew the request to extend the man’s detention and acknowledged that the evidence did not support the allegation against him.

“After watching the video and becoming convinced that another person threw the stone, we request that the respondent be released immediately without conditions,” the police representative told the court.

The reversal meant that a man who had already spent a night in custody and faced the prospect of five additional days in detention was released after his attorney presented evidence disproving the central allegation against him.

In a statement responding to the incident, Israel Police said the arrest had taken place during a violent disturbance in Yerushalayim that included stones being thrown at officers.

Police maintained that the suspect had initially been detained because officers believed he was involved in the disturbances and had attempted to flee from security forces.

The department emphasized that the arrest occurred during a complicated and rapidly developing operational situation in which officers were required to make immediate decisions.

However, police acknowledged that the video footage subsequently presented in court had disproved the suspicion against the detainee.

Once the evidence became available, the department said, police acted appropriately by requesting his immediate release.

Israel Police further maintained that its enforcement decisions are based on evidence and factual findings, and that when an error is discovered, officers are expected to correct it without delay.

{Matzav.com}

WATCH:

{Matzav.com}

LISTEN:

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

LISTEN:

Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer declared Wednesday that his party intends to use its newly won congressional majority to bring President Donald Trump’s war with Iran to an end, raising the possibility of restricting military funding as Democrats prepare to assume control of both chambers of Congress.

Speaking at a Washington news conference following Tuesday’s sweeping Democratic victories, Schumer accused Trump of failing to provide Americans with a consistent explanation for the military campaign and said the incoming Congress would take a far more aggressive approach toward the administration’s foreign policy.

“The American people don’t know what the heck we’re fighting for in Iran,” Schumer said. “He’s never made it clear. He changes his mind day-to-day and minute-to-minute. This war must end. It must end.

Democrats have secured at least 54 Senate seats, including two independents who caucus with the party, with outstanding contests potentially increasing that number to 55 or 56. The results represent a dramatic reversal of Republican fortunes and will give Democrats control over congressional spending decisions beginning in January.

Asked whether Democrats would consider withholding defense funding to compel the administration to halt military operations, Schumer indicated that Congress’s constitutional authority over federal expenditures could become a central tool in the effort.

“Look, we are going to end the war,” he declared.

Schumer pointed to earlier congressional votes in which several Republicans joined Democrats in opposing the conflict. He argued that lawmakers could now use their expanded influence over federal spending to impose limits on a military campaign that began without explicit congressional authorization.

The Senate previously considered war powers legislation aimed at restricting the administration’s ability to continue hostilities. Republican Senators Rand Paul, Susan Collins, Bill Cassidy and Lisa Murkowski were among those who supported efforts to constrain the president’s military authority, while Democratic Senator John Fetterman opposed the measure.

With Democrats also capturing the House, party leaders will have considerably greater leverage over Pentagon appropriations and other legislation affecting the war. However, any attempt to terminate funding could trigger a confrontation with the White House, including a possible presidential veto.

Schumer also outlined a broader agenda for the incoming Democratic majority, promising to confront the administration over rising household expenses, government accountability and its handling of domestic and international affairs.

He blamed Trump’s policies for increased gasoline, diesel and electricity prices, as well as higher healthcare costs, and said Democrats would prioritize measures intended to ease the financial burden on American families.

The New York senator further pledged that Democrats would use congressional investigations, legal challenges and legislative action to challenge administration decisions they consider improper or unlawful.

His comments followed an unusually pointed statement from Vice President JD Vance, who publicly attributed the Republican Party’s election losses to the Iran conflict.

“The reason we lost is the war. The president himself said so last night,” Vance wrote on social media Wednesday.

Vance’s assessment reflected growing concern among Republicans that the military campaign, particularly its effect on energy prices and inflation, had become a decisive political liability.

President Trump subsequently indicated that he agreed with the vice president’s assessment of the war’s political consequences, although he remained adamant that the decision to confront Iran militarily had been necessary.

“I thought it was good. I knew that when I went in. We stopped them from having a nuclear weapon, and they’ll never have a nuclear weapon,” Trump stated.

The president continued to defend the operation as essential to preventing Tehran from developing nuclear weapons, rejecting suggestions that the election results should cause him to reconsider the original decision.

“If I had it to do again, I’d have to do it again, because long term it’s the only answer. You can’t let Iran have a nuclear weapon.”

Schumer’s pledge sets up a major confrontation when the new Congress convenes in January, with Democrats seeking to use their control of federal spending to curtail the war while Trump maintains that the military campaign is necessary for American national security.

{Matzav.com}

The Trump administration has been working for months on a plan to eliminate nearly $4 billion in annual American military assistance to Israel, potentially beginning in October 2027, as Washington prepares to fundamentally restructure its defense relationship with the Jewish state, the NY Post reports.

Although President Donald Trump publicly announced the proposed withdrawal of aid on Tuesday, just hours before Republicans suffered major losses in the midterm elections, an American official told the New York Post that the discussions had been underway well before Election Day.

The negotiations center on replacing the existing U.S.-Israel military assistance arrangement with a broader strategic partnership that would place less emphasis on direct American financial support.

The current agreement, signed in 2016, commits Washington to providing Israel with $38 billion in military assistance over ten years. That includes $33 billion through the Foreign Military Financing program and another $5 billion for missile defense, amounting to approximately $3.8 billion annually.

The agreement remains in effect through fiscal year 2028, but administration officials are now considering a much faster timetable for ending the assistance.

A U.S. official said negotiations over a replacement memorandum of understanding had “been ongoing for months.”

“POTUS accelerated those plans,” the official noted. “But for months we’ve been planning on reducing direct aid and reframing the MOU more as a strategic partnership.”

According to the official, Israel itself raised the possibility of gradually reducing American financial assistance. Depending on the outcome of negotiations, the funding could be eliminated as early as October 1, 2027, when the next U.S. fiscal year begins.

The official indicated that the accelerated timetable would depend on whether the “Israelis are OK with a steeper cliff.”

Any changes to the funding arrangement would also require congressional approval, meaning the administration cannot unilaterally terminate the assistance already authorized by Congress.

Trump publicly addressed the issue during a Tuesday appearance on Fox & Friends, arguing that Israel has reached a point where it no longer requires the same level of American financial support.

“They don’t need it,” Trump said, explaining that Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu had previously discussed the possibility of ending the assistance.

“We give them more than anybody else, and they no longer need it. We’ve been doing it for years,” Trump added. “He [Netanyahu] said, ‘I think it would be appropriate if we do not receive aid,’ because he understands that this is one of their points of contention.”

The proposed change comes amid considerable political upheaval in both countries. Republicans lost control of Congress in Tuesday’s midterm elections, while Netanyahu is confronting the aftermath of Israel’s recent election, in which his Likud party lost its parliamentary majority.

Israeli opposition leaders sharply criticized the handling of the American aid discussions, warning that the proposed changes could weaken Israel’s security and raise questions about the management of relations with Washington.

