Feed aggregator

Israeli journalist and commentator Yedidya Meir has sharply criticized what he describes as a sudden reversal by Israel’s political left on the issue of drafting chareidi yeshiva students, accusing opponents of Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu of abandoning years of fierce opposition to draft exemptions in an effort to secure chareidi support for a new government headed by Gadi Eisenkot.

In a pointed column published Thursday, Meir argued that politicians and media figures who spent years condemning proposed legislation protecting yeshiva students are now discussing compromise arrangements and a more lenient draft law, just days after Israel’s elections created the possibility of a government without Netanyahu.

Meir said he was not surprised by what he characterized as the hypocrisy of the left, but was astonished by the speed with which its public messaging had changed.

Within hours of the election, he wrote, leaders of the anti-Netanyahu bloc and their supporters in the media began suggesting that the draft controversy could be set aside, describing it as a complicated issue that did not require an immediate solution.

“The hypocrisy of the left doesn’t amaze me. Only the speed does,” Meir wrote. “Within just a few hours, they know how to replace a campaign, engineer public opinion, change the conversation and invent an entirely new one.”

As evidence, Meir pointed to recent comments by former Prime Minister Ehud Barak during an interview with Radio 103FM, in which Barak suggested that the IDF would be unable to absorb all chareidi men into its ranks even if they were required to enlist.

“The IDF is incapable of absorbing all the chareidim anyway,” Barak said, according to Meir, adding that the principal issue was not the additional military units that could be created through chareidi enlistment.

Instead, Barak suggested that those who do not enter the military could perform a limited period of national service.

“The real main issue is that they participate in the burden, meaning that they serve. For example, anyone who chooses not to enlist should perform nine months of national service, or however long it might be, and then go on with his life,” Barak said.

Meir expressed astonishment at the proposal, arguing that a requirement of just nine months of national service was considerably more lenient than the demands previously advanced by opponents of chareidi draft exemptions.

He suggested sarcastically that even chareidi negotiators would not have dared propose such an arrangement themselves.

Meir also cited journalist Ben Caspit, who recently suggested that political leaders would need to find a way to “somehow round off the draft law,” a remark Meir interpreted as another indication that the political establishment was suddenly willing to compromise.

Particularly striking, Meir argued, was a report on Channel 12 referring to the possibility of a “soft draft law.”

For the past three years, he wrote, opponents of the chareidi parties had repeatedly described proposed draft legislation as a “draft evasion law,” portraying protections for yeshiva students as an unacceptable injustice toward those serving in the military.

Meir accused that campaign of contributing to hostility toward bnei yeshiva, including verbal harassment and incidents in which yeshiva students were insulted or spat upon in public.

He estimated that tens of thousands of yeshiva students had been subjected to abuse during the controversy, although he did not provide independent figures supporting that estimate.

Now, he observed, the same political and media circles were speaking approvingly about a more accommodating arrangement.

“Suddenly, a ‘soft draft law,'” Meir wrote, comparing the new terminology to the marketing of a gentle shampoo.

The columnist recalled that nearly two years earlier, writing in the newspaper B’Sheva, he had predicted that the political left would eventually seek to redefine its proposed alliance of military-serving Israelis in order to accommodate new coalition partners while excluding religious and right-wing voters.

At the time, he suggested that an alliance originally presented as a coalition of those sharing the burden of military service could eventually be rebranded as an alliance of service and reconciliation.

Such an arrangement, he predicted, might include Arab parties while excluding supporters of Religious Zionist politicians Bezalel Smotrich, Orit Strock and Itamar Ben Gvir.

Meir said that although he had anticipated such a political development, even he had not expected the terminology of a “soft draft law.”

Beyond his criticism of the draft debate, Meir issued a direct appeal to chareidi elected officials not to abandon their alliance with Israel’s religious and traditional right.

He warned that cooperation with the emerging anti-Netanyahu bloc could fracture a political and cultural partnership that he believes extends far beyond the question of who serves as prime minister.

Meir described the alliance as a “bloc of believers,” arguing that its foundation is a shared attachment to Jewish tradition and religious identity rather than simply loyalty to Netanyahu.

He acknowledged that many right-wing commentators, including those associated with Channel 14, view the bloc primarily as the political vehicle necessary to keep Netanyahu and the right in power.

Meir said he agreed with that objective but considered the alliance far more important than any individual political leader.

“There is a genuine connection here that rises above every political interest, however important it may be,” he wrote. “There is a shared identity. There is a deep bond that must continue long after Bibi’s 130th birthday.”

He added that the partnership should endure until the arrival of Moshiach and beyond.

To support his argument, Meir invoked the teachings of Maran Rav Elazar Menachem Man Shach zt”l, the longtime leader of the Lithuanian Torah community, who had articulated a distinction between the religious attitudes of Israel’s political right and left decades earlier.

Rav Shach described Likud supporters as people possessing “simple faith,” Meir recalled, explaining that although many on the political right were not personally observant, they nevertheless maintained respect for religious tradition.

By contrast, Rav Shach had criticized the ideological secularism he associated with the political left.

Meir also quoted the late MK Rabbi Avrohom Ravitz, a leading figure in Degel HaTorah, who argued that chareidi political decisions should take into account the broader cultural character of Israel’s competing political camps.

Ravitz maintained that the right generally represented traditional Jews who respected authentic Jewish values, retained connections to Jewish heritage and did not seek to replace longstanding Jewish culture with modern secular ideology.

Meir argued that these distinctions, articulated during the 1980s and 1990s, have become even more pronounced in recent decades.

In his assessment, the Israeli left has moved further toward progressive secularism, while the political right has become increasingly connected to Torah, emunah and Jewish tradition.

He warned that dismantling the right-wing alliance at the present moment, particularly following the widespread expressions of Jewish identity and religious awakening during the war, would be a historic mistake.

Meir pointed to the enormous crowds of traditional and religious Jews who gathered at the Kosel during the recent season of Selichos, describing them as evidence of the deep spiritual connection shared by millions of Israelis.

He estimated that approximately two million people had visited the Kosel during that period and argued that severing political ties with such a population would create an unnecessary and painful division among Jews who share fundamental religious values.

Concluding his column, Meir expressed confidence that the chareidi parties would ultimately resist efforts to draw them away from the traditional right-wing alliance.

He ended with a prayer that the political maneuvering would not succeed in dividing the religious and traditional public, insisting that such a rupture must not be allowed to occur.

In a dramatic development that could reshape Israel’s post-election coalition negotiations, Maran Rav Dov Landau, rosh yeshiva of Slabodka, has reportedly refused to authorize United Torah Judaism to recommend Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu for another term, declaring that the prime minister had betrayed the trust of the chareidi leadership.