Gadi Eisenkot, Netanyahu’s principal political rival in the recent election, accused the prime minister of mishandling a major development in the U.S.-Israel relationship.

“The fact that Israel’s defense establishment is learning of a shift in our strategic relationship through the media, at the same time as the Israeli public, shows just how dangerous Benjamin Netanyahu’s conduct is,” Eisenkot said in a statement to the Associated Press.

Another opposition figure, Yair Golan, warned that the withdrawal of American military assistance would represent a “severe blow to Israel’s security.”

The announcement also coincides with growing debate inside the Trump administration over the war with Iran, which both the president and Vice President JD Vance have acknowledged contributed to Republican losses in the midterms.

Trump conceded in an interview with The Wall Street Journal that the conflict had played a role in the election results.

“Iran was a piece of it,” Trump said.

Nevertheless, the president defended the military campaign, arguing that preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons remained essential regardless of the domestic political consequences.

“At the same time, if I had to do it again, I’d have to do it again because long-term, it’s the only answer. You can’t let Iran have a nuclear weapon,” he told reporters Wednesday.

Trump had indicated a day earlier that he was not preparing an immediate large-scale attack on Iran, leaving uncertainty about the administration’s next military or diplomatic steps.

Vance, meanwhile, suggested in a Wednesday post on X that Republicans must reconsider aspects of American foreign policy to regain voters who supported the Trump-Vance ticket in 2024.

Among the changes he identified was the need to “[c]hange our relationship to Israel.”

The proposed restructuring would not necessarily end American military cooperation with Israel. Trump has indicated that Israel would continue purchasing American weapons, while discussions have included expanding cooperation in defense technology, weapons manufacturing and research.

Legislation under consideration in Congress would also broaden joint American-Israeli work on advanced military technologies, including artificial intelligence, cybersecurity and missile defense.

However, significant questions remain about the timetable. Trump has suggested that direct assistance could end before 2027, while officials involved in the negotiations have discussed October 2027 as a possible starting point for the cutoff. The existing agreement extends through September 2028.

Israel’s military procurement plans could also be affected. Much of the annual American assistance is currently used to purchase U.S.-manufactured defense equipment, and Israeli budget planners have reportedly already incorporated the expected funding into future spending projections.

With Democrats preparing to take control of Congress, the administration would also face a new political landscape in attempting to secure approval for the proposed changes.

Israel’s Police Internal Investigations Department (Machash) has begun collecting testimony from chareidi protesters who allege they were assaulted by police officers during last Thursday’s turbulent demonstration near Bnei Brak, following the filing of 24 complaints over the conduct of security forces at the protest.

The development marks a significant escalation in the controversy surrounding the police response to the demonstration at Geha Junction, where thousands gathered to protest the arrests of yeshiva bochurim in connection with the military draft controversy.

According to a report by Emess, investigators have summoned complainants to the department’s Tel Aviv offices, where testimony began being collected Wednesday morning. The relatively swift response came after a series of complaints alleging excessive force by officers during the dispersal of demonstrators.

The protest, organized by the faction led by Hagaon Rav Tzvi Friedman, took place near Highway 4 at the entrance to Bnei Brak and quickly developed into a confrontation between demonstrators and police.

After a police commander declared the gathering unlawful, officers began dispersing the crowd using various crowd-control measures, including stun grenades, batons, and a water cannon.

The confrontations resulted in major traffic disruptions throughout the area. Highway 4 was closed in both directions between the Aluf Sadeh and Em HaMoshavot interchanges, while significant congestion was also reported along Jabotinsky Street in Bnei Brak.

The disturbances later spread toward the light rail tracks in nearby Petach Tikvah.

Dozens of chareidi demonstrators reportedly sustained injuries during the clashes, with protesters accusing police officers of employing unnecessary and excessive force.

Footage circulated following the demonstration appeared to show officers using force against protesters, prompting widespread criticism of the police response and demands for an investigation into the conduct of the officers involved.

In the days following the demonstration, individuals who reported being injured began organizing to submit formal complaints to Machash, the Justice Ministry department responsible for investigating suspected criminal misconduct by police officers.

The complaints were prepared with legal guidance and assistance from the Fund for Fighting the Draft Decree, an organization involved in opposing the arrests of yeshiva bochurim over military enlistment.

A total of 24 complainants have reportedly come forward, alleging that they suffered injuries as a result of police actions during the demonstration.

According to the report, Machash responded quickly to the initial complaint, contacting the alleged victims and arranging interviews as early as the day after the first complaint was submitted.

The first round of testimony began Wednesday at the department’s Tel Aviv offices, with investigators seeking accounts of the incidents and the circumstances surrounding the alleged assaults.

The opening of the examination does not establish wrongdoing by the officers involved, but it represents a formal step toward determining whether police conduct during the demonstration warrants further investigation or criminal proceedings.

The allegations have generated particular concern because of the methods used to disperse the demonstrators, including the deployment of stun grenades and the use of batons and water cannons in a densely populated area.

Critics of the police operation have questioned whether the force employed was proportionate to the circumstances and whether individual officers exceeded their authority while confronting the protesters.

The controversy has also become entangled in a broader dispute over police leadership and the handling of chareidi demonstrations.

National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir recently submitted a petition to the High Court of Justice containing serious allegations against Israel’s police commissioner.

In the petition, Ben Gvir alleged that the commissioner had instructed police commanders to deliberately use violence against chareidi protesters, including an alleged statement that he “wants to see blood.”

Those allegations were presented as claims in the legal petition and have not been established as factual findings.

The petition has added another dimension to the growing controversy surrounding police tactics at demonstrations connected to the military draft issue.

The arrests of yeshiva bochurim have sparked repeated protests in chareidi communities, with demonstrators arguing that the enforcement measures threaten the ability of young men to continue their Torah studies.

The Geha Junction demonstration was among the more turbulent recent protests, drawing attention both because of the extensive road closures and because of the allegations of police violence that emerged afterward.

The Fund for Fighting the Draft Decree welcomed the decision to begin taking testimony and said it intends to pursue accountability for officers accused of misconduct.

“We will take every possible action to ensure that the officers who acted violently are held accountable, and we hope that the swift response will continue until the law is fully enforced,” the organization said in a statement.

The organization indicated that it would continue assisting those who reported injuries and supporting efforts to investigate the conduct of officers at the scene.

It remains unclear how long the examination will take or whether the complaints will ultimately result in disciplinary measures or criminal charges.

For now, the summoning of protesters to provide testimony represents the first concrete investigative response to the allegations arising from last Thursday’s confrontation.

The investigation is expected to draw close attention from the chareidi community, particularly as tensions over the arrests of yeshiva students and the broader draft controversy continue.

The outcome could also have wider implications for the scrutiny of police tactics at future demonstrations, as the authorities face mounting pressure to ensure that crowd-control operations are conducted lawfully and that allegations of excessive force receive a thorough examination.

{Matzav.com}

President Donald Trump made his first public appearance Wednesday following one of the Republican Party’s most devastating midterm election defeats in decades, but rather than dwell on the political catastrophe that handed Democrats control of both chambers of Congress, the president invited reporters to tour his massive White House ballroom construction project, enthusiastically discussing marble floors, towering columns, chandeliers and a newly constructed helicopter landing pad.

The unusual appearance came less than 24 hours after Democrats swept Republicans out of power on Capitol Hill, capturing the House and Senate while scoring major victories in traditionally Republican states, including Texas and South Carolina. The results represented a dramatic reversal for Trump, whose party had entered the elections hoping to preserve its congressional majorities.

Yet the president appeared largely untroubled by the results as he walked through the unfinished ballroom, surrounded by construction workers wearing hard hats. He spoke at length about the building’s architectural features, the quality of its materials and his ambitious plans to transform the White House grounds.

“Now, envision chandeliers all over,” Trump told reporters as he surveyed the enormous construction site. “Envision marble floors. Oh, it’s going to be good.”

Trump described the ballroom as an extraordinary architectural achievement, pointing to its massive steel framework, limestone columns, high ceilings and reinforced security features. The project, which has become one of the president’s signature construction initiatives, is intended to provide the White House with a large venue for official receptions and other major gatherings.

“This is a special structure,” Trump declared. “It’s going to be not only one of the biggest, but it’ll be the most beautiful ballroom I think anywhere in the world.”

The president also drew attention to the new White House helipad, another project he has championed as part of his effort to renovate and beautify the presidential complex. The landing area, featuring a granite presidential seal, is designed to accommodate newer presidential helicopters.

During the ceremony, workers prepared to lift what Trump described as the ballroom’s final steel beam into position. The president signed the beam alongside construction workers who had contributed to the project, adding the word “Love!” above his signature.

Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, who attended the event, praised Trump’s construction efforts, calling him “our builder-in-chief, the greatest builder that has ever been president of the United States.”

“Today, of course, is a day of celebration and a day of gratitude,” Burgum said.

The celebratory atmosphere contrasted sharply with the mood among Republicans following Tuesday’s elections. Democratic victories in states long considered reliably Republican have left party leaders confronting difficult questions about Trump’s political standing, the administration’s war with Iran and the rising cost of living.

Asked why he continued devoting so much attention to construction projects while facing serious political challenges, Trump defended his priorities, explaining that he enjoys overseeing improvements to the White House and other Washington landmarks.

“I like it,” he said. “For me, it’s relaxing.”

Trump also maintained that his renovation efforts were appropriate because of the White House’s importance as a national symbol. His administration has pursued numerous other projects around Washington, including improvements to the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool, a proposed monumental arch near the Potomac River and renovations to public recreational facilities.

When reporters eventually pressed Trump about the election results, he rejected suggestions that voters had personally repudiated him, arguing that Republican candidates had failed to generate the enthusiasm that he attracts.

“Look, if I were on the ballot we would’ve won,” Trump insisted.

The president also addressed Vice President JD Vance’s contention that the administration’s war with Iran had contributed heavily to Republican losses. Trump acknowledged that the conflict had damaged the party politically by driving up gasoline prices, describing that assessment as “largely true,” but defended his decision to launch military operations against Tehran.

Trump maintained that the campaign had been necessary to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, despite the political consequences at home.

The election results will dramatically change the president’s position in Washington when the new Congress takes office in January. With Democrats controlling both chambers, Trump faces the prospect of intensified congressional investigations, legislative resistance and potential impeachment proceedings.

Asked about dealing with the incoming Democratic majorities, Trump suggested that cooperation remained possible while emphasizing his ability to block legislation he opposes.

“Look, I’ll get along probably with the Democrats, unless they want to be destructive, but I have the power of the veto,” he said.

{Matzav.com}

Shas chairman Aryeh Deri announced Wednesday evening that he will remain at the helm of the party, accepting without reservation a directive from the Moetzet Chachmei HaTorah that rejected his request to resign following the party’s disappointing performance in Israel’s Knesset elections.

In a statement issued hours after the Moetzet instructed him to continue serving as chairman, Deri emphasized his lifelong commitment to Daas Torah and declared that he would immediately begin working to strengthen the party and address the challenges facing the chareidi community.

“All my life, I was raised and educated to obey Daas Torah, and that is how I have acted throughout all my years of public service. We have also educated entire generations in this path,” Deri said.

“Therefore, when I received today the unequivocal instruction of the Moetzet Chachmei HaTorah, I accept it without hesitation and without question,” he continued.

Deri also expressed his appreciation to the rabbonim for their continued confidence in his leadership.

“I thank the rabbonim of the Moetzet for the trust and support they have given me throughout the years,” he said.

The announcement brings an apparent end to speculation about Deri’s immediate political future following Shas’s electoral setback, which saw the party fall to six Knesset seats.

Earlier Wednesday, the Moetzet Chachmei HaTorah convened to address Deri’s request to step down from the party leadership and withdraw from political life.

The rabbonim expressed sorrow over his request and determined that, given the serious challenges confronting the chareidi community, particularly the unresolved status of yeshiva bochurim and kollel yungeleit, Deri’s continued leadership was essential.

In their decision, the members of the Moetzet described the current political circumstances as requiring an experienced leader capable of navigating the difficult negotiations ahead.

“The most experienced general is needed to lead the campaign,” the rabbonim wrote, instructing Deri not to relinquish his position.

Their directive reflected the importance they placed on maintaining experienced political leadership as Israel enters a period of uncertainty over the formation of its next government and the future of legislation concerning Torah learners.

Deri’s response made clear that he would not challenge the decision and would instead resume his responsibilities immediately.

As his first step, he announced plans to convene a special meeting Thursday with Shas Knesset members and senior party representatives serving in local government.

“Tomorrow, with Hashem’s help, I will convene a faction meeting with the party’s Knesset members and our senior representatives in local authorities, so that we can roll up our sleeves, learn lessons, and move the movement forward,” Deri said.

The planned meeting is expected to focus on evaluating the party’s election performance and determining how Shas can strengthen its political standing while continuing to advance the priorities established by the Moetzet Chachmei HaTorah.

Deri’s decision comes as Shas faces significant political challenges following the election, including the need to rebuild voter confidence and secure legislation addressing the status of yeshiva students.

Despite its electoral losses, Shas has maintained its support for Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, formally recommending him to President Isaac Herzog on Wednesday to receive the mandate to form the next government.

The party’s position contrasts with that of the main factions of United Torah Judaism, which have announced that they will refrain from recommending any candidate at this stage.

For Shas, the immediate priority now appears to be restoring stability within its leadership and preparing for the political battles ahead.

With Deri’s resignation request rejected and his commitment to remain in office publicly reaffirmed, the party is moving forward under the same leadership that has guided it for much of its political history.

The Moetzet Chachmei HaTorah’s intervention, and Deri’s unequivocal acceptance of its decision, have reinforced the central role of the party’s rabbinic leadership in determining its political direction.