According to sources, UTJ chairman MK Yaakov Asher personally approached Rav Landau after coming under sustained pressure from Netanyahu and his associates to reverse the party’s decision not to endorse any candidate during consultations with President Isaac Herzog.

Netanyahu reportedly spoke with Asher several times in an effort to persuade him to change the party’s position. Asher eventually agreed to bring the matter before Rav Landau, visiting the rosh yeshiva at his home and requesting permission to recommend Netanyahu.

During the meeting, Asher reportedly argued that the recommendation would carry little practical significance and would not prevent UTJ from simultaneously conducting negotiations with Gadi Eisenkot, who is attempting to assemble an alternative governing coalition.

Rav Landau, however, rejected the request.

“I don’t believe him. He lied to us, so how can we recommend him?” the rosh yeshiva reportedly told Asher, instructing him not to endorse Netanyahu.

The refusal represents a significant setback for Netanyahu, whose longstanding political alliance with the chareidi parties has been severely strained by the failure to resolve the status of yeshiva students facing military conscription.

A senior Degel HaTorah official told Kikar HaShabbat that the party’s position should not have come as a surprise, explaining that Rav Landau had explicitly warned before the elections that the movement was no longer committed to any political bloc.

“On the eve of the elections, the rosh yeshiva, Rav Dov Landau, made it absolutely clear that we are not part of any bloc,” the official said. “Unfortunately, the political establishment, and particularly Likud, did not take us seriously. Now they are seeing those statements translated into action.”

The official emphasized that Degel HaTorah’s political decisions would be determined exclusively by the needs of the olam hayeshivos, rather than loyalty to Netanyahu or his opponents.

“We are not part of the Netanyahu bloc, but it is important to clarify that we are also not part of the change bloc. We belong to only one bloc: the bloc of Torah learners, and our only mission is to secure the status of yeshiva students.”

Perhaps the most consequential aspect of the party’s emerging position is its willingness to consider cooperation with Eisenkot, even if doing so would help establish a government outside the traditional right-wing and chareidi alliance.

The senior Degel HaTorah official said the party would not automatically reject an arrangement with Eisenkot if he could secure agreement among his coalition partners on legislation protecting yeshiva students from conscription.

“If Eisenkot can bring his entire bloc to support a law acceptable to the gedolei Yisroel, we certainly would not rule out such cooperation,” the official said.

“We are not blindly following Netanyahu, and we have not entered into any unbreakable marriage with him. We are looking for a real, substantive solution for Torah learners. Now the only question remaining is whether Gadi can bring his bloc to support such a law.”

According to the report, senior figures in the anti-Netanyahu camp are exploring a political arrangement under which UTJ would provide Eisenkot with a parliamentary safety net, potentially allowing him to establish a government without formally joining the coalition.

Under one scenario being discussed, UTJ’s cooperation would reduce Netanyahu’s effective parliamentary bloc to 46 seats while increasing Eisenkot’s support to 55 seats. The chareidi party would demand an agreed-upon draft law and formal protections for yeshiva students in exchange for abstaining during the government’s inauguration vote.

The possibility of such an arrangement has generated considerable interest because Eisenkot’s prospective coalition includes parties that have previously demanded stricter military enlistment requirements for chareidi men.

Earlier this week, Asher met in Bnei Brak with Agudas Yisroel representatives MK Yitzchok Goldknopf and MK Meir Porush in an effort to coordinate UTJ’s position ahead of the presidential consultations.

Among the options discussed was declining to recommend any candidate for prime minister.

Porush appeared skeptical of the possibility of cooperation with Eisenkot, remarking as he entered the meeting, “Gadi Eisenkot will not call us.”

Goldknopf, meanwhile, emphasized that UTJ was not committed to either political camp.

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

Avi Greenzeig, a spokesman for Rav Landau’s household, cautioned that the party’s final position had not yet been determined.

“I can say only one thing: Whatever the rabbonim decide, when it becomes relevant, that is what will happen,” he said.

While UTJ has withheld its endorsement, Shas has taken a different approach, formally recommending Netanyahu to President Herzog.

During the consultations at the President’s Residence, Shas MK Michael Malkieli explained that his party was honoring its pre-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 suffered a decline in seats and faced very harsh incitement specifically directed against Shas,” Malkieli said.

Fellow Shas MK Yinon Azulai also spoke about the political atmosphere surrounding the draft controversy.

“I experienced severe violence over the draft law issue. There was an effort to manipulate public perception regarding the entire chareidi community,” he said.

Netanyahu, meanwhile, released his first recorded statement since the elections, attacking the possibility that Eisenkot could establish a minority government dependent on support from Arab parties.

“A government dependent on parties that support terrorism will not be able to confront the challenge of radical Islam threatening us from within and without,” Netanyahu declared.

He argued that Israel requires a broad national government under Likud leadership rather than a coalition dependent on outside parliamentary support.

“Only a broad national government headed by Likud and under my leadership, including all components of the national bloc and all Zionist parties that wish to join, will be able to confront this challenge,” Netanyahu said.

{Matzav.com}

Israeli MK Gilad Kariv of the Democrats party said Thursday that he does not believe United Torah Judaism will join a prospective government headed by Gadi Eisenkot, warning that any effort to bring the chareidi party into the emerging coalition would have to address the contentious issue of military conscription.

Speaking in an interview with Radio A-Shams, Kariv expressed skepticism about the possibility of securing UTJ’s participation in a government seeking to replace Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, even as political leaders explore possible coalition arrangements following Israel’s recent elections.

Kariv made clear that while he was not categorically ruling out cooperation with UTJ, the parties negotiating a new government could not simply abandon their positions on the draft issue in order to secure chareidi support.

“I think United Torah Judaism will ultimately not join our government, and I think we cannot completely cast aside the issue of military conscription,” Kariv said.

His remarks come amid efforts to assemble a coalition under Eisenkot, with the potential participation of UTJ emerging as one of the questions facing the parties seeking to establish an alternative government.

The possibility of bringing UTJ into the coalition presents a significant political challenge, particularly because several of the parties involved have taken positions on the draft of chareidi yeshiva students that are sharply at odds with those of the chareidi parties.

Kariv was specifically asked about the possibility that Yisrael Beytenu chairman Avigdor Lieberman and Beyachad chairman Naftali Bennett could persuade UTJ to join the coalition by reaching an acceptable compromise on the draft.

Although doubtful that such an arrangement could be achieved, Kariv indicated that he would not automatically oppose an agreement that adequately addressed the issue.

“If Lieberman and Bennett know how to bring United Torah Judaism and also bring some reasonable and appropriate solution to the conscription issue, then please, go ahead,” he said.

Kariv’s comments highlight the competing pressures facing the parties seeking to form the next government. While support from chareidi lawmakers could help Eisenkot assemble a parliamentary majority, the military draft issue remains a major obstacle to cooperation between UTJ and several of the prospective coalition partners.

For UTJ, preserving the ability of yeshiva students to continue learning without being drafted into the military remains a central political priority. Other parties involved in the coalition discussions, however, have made changes to the existing draft arrangements a major component of their political platforms.

Kariv’s remarks suggest that even if Bennett and Lieberman attempt to negotiate a compromise with UTJ, they may face resistance from within the emerging coalition unless the agreement includes measures addressing military conscription.

Sen. Ted Cruz delivered a blistering assessment of the Republican Party’s disastrous midterm election performance Wednesday, describing the losses as a “Watergate-level repudiation” and arguing that President Trump’s tariffs, the continuing war with Iran, and widespread frustration over the cost of living drove voters away from GOP candidates.

The Texas Republican offered his assessment in an extensive statement posted on X, warning that his party must acknowledge the magnitude of its defeat rather than attribute the results to insufficient voter participation.

“2026 was not simply a blue wave; it was a blue tsunami. It was an ass kicking. It was not simply a bad 2006 midterm election. It was a Watergate-level repudiation,” Cruz wrote.

Cruz rejected the suggestion that Republicans lost because their supporters stayed home, arguing instead that many voters who ordinarily favor conservative candidates actively chose Democrats.

“When all the votes were counted, the problem wasn’t turnout. Instead, our voters, Republicans, Libertarians, Independents, showed up and voted, and rejected our candidates, voting Democrat instead,” he wrote.

According to Cruz, the dominant issue influencing voters was the rising cost of everyday necessities, a concern he believes Republican leaders failed to address convincingly.

He said the public was increasingly frustrated by household expenses, while “too many Republican politicians seem like they didn’t understand or they didn’t care.”

The senator also broke sharply with two major components of Trump’s agenda, criticizing the administration’s trade policies and its handling of the military conflict with Iran.

“Tariffs have made everything too expensive, and the Iran war has dragged on too long,” Cruz wrote. “It should have been brief, decisive, and over. It needs to end, and we should never, under any circumstances, give the Ayatollah billions of dollars.”

Cruz’s remarks reflected growing Republican concerns about the political consequences of the administration’s economic and foreign policies following an election in which Democrats captured control of both chambers of Congress.

At the same time, Cruz warned that the Democratic victories could produce sweeping changes in Washington, including initiatives involving taxation, energy production, immigration enforcement, and transgender policies.

He also predicted “open persecution, and nonstop retaliation” targeting Trump, members of the president’s family, administration officials, and prominent business figures, including Elon Musk.

“Make no mistake. Nationally, the radicals are in charge. The communists and the Islamists who have taken over the Democrat Party have now taken over the United States Congress. They will be unleashed,” Cruz wrote.

Cruz said he intends to resist Democratic proposals he believes would damage the economy, weaken border security, or threaten constitutional protections, while remaining open to bipartisan cooperation on issues where agreement is possible.

He pledged to “work with Democrats when they’re willing to be reasonable.”

The senator was particularly alarmed by the election results in Texas, where Republicans lost every statewide contest, including Gov. Greg Abbott’s reelection race and Attorney General Ken Paxton’s bid for the U.S. Senate.

Democrat Gina Hinojosa defeated Abbott, while James Talarico won the Senate seat, ending more than three decades of Republican control of that office. Cruz, whose own Senate term runs through 2030, acknowledged that the results represented a historic political reversal in his home state.

Cruz said he had personally contacted Talarico to congratulate him and expressed hope that they could cooperate on matters affecting Texas.

Nevertheless, he promised vigorous opposition to policies he believes would undermine the state’s economic prosperity or public safety.

“If the newly elected radicals push policies that hurt Texas, raising taxes, destroying jobs, opening the border, releasing violent criminals, threatening our children, undermining our constitutional rights, I will fight with all of my strength to defend Texas and to defend the Constitution,” he wrote.

Looking ahead, Cruz argued that Republicans must reconnect with working-class Americans by pursuing conservative economic policies that directly address the financial pressures facing ordinary families.

He called for rebuilding the GOP “as a true blue-collar party, not by embracing socialism, but by being real free-market conservatives.”

Despite the scale of the Democratic victories, Cruz insisted that Texas has not permanently abandoned its conservative political identity and predicted that Republicans would eventually regain their dominance.

“Texas will be red again,” he said. “We have not suddenly become a bunch of tofu-eating, gun-banning, tutu-wearing pinko commie liberals. That ain’t us. Texas is still Texas.”

{Matzav.com}

[Video below.] A disturbing report of an antisemitic demonstration outside a Jewish school in Las Vegas has raised concerns after a man was allegedly seen publicly displaying a sign bearing the words “Hitler was right,” an explicit expression of support for the Nazi dictator responsible for the murder of six million Jews during the Holocaust.

According to a description accompanying the reported incident, the individual stood outside a Jewish educational institution holding the sign in public view. The name of the school, the precise location and the date of the incident have not yet been independently established.

The reported location is particularly troubling because of the possibility that Jewish children, parents and school employees could have encountered the display while entering or leaving the institution. However, it remains unclear whether students were present at the time or whether the individual directly confronted anyone.

The message on the sign is an unmistakable expression of antisemitism, invoking Adolf Hitler and the Nazi genocide of European Jewry. Its reported appearance outside a Jewish school adds to concerns about the intimidation of Jewish communities and the safety of religious institutions.

The incident has now been traced to Friday, October 16, at the intersection of Lake Mead Boulevard and Hills Center Drive in Summerlin, a Las Vegas-area neighborhood containing several Jewish institutions, including Temple Sinai, The Adelson School, the Community Kollel of Greater Summerlin and Bet Yossef.

Local television station 8 News Now reported that a viewer submitted a photograph of the man holding the sign. Subsequent reporting identified the individual as Kenneth Boulet, a social media personality known online as Kenny KO. Reports also described him making Nazi salutes and arguing with a motorist who recorded the demonstration.

Rabbi Ilana Baden of Temple Sinai condemned the display, expressing dismay that the community was once again confronting open praise for Hitler and the Holocaust.

“How sad it is that we have to deal with this, not just as a Jewish community, but as a society as a whole,” Rabbi Baden said.

Las Vegas Mayor Shelley Berkley and Clark County Commission Chair Michael Naft issued a joint statement condemning the incident and warning against allowing antisemitism to become an accepted feature of public life.