{Matzav.com}

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich described Tuesday’s midterm elections as a historic Republican disaster, acknowledging that the party’s loss of both chambers of Congress was substantially worse than he had anticipated and warning that President Donald Trump now faces a dramatically altered political landscape.

In a video posted Wednesday on X, Gingrich said the scale of the Democratic victories had caught him off guard, particularly the collapse of Republican support in several states where GOP candidates had been expected to remain competitive.

“The election night was, frankly, much worse than I thought it would be,” Gingrich said. “I have to confess that I never thought it would be as bad as it was.”

Gingrich explained that although he had expected Democrats to make gains in the House of Representatives, he believed Republicans would retain a narrow Senate majority and limit their House losses to a relatively modest number of seats.

“I thought we would keep the Senate by a narrow margin, I thought we’d lose 10 to 15 seats in the House,” he said. “It was a bloodbath. I mean, this was a genuine tidal wave and is a historic election and has to be seen as a historic election.”

The Democratic victories included at least seven Republican-held Senate seats and more than two dozen GOP-held House districts, giving the opposition party control of Congress for the remaining two years of Trump’s presidency.

Among the most striking results was the Senate contest in Texas, where Democrat James Talarico defeated Republican Ken Paxton, ending a decades-long Republican winning streak in statewide Senate elections.

Democrats also scored major victories in Kansas, where Adam Hamilton defeated Republican Senator Roger Marshall, and South Carolina, where Annie Andrews prevailed over Republican Senator Darline Graham.

Additional Republican Senate defeats were reported in Maine, Ohio, Iowa and North Carolina. In North Carolina, Democrat Roy Cooper, the state’s former governor, defeated Republican Michael Whatley in the contest for an open Senate seat.

The Republican losses extended to competitive House districts in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Wisconsin and Iowa, where Democratic candidates benefited from widespread voter frustration over economic conditions, energy costs, tariffs and the administration’s military campaign against Iran.

With Democrats preparing to assume leadership of both chambers in January, Trump’s ability to advance legislation and secure approval for administration nominees will face substantial new obstacles. Democratic control of congressional committees will also open the door to investigations of the White House and federal agencies.

Gingrich delivered his assessment from Bern, Switzerland, where he said his wife, Callista, had awakened him so he could listen to Trump’s election-night telephone interview with Fox News anchor Bret Baier.

“In the middle of all this, because we’re in Bern, which is six hours ahead, Callista got me awake when President Trump went and talked to Fox News, as he did by telephone, and it was fascinating listening to him because he’s trying to find a new balance,” Gingrich said.

The former speaker suggested that Trump had been personally shaken by the results after investing considerable time and political capital in an effort to preserve Republican control of Congress.

“I think he was deeply, deeply disappointed,” Gingrich said. “He’d done all of these town meetings, these rallies, all this telephone marketing. He’d reached hundreds of thousands of people, he had worked endlessly, and it failed.”

Gingrich said the president’s comments revealed the difficult choice now confronting the White House: whether to engage in a prolonged confrontation with Democratic congressional leaders or attempt to negotiate agreements on selected issues.

“To listen to him — because he was wavering back and forth, you could hear it in the conversation that he had with Bret Baier — on the one hand he emphasized, correctly, that he has a veto path, that the Democrats aren’t going to get anything done if it’s a direct confrontation with the president because he’ll veto it, and they’re not going to be able to override his veto,” said Gingrich.

Trump’s veto authority would allow him to block legislation passed by the Democratic majorities unless Congress could assemble the two-thirds support required in both chambers to override his objections.

At the same time, Gingrich observed that Trump had expressed a willingness to acknowledge the Democrats’ campaign success and potentially cooperate with them.

“On the other hand, he says, ‘You know, I want to congratulate the Democrats, they ran a great campaign, et cetera, and I’m sure we can work together,'” Gingrich said of Trump.

The defeat comes amid evidence of a nationwide shift away from Republicans. An analysis of election returns found that the party’s share of the vote declined in approximately 99% of the roughly 2,200 counties examined compared with Trump’s performance in 2024, with an average drop of eight percentage points.

The losses were particularly pronounced in several traditionally Republican states, where Democratic candidates overcame longstanding electoral disadvantages. In Kansas, the party won a Senate seat for the first time in more than nine decades, while its Texas victory ended a Republican winning streak stretching back to the late 1980s.

For Gingrich, who led Republicans to their historic House takeover in 1994, the magnitude of Tuesday’s reversal was especially striking. His remarks reflected the growing recognition among Republican leaders that the party had suffered a far more consequential defeat than even its pessimistic pre-election projections had anticipated.

{Matzav.com}

Motti Leitner, chairman of the newly established Hatzibur Hachareidi party, has publicly acknowledged the devastating failure of his party in Israel’s recent Knesset elections, revealing that even members of his own shul overwhelmingly declined to vote for him.

In his first interview since the election, conducted by Yishai Cohen of Kikar HaShabbat, Leitner admitted that his party’s performance fell far short of expectations, attracting only approximately 10,000 votes despite a campaign that reportedly cost 13 million shekels.

“Yes, I failed here. I thought we would exceed 20,000 votes, and in that respect, we failed completely,” Leitner acknowledged.

The party, which sought to represent working chareidim who feel inadequately represented by the established chareidi political parties, had entered the election with considerable publicity and expectations of a stronger showing.

Instead, its vote total left it nowhere near the electoral threshold required to enter the Knesset.

Leitner attributed the disappointing outcome primarily to voters’ fears that supporting his party would weaken the right-wing bloc and potentially help bring about a change in government.

“Eighty to ninety percent of our target audience was afraid of wasting their vote and preferred to vote for Religious Zionism, Otzma Yehudit, and Likud, or to return home to the chareidi parties,” he explained.

Perhaps the most striking admission concerned his own community in Beit Shemesh.

Leitner revealed that even among the families who know him personally and daven alongside him, support for his political venture was almost nonexistent.

“In my shul, out of 60 families, fewer than five families voted for me!” he said.

According to Leitner, many members of his community expressed personal admiration for him but ultimately decided that the political stakes were too high to support a party that appeared unlikely to cross the electoral threshold.

“People told me, ‘We love you, but the right-wing bloc is in danger,’” he recalled.

The party chairman also addressed criticism of his campaign’s messaging, which initially emphasized the need for greater political representation for working chareidim but later included increasingly pointed attacks on the established chareidi political leadership.

Leitner conceded that some of the campaign’s rhetoric had been unnecessarily confrontational.

“Most of the campaign was positive, but if there was a discordant note in the music that could have been avoided, the answer is yes, we made mistakes and erred. However, that was not the essence,” he said.

One of the most controversial aspects of the campaign was its enormous expenditure relative to the number of votes it ultimately received.

During the interview, Cohen confronted Leitner with the calculation that the party had spent approximately 1,300 shekels for every vote it received, based on campaign expenditures of 13 million shekels and a final tally of roughly 10,000 votes.

Leitner rejected the suggestion that the money had been wasted, arguing that the campaign had accomplished important objectives beyond winning seats in the Knesset.

He also drew a sharp distinction between his party’s privately funded campaign and the public funds used to support established political parties and their elected representatives.

“The 18 elected representatives of Shas and United Torah Judaism cost 350 million shekels of our tax money during the last term, and that money went down the drain,” Leitner charged.

“We, by contrast, spent 13 million shekels exclusively from private donations, and we do not have a single shekel of debt,” he said.

Leitner claimed that the donors who supported his campaign remained enthusiastic despite the disappointing election results.

“The donors are excited and tell me, ‘You accomplished in three months what others did not accomplish in 13 years.’ We brought the voice of working chareidim to a volume that cannot be ignored,” he said.

Although his party failed to win a Knesset seat, Leitner insisted that the campaign had already succeeded in changing the conversation within the chareidi community about political representation and the concerns of working chareidim.

He pointed to recent developments involving Hagaon Rav Moshe Hillel Hirsch, including discussions concerning the concerns of working chareidim and meetings involving heads of chareidi high schools.

“For the first time in history, we see Maran Rav Moshe Hillel Hirsch asking to hear the voices of working chareidim, and heads of chareidi high schools entering the inner sanctum,” Leitner said.

“The conversation has changed, and the establishment can no longer ignore us.”

Leitner maintained that these developments demonstrate that his movement has already exerted influence despite failing to achieve electoral representation.

He also made clear that the party has no intention of disappearing from the political scene.

On the municipal level, Leitner announced plans to field candidates in every chareidi city, seeking to build a broader political infrastructure ahead of future elections.

In Beit Shemesh, where his movement already has a local political presence, he predicted that the faction could increase its representation to three seats in the municipal council.

At the national level, Leitner indicated that the party would reconsider its approach if Israel heads toward another Knesset election.

Rather than immediately launching another independent campaign, he said the preferred strategy would be to seek representation from within the established chareidi parties, Shas and United Torah Judaism.

If those efforts are unsuccessful, the movement would consider pursuing political representation through other right-wing parties.

The comments suggest that Leitner is prepared to pursue a different electoral strategy while continuing to press the issues that prompted the formation of his party.

The election results were a particularly painful setback for Hatzibur Hachareidi, which had positioned itself as an alternative for chareidi voters dissatisfied with the traditional political establishment.

The party’s inability to attract even a substantial portion of its intended constituency raised questions about whether working chareidim are prepared to support a separate political framework or prefer to advance their interests through existing parties.

Leitner, however, argued that the poor showing should not be interpreted as evidence that the concerns of his supporters have disappeared.

“By the measure of getting a Knesset member elected, I failed,” he concluded. “But the problems still exist, and we are here for the long term.”

Despite the crushing defeat, Leitner’s message was that the election represented the beginning of a longer political effort rather than the end of his movement.

Whether that effort will ultimately translate into electoral success remains uncertain, but Leitner has made clear that he intends to continue seeking a political voice for working chareidim, even after an election in which the overwhelming majority of his intended supporters chose to vote elsewhere.

{Matzav.com}

President Donald Trump said Wednesday that he has no concerns about facing another impeachment effort after Democrats captured control of both chambers of Congress, warning that any attempt to remove him from office would prove politically disastrous for the Democratic Party.

Speaking with reporters at the White House, Trump also rejected suggestions that he should have approached the midterm campaign differently or reconsidered his decision to launch military operations against Iran, despite acknowledging that the war contributed to Republicans’ sweeping election losses.

Asked whether the prospect of impeachment worried him, Trump replied that he was “not even a little bit” concerned.

“I think it would destroy the Democrat Party if they did that. Impeachment for no reason. What? For having a successful country? Our country is more successful now than any time in its history,” Trump said.

The president made the remarks during an unscheduled appearance at the construction site of the new White House ballroom, where he escorted reporters through the project and answered questions about Tuesday’s election results, the Iran conflict and the political challenges awaiting his administration.

Although Trump had no public events listed on his Wednesday schedule, he spent time discussing the ballroom’s construction before addressing the Republican Party’s defeat.

Democrats won control of both the House and Senate in Tuesday’s elections, giving them the ability to launch congressional investigations, issue subpoenas and potentially pursue impeachment proceedings when the new Congress convenes in January.

Trump, who was impeached twice during his first term and acquitted by the Senate both times, maintained that another impeachment effort would lack legitimate grounds and could damage Democrats politically.

The president also disputed the suggestion that his extensive campaigning on behalf of Republican candidates had failed, arguing that the enthusiasm generated by his appearances simply did not translate into votes for other members of his party.

“No, look, if I were on the ballot, we would’ve won. You saw the people, they were packed. Thousands and thousands of people at every rally,” he said.

“There was such love at those rallies, it was incredible. We weren’t able to transfer the love to candidates.”

Trump campaigned heavily for Republican candidates in the closing weeks of the election, including appearances in states that ultimately delivered major Democratic victories. Nevertheless, he insisted that the outcome would have been different had his own name appeared on the ballot.

On the Iran war, Trump acknowledged that rising gasoline prices associated with the conflict had contributed to voter dissatisfaction, but insisted that preventing Tehran from acquiring nuclear weapons justified the military campaign.

He said he would have “done nothing different” in his approach to the war, despite its political consequences.

Vice President JD Vance offered a more critical assessment earlier Wednesday, arguing that the Iran conflict was the central reason Republicans lost control of Congress.

“The reason we lost is the war,” Vance said.

In a lengthy social media statement, Vance maintained that many Americans who supported the Republican ticket in 2024 had voted for Democrats this year because of frustration over the war, rising living expenses and the administration’s foreign policy.

Trump subsequently said Vance’s assessment was largely accurate, acknowledging that the conflict had temporarily driven up energy prices while defending the military action as necessary for national security.

The president also indicated that he was prepared to work with Democrats on legislation where possible, while reminding them that he retained the authority to veto measures he opposed.

Trump disclosed that several Democratic lawmakers had contacted him after Tuesday night’s results established that their party would control Congress. He declined to identify those individuals but said impeachment had not been mentioned during the conversations.

Shas formally recommended Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu to President Isaac Herzog on Wednesday evening to form Israel’s next government, honoring its pre-election commitment despite a disappointing election performance and growing uncertainty over the future of the country’s governing coalition.

During the consultations at the President’s Residence, senior Shas representatives delivered a forceful defense of the chareidi community and yeshiva bochurim, accusing political opponents of conducting a campaign of incitement and misrepresenting the community’s position on military conscription.

The Shas delegation consisted of MKs Michael Malkieli, Yinon Azulai, Yoav Ben Tzur, Chaim Biton, and Dror Amos.

Speaking before President Herzog, Malkieli emphasized that Shas was fulfilling the promise it made to voters during the election campaign.

“Shas is a party that keeps its promises. We promised that we would recommend Bibi, and that is exactly what we are doing,” Malkieli declared.

He acknowledged the party’s electoral losses while accusing its political opponents of targeting Shas with a particularly harsh campaign.

“We experienced a decline in seats, and we endured very severe incitement specifically directed against Shas. We did not fight back against the false incitement in real time,” he said.