“History has taught us what happens when good people remain silent in the face of evil. Seeing someone openly celebrate Hitler on our streets should disturb every one of us, regardless of our faith or background. Antisemitism is not just a threat to the Jewish community. It is a threat to the values that hold our entire community together. We cannot allow hatred to become normalized through our silence. We have a responsibility to stand up, speak out, and make clear that this kind of hate has no place in our society and no place in Las Vegas or Clark County.”

Nevada Senator Jacky Rosen also denounced the incident, writing on social media that glorification of Hitler was unacceptable anywhere in the state or the country.

“I’m deeply horrified by this celebration of Hitler over the weekend,” Rosen wrote. “Any celebration of the architect of the Holocaust and the murder of millions of others has no place in Nevada or this country.”

Stefanie Tuzman, executive director of Jewish Nevada, said the incident presented a familiar dilemma for Jewish communal leaders, who must decide how to respond publicly without giving additional publicity to extremist messages.

According to Tuzman, officers from the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department made contact with the individual on Friday. She noted that even deeply offensive speech may be protected by the First Amendment when it does not cross the legal threshold into threats or violence. No arrest or criminal charge was confirmed in the reporting reviewed.

The incident comes amid continuing concerns about antisemitism throughout Nevada. Jolie Brislin, regional director of the Anti-Defamation League, said the organization documented 78 antisemitic incidents in Nevada during 2025, including six assaults, representing a 5.4% increase from the previous year.

Jewish community leaders have also pointed to other recent incidents involving Nazi imagery, including swastikas painted on political campaign signs in the Las Vegas area during August.

The ADL has scheduled a November 6 conference at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, titled “Rising Above Together,” aimed at encouraging broader community participation in confronting antisemitism and other forms of hatred.

{Matzav.com}

Former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie is considering a third campaign for the Republican presidential nomination in 2028, saying the party’s heavy losses in Tuesday’s midterm elections have prompted him to reconsider another run for the White House.

Christie discussed the possibility Wednesday during an interview with Christopher “Mad Dog” Russo on SiriusXM’s Mad Dog Sports Radio, indicating that he expects to reach a decision within the next several months.

“I certainly am going to think about it now after the results of last night,” Christie said. “And we’ll see. I’ll make that decision in a few months.”

The former governor, who failed to secure the Republican nomination in both 2016 and 2024, suggested that a third attempt might produce a different outcome. He pointed to Ronald Reagan, who won the presidency in 1980 after previous unsuccessful efforts to capture the Republican nomination.

“If I run this time, it’ll be my third time running. Reagan got elected on his third time running, so maybe there’s a bit of a charm to that,” Christie said.

Christie stressed, however, that he has no interest in launching another presidential campaign merely to participate in the contest. He said he would only enter the race if he identified a credible route to victory.

“You don’t do this a third time just for the experience,” Christie said. “So if I run, that means I’ve seen a path I think I can pursue to win the presidency because otherwise you’d have no reason to run.”

His remarks followed a difficult election night for Republicans, with Democrats winning control of both chambers of Congress in a significant setback for President Trump and his party.

The outcome is expected to fuel disagreements among Republicans about the party’s future, particularly as potential presidential contenders begin positioning themselves for the 2028 election.

Christie, who initially supported Trump before becoming one of his most aggressive Republican opponents, has repeatedly argued that the GOP must reconsider its political direction and move away from Trump’s leadership style.

In September, speaking at the Granite State Summit on Responsible Gambling in New Hampshire, Christie predicted that major Republican defeats could prompt party members to question whether their current political strategy remained viable.

“For our party’s sake, if we do a lot of losing six weeks from today,” Christie said, suggesting that Republicans might conclude that a different approach was necessary.

Christie returned to that argument in an October appearance in South Jersey, predicting that the midterm elections would mark a turning point in Trump’s political influence. He also warned that the final two years of Trump’s presidency could be marked by additional political turmoil.

His criticism became even sharper on election night, when Christie declared during ABC News coverage that the Republican losses signaled the end of Trump’s dominance over the party.

Christie’s political history presents considerable obstacles to another presidential bid. His 2016 campaign ended after a disappointing sixth-place finish in New Hampshire, after which he endorsed Trump and became an early supporter.

By the 2024 election cycle, however, Christie had emerged as a leading Republican critic of Trump, devoting much of his presidential campaign to challenging the president’s conduct and fitness for office. He withdrew shortly before the New Hampshire primary after struggling to attract significant support.

The former governor would likely face a crowded Republican field in 2028, potentially including Vice President JD Vance, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, and Texas Sen. Ted Cruz.

Christie has not announced a campaign or established a timetable beyond his stated intention to decide within the coming months.

An exceptionally rare first edition of the Noam Elimelech, the celebrated sefer of the Rebbe Reb Elimelech of Lizhensk zy”a, is being offered at auction with an opening price exceeding $1 million, generating enormous excitement among Chassidic communities and collectors of historic Jewish books worldwide.

The extraordinary volume, printed in Lemberg in 1788, is being offered by the Genazim auction house, with expectations that the sale could establish a new record in the Jewish rare-book market.

The first printing of the Noam Elimelech occupies a unique place in Chassidic history. The sefer, containing the Torah teachings of one of the foremost early Chassidic tzaddikim, was prepared for publication by his sons, Rav Elazar and Rav Eliezer Lipa, with assistance from his talmid, Rav Zechariah Mendel of Yaroslav.

The sefer was published following the passing of the Rebbe Reb Elimelech, in accordance with his instructions.

Rav Moshe Reutman, rov of Khal Bnei Heichala, related a well-known account illustrating the extraordinary nature of the teachings contained in the sefer.

According to the account, when Rav Elazar recorded his father’s Torah teachings and subsequently presented them to him, the Rebbe Reb Elimelech asked who had delivered those words.

When his son explained that he himself had said them the previous day, the tzaddik expressed astonishment, saying that he had believed such teachings could only have come from malachim and serafim.

The original edition is surrounded by remarkable traditions concerning the manner in which it was produced. Among the descendants of the Rebbe Reb Elimelech, a tradition has been preserved that his sons immersed each individual lead printing letter in a mikveh before the printing process. Another tradition maintains that the workers involved in printing the sefer were among the lamed-vov tzaddikim, the 36 hidden righteous individuals.

Another distinctive feature of the first edition is the appearance of mysterious asterisks, commonly called kochavim, inserted between certain passages.

Rav Reutman explained that Chassidic tradition associates these markings with extraordinary spiritual revelations. According to one account, they identify teachings during which the Rebbe Reb Elimelech experienced aliyas neshamah or giluy Eliyahu. Another tradition maintains that the markings indicate occasions when his son experienced giluy Eliyahu while preparing the manuscript for publication.

The original edition also contains Rav Elazar’s celebrated introduction, Hisnatzlus Ben Hamechaber, as well as the sections Likutei Shoshanah and Igros Kodesh, which include responses to objections raised against the early Chassidic movement.

One of the reasons complete copies are so extraordinarily scarce is that the Noam Elimelech was never treated merely as a collector’s item. For generations, Yidden regularly used the sefer for learning and as a segulah for various yeshuos, resulting in extensive wear and the eventual disappearance of many copies.

Rav Chaim Shweid, a prominent Chassidic collector from New York who owns a first edition, explained that the very reverence accorded to the sefer contributed to its rarity.

Unlike other valuable early printed works that were carefully preserved in private collections, copies of the Noam Elimelech were repeatedly handled, studied, and carried from place to place. Consequently, surviving volumes are frequently missing pages or have suffered substantial damage.

A complete, well-preserved copy retaining its original title page and supplementary sections is therefore considered an exceptional discovery.

The sefer has long been associated in Chassidic tradition with segulos for health, childbirth, and other personal difficulties. It was customary in certain communities to place the Noam Elimelech near the bed of a woman experiencing a difficult delivery, while others placed kvitlech containing requests for yeshuos between its pages.

The Rebbe Rav Aharon of Belz zy”a is said to have been particularly careful about the presence of the Noam Elimelech in homes he visited. According to the account, he would not enter a home without a copy of the sefer, and would sometimes send his gabbai ahead with one.

Rav Shweid revealed that his own first-edition copy contains more than 150 kvitlech placed there by individuals seeking yeshuos.

He said that people who deposited these handwritten requests have subsequently returned to share accounts of the yeshuos they experienced, and that the Noam Elimelech is invariably the first item visitors ask to see when they come to his home.

The extraordinary standing of the sefer extends well beyond Chassidic circles.

A well-known account relates that a visitor to the home of the Chofetz Chaim zt”l noticed a copy of the Noam Elimelech on his table and expressed surprise.

The Chofetz Chaim reportedly responded that he firmly believed Yidden were inspired to do genuine teshuvah every day through the influence of the holy sefer.

The approaching auction has attracted attention from wealthy collectors and admirers of historic seforim across the Jewish world, with the opening price alone placing the volume among the most valuable Jewish books ever offered for public sale.

R’ Moshe Stefansky, one of the owners of Genazim, described the upcoming auction as a historic moment for Jewish book collecting.

He said the level of international interest has been unlike anything he has witnessed in decades in the field, reflecting both the exceptional significance of the Noam Elimelech and the rapidly expanding market for rare Jewish manuscripts and early printed seforim.

With bidding expected to begin above $1 million, collectors are watching closely to see whether the historic first edition will establish a new auction record.

{Matzav.com}

Jackson, New Jersey, is entering a potentially contentious new chapter following Tuesday’s municipal election, in which Elliot Shem-Tov, a candidate who campaigned on tighter development restrictions and opposition to what he characterized as overdevelopment, defeated incumbent Township Council President Chris Pollak. The result has raised serious concerns among the township’s growing frum community about the future of shuls, yeshivos, residential development, and the municipality’s compliance with longstanding legal obligations involving religious discrimination.

Shem-Tov’s victory comes after years of bitter disputes over Jackson’s treatment of Orthodox Jewish residents, including federal and state litigation, allegations of discriminatory zoning practices, and legal settlements intended to ensure that frum families enjoy the same rights as other township residents.

According to unofficial election returns, Shem-Tov received 10,625 votes, or 47.5%, defeating Pollak, who garnered 8,816 votes, or 39.4%. Democrat Brandon Rose finished third with 2,868 votes, or 12.8%. With additional ballots still awaiting tabulation at the time of the report, Shem-Tov’s lead appeared decisive.

The election also brought changes elsewhere in township government. In the contest for the two available council seats, Pollak’s running mates, Amanda Trombetta and John Pojack, were defeated by incumbents Nino Borrelli and Brian McCarron, who received 8,176 and 8,136 votes, respectively.

The incoming administration is scheduled to begin its four-year term on January 1, 2027, leaving Jackson’s frum residents confronting a period of uncertainty over the direction of municipal policy.

One of the central concerns is whether the township will continue implementing the legal and regulatory changes required under agreements reached with state and federal authorities following years of litigation over its treatment of Orthodox Jewish residents.

Those disputes centered on restrictions affecting religious schools, shuls, and other facilities needed by Jackson’s expanding frum population. Residents have argued that zoning regulations and municipal enforcement practices created unnecessary obstacles to religious life and, in some instances, singled out Orthodox Jews for discriminatory treatment.

The settlements and related legal obligations remain binding regardless of who occupies the mayor’s office or sits on the Township Council. Nevertheless, community members are concerned that an administration less sympathetic to their needs could make implementation more difficult, potentially generating additional litigation and prolonging disputes that have already consumed years.

Shem-Tov, a 54-year-old corporate business development manager who has resided in Jackson for 13 years, built much of his campaign around criticism of township spending, development approvals, construction oversight, and municipal legal settlements.

His campaign called for stronger enforcement of zoning regulations, greater scrutiny of new construction, and restrictions on development that supporters believe has placed excessive pressure on Jackson’s infrastructure.

For frum residents, however, some of those proposals raise concerns because development and zoning restrictions have been at the center of previous disputes involving Orthodox families seeking to establish shuls, schools, and other community institutions.

Among the most immediate issues is the future of Jackson’s shuls and neighborhood minyanim. Many frum families have moved into areas where permanent shul buildings are not yet available, leaving residents dependent on temporary arrangements while seeking the necessary municipal approvals.

The incoming administration’s approach to these facilities could have significant consequences. Jackson has previously faced litigation over restrictions affecting Orthodox houses of worship, and any renewed attempt to impose unreasonable obstacles could place the township in conflict with its existing legal obligations.

The controversy extends beyond shuls. Jackson’s growing frum population has also sought to establish yeshivos, mikvaos, and other community institutions. The ability to obtain land-use approvals and develop these facilities without discriminatory treatment remains a major concern.

Hatzolah has emerged as another particularly sensitive issue.

According to reporting in The Voice of Lakewood, Shem-Tov’s campaign amplified social media commentary hostile to Hatzolah volunteers and included individuals who had publicly criticized Orthodox Jewish residents and institutions. The publication also reported that Shem-Tov had promised influential municipal positions to individuals it described as hostile to the frum community.

Those allegations have heightened concerns over whether individuals with established grievances against Orthodox residents could acquire authority over municipal enforcement, zoning, or other departments directly affecting the community.

One figure drawing attention is Mordechai Burnstein, a newly elected member of the Jackson Township Council and a prominent frum voice in local government. Burnstein has been sharply critical of Shem-Tov’s campaign and its supporters, accusing them of exploiting anti-Orthodox sentiment for political purposes.