The Shas representatives also addressed the controversy surrounding legislation to regulate the military service status of yeshiva students, an issue that has dominated Israeli political discussions and created significant tensions between the chareidi parties and other political factions.

MK Yinon Azulai, who was assigned responsibility for the draft legislation by the Moetzes Chachmei HaTorah, described the hostility he encountered while working on the issue.

“The Moetzes Chachmei HaTorah entrusted me with the issue of the draft law, and I was subjected to severe violence,” Azulai said.

He accused opponents of deliberately distorting the chareidi community’s position and creating a misleading public narrative about its attitude toward military service.

“There was manipulation of public consciousness regarding the entire issue of the chareidi community. They thought we were saying, ‘We will die rather than enlist.’ That is absolutely not our approach. But first and foremost, the value of Toras Yisroel must be recognized,” Azulai said.

The remarks reflected the frustration within Shas over the public debate surrounding the draft law, which party leaders have argued has frequently portrayed Torah learners unfairly and failed to recognize the central importance of limud haTorah to the Jewish people.

The party’s endorsement of Netanyahu comes at a politically sensitive moment, with the prime minister attempting to secure sufficient recommendations to receive the presidential mandate to form a government.

While Shas has maintained its support for Netanyahu, the main factions of United Torah Judaism have announced that they will not recommend any candidate at this stage, following instructions from their rabbinic leadership.

That decision has complicated Netanyahu’s efforts to consolidate the support of the chareidi parties and has highlighted differences in their approaches to the post-election negotiations.

Earlier Wednesday, representatives of the Religious Zionism party also recommended Netanyahu during their consultations with Herzog.

That meeting included a sharp exchange between Herzog and Minister Orit Strock over the legitimacy of Arab political parties as potential coalition partners.

Religious Zionism representatives argued that Arab nationalist parties should not be considered legitimate partners in the process of forming a government, citing their political positions and descriptions of Israel’s establishment as the “Nakba.”

Herzog challenged Strock over the distinction between rejecting political cooperation with Arab parties and discriminating against Arab citizens.

“How do you distinguish between racism and what you are saying about not sitting with Arabs?” Herzog asked.

Strock responded, “I think reality has made the distinction.”

Herzog pushed back against the broad characterization of Arab political participation, pointing to Yoav Segalovitz, the second-ranking candidate on the Ra’am list, who previously held a senior position in the Israel Police and served in a combat role.

“We need to understand that we live with Arab citizens in Israel. This generalization bothers me very much,” Herzog said.

The exchange illustrated the deep divisions among Israel’s political parties as they seek to influence the formation of the next government.

Under Israel’s Basic Law: The Government, the president is required to assign the task of forming a government within seven days of the publication of the official election results.

The president generally selects the Knesset member considered most likely to assemble a governing coalition, taking into account the recommendations submitted by the various factions and the prospects for securing a parliamentary majority.

Although the number of recommendations is an important consideration, the candidate receiving the most endorsements is not automatically guaranteed the mandate.

Consultations with additional Knesset factions are expected to continue, after which Herzog will determine which candidate should receive the first opportunity to form a government.

For Shas, Wednesday’s recommendation represented a reaffirmation of its political commitment to Netanyahu, even as the party confronts the consequences of its election losses and continues to press for legislation addressing the status of yeshiva bochurim.

The party’s representatives made clear that their support for Netanyahu does not diminish their determination to defend the dignity of Torah learners and challenge what they described as a campaign of hostility and misinformation directed against the chareidi community.

New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani scored a significant legal victory Wednesday when a state appeals court overturned a ruling that had threatened to derail his administration’s controversial tax on luxury second homes, allowing the city to continue implementing the surcharge despite ongoing challenges to its constitutionality.

The unanimous decision by a four-judge panel of the Appellate Division in Brooklyn reversed a September ruling by Staten Island Supreme Court Justice Wayne Ozzi, who had ordered the city to redo its rollout after homeowners complained that thousands of residents were improperly threatened with tax bills.

The tax, known as the pied-à-terre surcharge, targets expensive residential properties that are not used as their owners’ primary residences. It applies to qualifying one-, two-, and three-family homes valued at $5 million or more, as well as certain condominiums and cooperative apartments valued at $1 million or more.

Mamdani welcomed the ruling, saying he was “heartened” by the outcome and promising to continue defending the measure against additional lawsuits.

“From day one, those with the most have attempted to use every legal avenue available to shield their wealth and avoid contributing more to our city,” Mamdani said. “We will implement the pied-a-terre surcharge fairly and efficiently, ensuring that those most able to contribute do their part to build a city that works for everyone.”

The lawsuit was brought last summer by seven New York City homeowners represented by prominent attorney Randy Mastro, a frequent legal adversary of City Hall. The plaintiffs accused the administration of a “botched” implementation process that improperly placed the responsibility on property owners to establish whether they were subject to the new tax.

The controversy erupted after the city’s Department of Finance distributed approximately 17,000 notices to homeowners who potentially owed the surcharge and published a supplemental property tax list containing information about roughly 900,000 properties.

The plaintiffs maintained that city officials should have conducted a more thorough examination of residency records before issuing the notices, rather than requiring homeowners to demonstrate that their properties were their primary residences.

They described the administration’s handling of the process as “arbitrary and capricious,” arguing that people who did not owe the tax were nevertheless forced to navigate a confusing exemption system.

Justice Ozzi initially agreed with the homeowners, determining that recipients of the notices had been “substantially harmed and penalized needlessly.” His September ruling directed the city to restart the notification process.

Wednesday’s appellate decision rejected that conclusion, finding that the plaintiffs had failed to establish the concrete harm necessary to pursue their lawsuit.

“All taxpayers incur time, effort, and costs in determining and complying with their various tax obligations,” the judges wrote, addressing the homeowners’ complaints about the burden of seeking exemptions.

The court also observed that the plaintiffs “have not documented and quantified any actual costs incurred.”

According to the appellate panel, receiving a preliminary tax notification did not, by itself, establish grounds for a lawsuit.

“The mere receipt of the initial determination notices … does not qualify as an injury,” the judges concluded, explaining that the correspondence served “an informational purpose.”

The court also dismissed complaints about the publication of the property information, noting that much of the material was already available through existing public assessment records. The homeowners’ reported “confusion” about the tax was likewise insufficient to establish a legally recognizable injury.

Five of the seven plaintiffs had received notices and were subsequently granted exemptions, while the other two had not alleged receiving notices at all.

The decision did not determine whether the city had followed every administrative requirement correctly. Instead, the judges concluded that the homeowners lacked legal standing to pursue their claims.

Mastro sharply criticized the outcome, accusing the appellate court of avoiding the central allegations about the city’s handling of the tax.

“It’s a shame that, after the City admittedly botched the rollout of this surcharge, the court today took the procedural offramp of standing to avoid addressing the merits of this case,” Mastro said Wednesday.