Following a recent council meeting at which Burnstein clashed with Council President Chris Pollak, Shem-Tov reportedly criticized Burnstein’s conduct and described him as a poor representative of the community.

Burnstein’s presence on the council will be especially significant because Shem-Tov’s two successful running mates, Pollak and Amanda Trombetta, will occupy two of the council’s five seats. Burnstein, whose term continues, will remain an important voice in municipal deliberations, although the incoming mayor and his allies will not control every council vote.

The political tensions have also extended beyond Jackson.

Lakewood Police Chief Gregory Meyer faced criticism after a Facebook account identifying him appeared to praise a Fight for Jackson campaign livestream. The comment, consisting of the words “Nice job,” prompted questions from frum community members about whether the chief was expressing support for a political movement whose supporters had made statements against Orthodox institutions.

The comment alone does not establish agreement with every position associated with the campaign, but the controversy illustrates how deeply the Jackson election has resonated in neighboring Lakewood.

Another major concern is Shem-Tov’s promise to review township legal settlements. Jackson’s previous disputes involving Orthodox residents resulted in substantial legal costs and agreements with government authorities. Any effort to revisit those arrangements will likely be closely watched by community advocates and civil rights organizations.

Shem-Tov has defended his campaign as an effort to restore accountability, improve municipal management, and protect Jackson from uncontrolled development. His supporters argue that residents of every background will benefit from stronger enforcement and more responsible planning.

Critics, however, contend that seemingly neutral policies involving zoning, occupancy limits, and building approvals can have discriminatory consequences when applied selectively to a particular religious community.

Jackson’s incoming leadership will also inherit broader municipal problems, including turnover in senior administrative and police positions, disputes over township finances, and increasing pressure on infrastructure from population growth.

For the frum community, the election has created an immediate practical challenge: establishing a working relationship with an administration whose campaign rhetoric and political associations have generated substantial mistrust.

The community’s concerns are sharpened by the fact that Jackson’s history of discrimination litigation is not distant history. The township remains subject to legal requirements designed to prevent the recurrence of practices that previously restricted Orthodox religious life.

A Jackson askan told The Voice of Lakewood that the community had worked closely with the previous administration and participated heavily in the election, with approximately 90 percent of registered frum voters casting ballots. He expressed hope that the incoming officials would recognize the community’s importance and cooperate with its residents.

Whether that cooperation materializes will become clearer after January 1, when the new administration takes office and begins making decisions on development applications, religious facilities, enforcement priorities, and township appointments.

For thousands of frum families who have made Jackson their home, those decisions will determine whether the coming four years bring greater accommodation and stability or another prolonged period of legal battles over their ability to live and practice their religion freely.

Shas chairman Aryeh Deri acknowledged Thursday that his party’s disappointing performance in Israel’s Knesset elections requires a serious cheshbon hanefesh, pledging to examine the reasons behind the loss of five seats while insisting that the movement remains strong and united despite the setback.

Speaking at a special Shas faction meeting at the party’s headquarters, Deri addressed the election results that saw Shas fall from 11 Knesset seats to six, rejecting suggestions that the outcome represented the collapse of the Sephardic chareidi party.

The gathering, attended by Shas Knesset members and representatives from communities throughout Eretz Yisroel, opened with the recitation of Mizmor LeSodah, as Deri sought to place the election results in the context of the challenges the movement has faced in recent years.

“We must thank the Ribbono Shel Olam for both the difficult times and the good times, even when we cannot understand His cheshbonos,” Deri said at the outset.

“Boruch Hashem, 300,000 Yidden answered the call of the Moetzes Chachmei HaTorah and were not influenced by the relentless campaign of incitement directed against us over the past three years, both from within and from outside.”

Deri maintained that the campaign against Shas had been unlike anything he had experienced during his decades in public life, accusing opponents of exploiting the party’s conduct during wartime to weaken its standing among voters.

“I have been involved in these political battles for decades, and there has never been anything like this. During the war, they took advantage of the restraint and sense of responsibility we demonstrated to attack the movement and its leaders. They even attempted to divide our Torah leadership,” he said.

According to Deri, political analysts had privately expressed doubts that Shas could withstand the sustained criticism and internal pressures it faced.

“Experts told me they did not believe it was possible to survive such a campaign. It is truly a neis, and for that we must thank the Ribbono Shel Olam.”

The Shas chairman argued that the party’s greatest achievement was preserving its organizational and rabbinic unity despite the election losses and the intense political pressures surrounding the campaign.

“Not only did we survive, but we preserved something that hardly exists in any other party: one Torah leadership, one political leadership, one Knesset faction, and all our representatives in the local authorities united. This cannot be taken for granted. For all of this, we recited Mizmor LeSodah.”

Deri expressed appreciation to the Moetzet Chachmei HaTorah and the thousands of party activists who worked to mobilize supporters across the country.

“I want to thank, from the bottom of my heart, the Moetzet Chachmei HaTorah and the thousands of men and women activists across the country who worked with extraordinary mesirus nefesh for the movement,” he said.

“The result we achieved was with siyata diShmaya and thanks to their hard work and dedication. Their efforts were not in vain. Be’ezras Hashem, we will know how to justify the trust placed in us.”

Addressing critics who have portrayed the election as a devastating repudiation of his leadership, Deri insisted that the hundreds of thousands of votes received by Shas demonstrate that the party continues to command substantial support.

“Those who tried to destroy the movement rushed to celebrate its ‘collapse,’ but 300,000 votes is not a collapse,” he declared.

Deri pointed to the party’s history of electoral fluctuations, recalling that Shas had repeatedly recovered from political setbacks and challenges to its leadership.

“We have known ups and downs. Shas is a movement built on an idea and a derech. We started with four seats, reached 17, fell and rose again. We went through severe crises, lost our leader, Maran Rav Ovadia Yosef, and faced movements that competed against us.”

“Boruch Hashem, we survived it all, while other parties emerged and disappeared,” he added.

At the same time, Deri acknowledged that the results demand more than expressions of gratitude and assurances of organizational strength. He promised a comprehensive internal review of the campaign and the factors that contributed to the party’s diminished representation.

“This is a time for serious cheshbon hanefesh and learning lessons, and we will do so thoroughly. Hard work lies ahead for all of us. This is a yeridah letzorech aliyah,” he said.

Deri concluded by announcing plans to spend considerably more time visiting Shas communities, meeting local activists, and rebuilding the party’s grassroots operations.

“We will travel the length and breadth of Eretz Yisroel. I plan to go out into the field two or three times a week, conduct visits and working meetings, and strengthen the movement,” Deri said.

The remarks followed several days of uncertainty over Deri’s political future. Following the election, reports indicated that he had offered to relinquish the Shas leadership, but the Moetzes Chachmei HaTorah instructed him to remain at the helm of the movement.