“What the City has done here is unconscionable — trying to ensnare thousands of people who don’t owe this surcharge into having to prove they live in their own homes or else have to pay it.”

The ruling removes an immediate obstacle as city officials prepare to issue tax bills, with a November 15 mailing deadline approaching.

The administration has already granted more than 8,900 exemption requests, illustrating the scale of the effort to determine which properties actually qualify for the surcharge.

Mamdani has projected that the tax could generate approximately $500 million annually, although City Comptroller Mark Levine previously estimated that collections could reach up to $380 million from roughly 11,200 properties.

The mayor’s victory does not settle the larger legal dispute. Two separate lawsuits continue to challenge the tax itself, including claims that it improperly discriminates against out-of-state property owners and violates constitutional restrictions on property taxation.

Among those involved in the constitutional challenges are billionaire casino developer Steve Wynn and former U.S. Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross. Arguments in those cases are scheduled for December 1 on Long Island.

Mastro said the “ultimate day of reckoning” for the surcharge would come when the courts consider those constitutional arguments.

“We remain confident we will prevail and put an end to this unconstitutional surcharge altogether,” he said.

In a dramatic development that could significantly weaken Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s chances of forming Israel’s next government, the leadership of United Torah Judaism has decided not to recommend Netanyahu, or any other candidate, to President Isaac Herzog during the presidential consultations, marking a major departure from the party’s longstanding political alignment with the Likud leader.

The decision, announced Wednesday by Degel HaTorah and Agudas Yisroel, follows instructions from the Gedolei Yisroel that the party’s overriding priority must be securing the status of yeshiva bochurim and kollel yungeleit, rather than maintaining an automatic commitment to any political bloc.

The move comes despite an intensive effort by Netanyahu over the past 24 hours to persuade the chareidi lawmakers to support his candidacy, as Gadi Eisenkot, chairman of the Yashar party, continues to accumulate recommendations from parties seeking to replace the prime minister.

Degel HaTorah announced that its representatives would refrain from recommending any candidate, citing explicit instructions from the party’s rabbinic leadership.

“At the instruction of Maran Rosh HaYeshiva Rabbeinu Hagaon Rav Dovid Landau shlit”a and Maran Rosh HaYeshiva Hagaon Rav Moshe Hillel Hirsch shlit”a, the representatives of the faction will not recommend any of the candidates to the president for the formation of the government,” the party declared.

Agudas Yisroel issued a similar announcement through its chairman, MK Yitzchok Goldknopf, explaining that the party’s support would depend on which political leader is prepared to resolve the crisis surrounding the status of Torah learners.

“Gedolei Yisroel shlit”a have instructed Agudas Yisroel chairman MK Rabbi Yitzchok Goldknopf not to recommend any candidate for prime minister,” the statement said.

“As we committed during the elections, the primary mission is to regulate the status of Torah learners, and the candidate who brings a solution to the issue and legislation will receive the party’s support.”

The announcement represents a significant change in the political calculations surrounding the formation of the next government. For decades, United Torah Judaism has generally supported Netanyahu during presidential consultations, making the decision to withhold its recommendation particularly consequential.

According to a report by Channel 12 political correspondent Dafna Liel, Netanyahu made extensive efforts to secure the chareidi party’s support, personally speaking with several United Torah Judaism lawmakers, including Yaakov Asher, Meir Porush, and Elyakim Stark.

Additional efforts reportedly involved contacts with the household of Rav Moshe Hillel Hirsch in an attempt to secure the support of MKs Yitzchok Pindrus and Moshe Weisfish.

Despite those efforts, the rabbinic leadership declined to provide Netanyahu with the automatic endorsement he had sought.

The decision follows repeated statements by Rav Dovid Landau that United Torah Judaism does not belong to any particular political bloc but is committed exclusively to what he has described as the “bloc of the Torah world.”

Rav Landau has emphasized that the overriding responsibility of the chareidi representatives is to protect the ability of yeshiva bochurim and kollel yungeleit to continue learning Torah, regardless of which political arrangement ultimately emerges.

During a recent dinner at the Pillar Hotel in London, Rav Landau delivered a forceful address concerning the challenges facing yeshiva students and kollel yungeleit in Eretz Yisroel, reinforcing the importance of resolving their legal status.

Goldknopf similarly declared that the chareidi parties are not automatically aligned with any political camp.

“We are not in anyone’s bloc; we demand a draft law without sanctions,” he said.

However, the position within United Torah Judaism is not entirely uniform.

According to the report, five lawmakers affiliated with Degel HaTorah and Agudas Yisroel will refrain from recommending Netanyahu, while two lawmakers representing the separate Chomas Toras Yisroel faction, Meir Porush and Elyakim Stark, have not yet reached a final decision.

Channel 14 political correspondent Motti Kastel reported that several Admorim serving on the Moetzes Gedolei HaTorah of Agudas Yisroel are inclined to instruct Porush and Stark to recommend Netanyahu, potentially preventing a complete withdrawal of chareidi support from the right-wing bloc.

The possibility of a divided recommendation within the broader United Torah Judaism framework adds another complication to the presidential consultations.

Meanwhile, Shas has taken a different approach, formally recommending Netanyahu to President Herzog after receiving commitments concerning legislation to address the status of Torah learners.

A Shas delegation arrived at the President’s Residence Wednesday evening and presented Netanyahu as the party’s preferred candidate to form the next government.

The delegation included MKs Michael Malkieli, Yinon Azulai, Yoav Ben Tzur, Chaim Biton, and Dror Amos.

Speaking at the President’s Residence, Malkieli explained that Shas was honoring its election commitment.

“Shas is a party that keeps its promises. We promised that we would recommend Bibi, and that is what we are doing. We experienced a decline in seats, and we endured very harsh incitement specifically directed against Shas,” he said.

Azulai addressed the controversy surrounding the military draft and the chareidi community.

“The Moetzet Chachmei HaTorah assigned me the issue of the draft law, and I suffered severe violence. There was manipulation of public consciousness regarding the entire issue of the chareidi community. They thought we were saying, ‘We will die rather than enlist.’ That is absolutely not our approach. But first and foremost, the value of Toras Yisroel must be recognized,” he said.

The developments come amid considerable turmoil within Shas following its disappointing election performance, which saw the party fall to just six Knesset seats.

Reports that Shas chairman Aryeh Deri was considering resigning from the party leadership prompted an emergency intervention by the Moetzet Chachmei HaTorah.

The council convened Wednesday by telephone after a planned in-person meeting was canceled at the last moment, reportedly because of disagreements surrounding the arrangements.

The decision to convene the rabbinic leadership followed discussions between senior Moetzet member Rav Moshe Maya and Rav Yitzchok Yosef.

During the conference call, council members spoke with Deri, who expressed his desire to step down from the party leadership and withdraw from public life.

The rabbonim instructed him to remain in his position.

Deri subsequently issued a statement declaring that he would comply fully with their directive.

“All my life, I was raised and educated to obey Daas Torah, and that is how I have acted throughout all my years of public service. We have also educated entire generations in this path. Therefore, when I received today the unequivocal instruction of the Moetzet Chachmei HaTorah, I accept it without hesitation and without question,” Deri said.

He announced that he would convene a special faction meeting Thursday with Shas lawmakers and the party’s representatives in local government to review the election results and determine the movement’s next steps.

Deri said the meeting would focus on learning lessons from the election and strengthening the party for the future.

The contrasting positions of United Torah Judaism and Shas illustrate the changing political environment facing Israel’s chareidi parties following the elections.

While Shas has chosen to maintain its commitment to Netanyahu, the main factions within United Torah Judaism have decided to withhold their recommendation until there is greater clarity regarding the prospects for legislation protecting Torah learners.

For Netanyahu, the loss of an automatic endorsement from United Torah Judaism represents another obstacle as he attempts to secure sufficient recommendations to receive the mandate to form a government.

For Eisenkot, the decision could strengthen his relative position by denying Netanyahu support he had previously been able to count on, although United Torah Judaism has not indicated that it intends to recommend Eisenkot instead.

The presidential consultations are expected to continue over the coming days, with Herzog ultimately tasked with selecting the Knesset member he believes has the best chance of forming a government.

As negotiations intensify, the chareidi parties have made clear that the question of yeshiva students’ status and the passage of an acceptable draft law will remain central to their decisions.

{Matzav.com}

President Donald Trump is reportedly consulting advisers about whether to replace Secretary of War Pete Hegseth following Tuesday’s devastating Republican election losses, with some White House insiders blaming the Pentagon chief for his prominent role in the unpopular war with Iran.

Hegseth, who helped champion and has overseen the military campaign, is emerging as a potential casualty of the election results as Republicans confront the loss of both chambers of Congress. The political fallout has intensified questions about his future, particularly with Democrats preparing to take control of the Senate in January.

The Pentagon, however, insisted Wednesday that Hegseth has no intention of stepping aside, including to accept a possible appointment to the U.S. Senate from Tennessee.

“We will continue to drive [Trump’s] agenda at the Department of War — despite threats of sham witch hunts from Democrats — and Secretary Hegseth is 100% committed to leading the Department until the end of President Trump’s term in office,” Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell said.

According to individuals familiar with discussions inside the administration, senior White House officials have begun considering whether Hegseth should be held accountable for the political damage associated with the Iran conflict.

“Knives are definitely out for him among senior West Wing staff,” one source close to the White House said, while adding, “I don’t know if it’s a foregone conclusion that he’s gone.”

Another person familiar with the president’s thinking said Trump has been seeking opinions from allies about how to handle the situation.

The war has become a major political liability for Republicans, with higher energy costs and inflation contributing to voter dissatisfaction. Both Trump and Vice President JD Vance have acknowledged that the conflict played an important role in the party’s election setbacks.

One individual close to the administration argued that the scale of the Republican defeat would inevitably create pressure for someone to accept responsibility.

“somebody has to own this,” the source said.

“When the word ‘war’ is in your title then you might be the person in the crosshairs,” the individual added.

Despite the growing speculation, Trump publicly defended Hegseth on Wednesday, telling reporters that the secretary was “doing a very good job” and indicating that he had no immediate plans to dismiss him.

The president also suggested that Hegseth could be a strong candidate for a Senate appointment, saying “he’d be very popular” if he pursued that opportunity.

The possibility involves Tennessee, where Republican Senator Marsha Blackburn won Tuesday’s gubernatorial election. Her departure from the Senate would create a vacancy that could be filled through an appointment supported by the incoming governor.

Some Trump allies believe the opening could provide Hegseth with an opportunity to leave the Pentagon without an outright dismissal. One person close to the president said he would strongly encourage Hegseth to seek Blackburn’s backing for the seat.

Hegseth’s representatives have rejected that possibility, insisting that he intends to remain in his current position.

The timing of any potential personnel change could prove especially important. Once Democrats assume control of the Senate, Trump would face a considerably more difficult confirmation process for a replacement defense secretary.

Hegseth also faces the possibility of impeachment proceedings over the administration’s decision to conduct military operations against Iran without congressional authorization.

Rep. Thomas Massie has introduced an impeachment resolution challenging Hegseth’s conduct of the war. With Democrats taking control of the House, the proposal could receive renewed attention, while a Democratic-controlled Senate could conduct a public trial if the House approved articles of impeachment.

The prospect of prolonged congressional proceedings has added to the concerns surrounding Hegseth’s continued service.

The criticism has also extended to former administration officials, including John Ullyot, who served in national security positions during both Trump administrations.

“Hegseth has been a human wrecking ball swinging through one of our oldest and proudest institutions, and it will take years to undo the damage,” Ullyot said.

“He’s well past his sell-by date, and it’s time to give him the heave-ho,” added Ullyot, who recently authored a book titled The President Deserves Better.

“Any self-respecting leader with his record, in the military or the corporate world, would leave on his own before being shown the door.”

Other administration figures have expressed similar concerns. Fox News reported that one former White House official believes Hegseth is facing possible dismissal, while another suggested that any decision could come during the remaining weeks of Republican control of Congress.

The pressure has increased as Vice President Vance has publicly identified the Iran war as a principal reason for the Republican defeat.

“The reason we lost is the war,” Vance wrote Wednesday, adding that the administration must acknowledge the political consequences of the conflict even if officials believe the military campaign was justified.

Trump has also acknowledged the war’s impact on voters, particularly through higher gasoline prices, although he continues to defend the decision to confront Iran militarily.

Hegseth’s troubles extend beyond the war itself. His leadership has drawn criticism over the removal of senior military officers, internal Pentagon disputes, and the handling of sensitive military information.

Democrats have indicated that those controversies, along with the Iran campaign, could become subjects of congressional investigations once they assume control in January.

There is a historical parallel to the current situation. In November 2006, President George W. Bush announced Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld’s departure one day after Republicans suffered major congressional losses amid mounting public opposition to the Iraq War.

Tuesday’s election produced similarly damaging consequences for Republicans, who lost at least seven Senate seats and 29 House seats, with additional contests still being decided.

The results have also prompted questions about other Trump advisers, including James Blair, the former White House deputy chief of staff who helped direct the Republican Party’s nationwide redistricting strategy before moving to the pro-Trump super PAC MAGA Inc.

Before the election, some Republican insiders had suggested Blair could face criticism if the redistricting effort failed to deliver the anticipated gains.

An internal analysis by the National Republican Redistricting Trust, however, concluded that the revised congressional maps actually helped Republicans avoid even greater losses, potentially preserving additional seats in Louisiana, Tennessee, and Texas.

For Hegseth, the more immediate concern is whether Trump’s public expressions of confidence will translate into continued support behind closed doors. The president previously praised Attorney General Pam Bondi and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem before removing them from their positions earlier this year.

Trump has not announced any decision to replace Hegseth, and Pentagon officials insist he intends to remain in office. But with Republicans preparing to surrender control of Congress and Democratic investigations looming, the defense secretary faces mounting pressure from both inside and outside the administration.