The final election results showed Shas receiving approximately 299,500 votes, representing 5.26% of valid ballots. Its six seats marked a loss of five mandates compared with the previous Knesset, making the outcome one of the party’s most serious electoral setbacks in recent years.

{Matzav.com}

A formal complaint demanding a criminal investigation has been filed against Israeli military police officers accused of violently arresting the newly married chosson, Yaari Lieberman, as he and his wife were traveling to a sheva brachos celebration. The complaint alleges that masked officers dressed in civilian clothing choked Lieberman, failed to identify themselves, and seized his wife’s cellphone, leaving the frightened kallah believing her husband had been kidnapped.

The complaint was submitted by the organization Emes L’Yaakov B’Yisroel through attorney Nosson Rosenblatt, who is demanding that military investigators examine the conduct of every officer involved in the arrest and determine whether criminal offenses were committed.

Lieberman was arrested Sunday after stepping off a bus with his wife. The arrest was carried out by military police officers wearing civilian clothing. He was subsequently sentenced to 20 days in military detention but was released the following day after intervention on his behalf.

According to the complaint, the officers arrived at the scene in three vehicles, wearing masks and civilian clothing. The organization alleges that they immediately descended on Lieberman and forcibly restrained him, including grabbing him by the neck and choking him.

The complaint further alleges that the officers did not present an arrest warrant, explain the reason for taking Lieberman into custody, or inform him of his rights.

Of particular concern, according to the organization, was the officers’ alleged failure to identify themselves as members of the military police.

Lieberman’s wife, who had been traveling with him to their sheva brachos, reportedly had no way of knowing that the masked men confronting her husband were law enforcement personnel. Fearing that she was witnessing a kidnapping, she contacted the Israel Police to report what had happened.

The organization also alleges that the officers confiscated the kallah’s cellphone during the incident and left her at the scene without her husband.

The complaint also calls for an investigation into suspicions that military authorities used cellphone-location tracking to identify Lieberman’s whereabouts before the arrest. The organization wants investigators to determine whether such surveillance was conducted and, if so, whether the necessary judicial authorization had been obtained.

Additional allegations concern Lieberman’s treatment after he was taken into military custody. According to the complaint, officers mocked him, and personnel at the detention facility refused to provide him with a blanket or adequate heating despite his requests.

The kallah’s mother previously described the ordeal in an emotional radio interview, saying the officers had choked her son-in-law, forced him to the ground, and placed him in a vehicle. She said her daughter was trembling and crying for hours following the incident.

Lieberman, a talmid of Yeshivas Ohr Hachaim headed by Rav Reuven Elbaz, had already been the subject of an attempted military police arrest on October 6 at his parents’ home in Modi’in. That operation ended without his detention after hundreds of protesters gathered and confronted security forces.

His arrest on Sunday sparked widespread condemnation from chareidi political leaders. United Torah Judaism chairman MK Yaakov Asher contacted Defense Minister Yisrael Katz demanding his immediate release, while Shas called upon Knesset members to join an appeal on his behalf.

The latest complaint was sent to military investigative authorities, the IDF Personnel Directorate, and the Soldiers’ Complaints Commissioner. Emes L’Yaakov B’Yisroel is demanding a comprehensive examination of the arrest, the alleged use of excessive force, the treatment of Lieberman and his wife, and the conduct of personnel at the detention facility.

The organization is seeking criminal proceedings against any officers found to have violated the law. The allegations have not yet been established by an official investigation.

{Matzav.com}

Saudi Arabia will not agree to normalize relations with Israel as long as Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu remains in power with his current political coalition, according to a source familiar with the kingdom’s position, who said Thursday that Riyadh views Netanyahu’s policies as an obstacle to peace.

Speaking to Kan News correspondent Roi Kais following Israel’s elections, the source said Saudi Arabia remains interested in establishing diplomatic relations with Israel, but only as part of a broader agreement addressing the Palestinian issue and advancing a two-state solution.

“Saudi Arabia wants peace, wants negotiations, wants the Israeli-Palestinian issue resolved on the basis of a two-state solution, but Netanyahu is not there,” the source said.

The remarks represent another indication of Saudi Arabia’s growing frustration with Netanyahu’s approach to the Palestinian issue, although the kingdom has not issued an official response to the results of Israel’s elections.

The source emphasized that Riyadh’s objections are directed at Netanyahu’s policies rather than his personal identity.

“Netanyahu, in our view, only wants to cause problems. He does not want peace, but escalation,” the source said.

At the same time, the official maintained that Saudi Arabia does not seek to dictate who governs Israel and would be prepared to engage with any Israeli leader willing to pursue a negotiated settlement.

“Saudi Arabia has no interest in the identity of Israel’s prime minister. That is an internal Israeli matter,” the source said.

“What matters to us is that whoever it is, he will want to negotiate and resolve the problems that have continued for seventy years,” the source added.

The comments are consistent with previous messages from Riyadh. In August, a source close to the Saudi royal court indicated that normalization would remain off the table without the establishment of a Palestinian state. A member of the Saudi royal family had also previously accused Netanyahu of lacking a genuine interest in peace.

Saudi officials have also rejected suggestions that cooperation with Israel on other regional security matters could persuade the kingdom to soften its position. In September, a Saudi source said that even Israeli intelligence assistance against the Iranian-backed Houthis in Yemen would not be sufficient to secure normalization without progress on the Palestinian question.

The issue has become increasingly significant as Saudi Arabia faces threats from the Houthis and continuing regional tensions involving Iran. Netanyahu had reportedly explored the possibility of using Israeli intelligence and security assistance to encourage Riyadh to reconsider its opposition to normalization.

However, Saudi officials have repeatedly maintained that security cooperation and diplomatic recognition are separate matters, insisting that a resolution of the Palestinian issue remains essential to any agreement.

The latest Saudi comments also follow a Kan News report last week alleging that several Arab countries, led by Saudi Arabia, sought to influence Israel’s political landscape ahead of the election by encouraging the reunification of Arab political parties.

According to that report, Riyadh held discussions with other regional governments, including Jordan, and worked with the Palestinian Authority in an effort to promote a unified Arab electoral list.

Sources cited in the report claimed that Saudi officials believed a united Arab political bloc could help change the composition of Israel’s next government, potentially producing a coalition more receptive to Saudi demands concerning the Palestinians and regional policy toward Iran.

Those allegations have not been independently confirmed, and Saudi Arabia has not publicly acknowledged involvement in Israeli electoral politics.

The kingdom has yet to issue an official statement addressing the election results or the possibility of a new Israeli government led by Gadi Eisenkot.

{Matzav.com}

Wall Street suffered a staggering collapse Thursday, with nearly $3 trillion erased from the value of S&P 500 companies as investors reacted to the Democrats’ sweeping midterm election victories and growing fears that new restrictions on artificial intelligence infrastructure could derail the technology boom.

The selloff, which followed a powerful post-election rally just one day earlier, sent all three major stock indexes sharply lower and delivered particularly devastating losses to technology companies whose valuations have soared on expectations of continued investment in artificial intelligence.

Companies in the S&P 500 collectively lost approximately $2.9 trillion in market capitalization, while Nasdaq-listed firms shed roughly $2.5 trillion, according to the New York Post. Both figures represented record single-day declines in dollar terms. The Nasdaq also entered correction territory, generally defined as a decline of at least 10% from a recent peak.

The Dow Jones Industrial Average plunged 1,833 points, or 3.44%, finishing at 51,523.06. The decline more than erased Wednesday’s 1,500-point surge, which had marked the index’s strongest session in 18 months.

The technology-heavy Nasdaq Composite sank 5.52% to 24,315.00, while the S&P 500 dropped 4.36% to 7,353.73.

The losses were particularly painful for Americans with retirement accounts heavily invested in stocks. Ken Mahoney, CEO of Mahoney Asset Management, estimated that some 401(k) accounts could have declined by approximately 4% in a single session, depending on their investments.

Mahoney pointed to a familiar Wall Street expression to illustrate the severity of the decline: “Markets always go up by the way of escalators, a little bit at a time. But when they go down, they go down by way of elevators – several floors at a time.”

The seven dominant technology companies collectively known as the Magnificent Seven lost approximately $1.04 trillion in market value Thursday.

Nvidia, the chipmaking giant at the center of the artificial intelligence expansion, suffered the largest dollar loss, shedding approximately $374 billion. Tesla lost roughly $161 billion in value, while Microsoft declined by $117 billion.

Apple’s market capitalization fell approximately $59 billion, followed by Meta at $58 billion, Amazon at $55 billion and Google parent Alphabet at $42 billion.

Other major technology companies experienced similarly steep declines. Broadcom shares plunged 10%, while Nvidia and Qualcomm each fell approximately 9%. Qualcomm’s losses followed a disappointing financial outlook reflecting rising expenses, despite earnings that exceeded analysts’ expectations.

Oracle shares dropped 7%, while companies specializing in leasing artificial intelligence computing capacity suffered even more pronounced declines. CoreWeave fell 10%, and Nebius plunged 15%.

David Bahnsen, chief investment officer at The Bahnsen Group, argued that the selloff reflected deeper problems with technology stock valuations that had developed long before Tuesday’s elections.

He attributed the correction to valuations that had become detached from economic fundamentals.

“Thursday’s market action is what happens when euphoria and hype become the reason why stocks go up, rather than fundamentals, and that’s exactly what has been happening with tech stocks,” Bahnsen said.

Investors have increasingly questioned whether technology companies can justify their enormous market valuations as they pour billions of dollars into data centers, advanced computer chips and other artificial intelligence infrastructure.

Several major companies have continued to increase spending despite pressure on cash flow and uncertainty about when their investments will produce sufficient profits. Corporate executives have maintained that the extraordinary expenditures will eventually generate substantial returns.

Political opposition to data centers has intensified as communities raise concerns about electricity prices, water consumption, noise and the enormous demands these facilities place on local power grids. Those concerns became a significant issue in Tuesday’s elections, when Democrats captured both the House and Senate.

Meta President Dina Powell McCormick said Wednesday that data-center development had featured prominently in election-related polling, suggesting that opposition to the projects could complicate the technology industry’s expansion plans.

Across the country, voters considered approximately 50 ballot measures involving data-center development. At least 47 resulted in decisions opposing or restricting additional construction, according to figures compiled by Ballotpedia.

The political changes were particularly consequential in Texas, which accounts for approximately 26% of the nation’s planned data-center capacity. Democrats scored major victories in the state, with James Talarico winning a U.S. Senate seat and Gina Hinojosa defeating Republican Gov. Greg Abbott.

Dan Ives, an analyst at Yorkville Ives & Co., warned that the election results could significantly reduce the pace of new construction, particularly in Texas.

“The growth rate into 2028 will clearly moderate significantly as the data center buildout comes at a much slower pace given the political map especially in the state of Texas,” Ives wrote in a Thursday research note.

UBS analysts estimated that approximately 30% of planned American data-center capacity could face disruptions or delays by 2028.

Chris Osmond, chief investment officer at Fifth Third Wealth Advisors, said the future of these projects may depend less on congressional decisions than on the actions of governors, local governments and regulatory agencies responsible for approving construction and utility arrangements.

The selling also extended beyond the largest technology companies. According to Reuters, all 11 sectors of the S&P 500 finished Thursday lower, while the Philadelphia Semiconductor Index plunged approximately 12%, its second-largest daily percentage decline on record. Shares of Micron Technology, Advanced Micro Devices and Marvell Technology each fell approximately 17%.

Amid the growing backlash, OpenAI announced a new framework Thursday intended to address public concerns about the expansion of artificial intelligence infrastructure.

Under the initiative, the company pledged to cover the electricity and infrastructure expenses associated with its facilities, reduce power consumption during periods of peak demand and disclose information about water usage, noise and energy consumption.

The company also committed to providing financial protections for local utility customers if planned projects are delayed or abandoned, and to giving residents greater input into future developments.

President Donald Trump warned Thursday that the United States is fully prepared to launch another round of military strikes against Iran, declaring that Tehran will never be permitted to develop nuclear weapons and suggesting that a decision on further American military action could come soon.

Speaking to reporters in the Oval Office, Trump said he would prefer to avoid additional destruction in Iran but made clear that American forces remain ready to resume operations if negotiations fail to produce an acceptable agreement.

The president also asserted that Iran’s leadership is now operating under severe American restrictions following previous military operations against the country.

“They’re not doing anything without our approval. Remember what I said to you: Iran will never have a nuclear weapon. They’re not doing anything without our approval.”

Trump rejected suggestions that the confrontation with Iran should be compared to the prolonged fighting between Russia and Ukraine, arguing that the relative absence of recent casualties demonstrated that the two conflicts were fundamentally different.

“Nobody’s been killed in about seven months, six months.And you know, if you look at Russia, Ukraine, see, that’s a war. 25,000 people being killed a month. That’s war. Iran, no,” he insisted.

When questioned about whether Washington was preparing to carry out additional attacks, Trump declined to reveal his immediate plans but suggested that developments could become apparent shortly.

“I would rather not destroy the rest of the country if possible, but maybe I’ll have to. You will know soon enough.”

“If we have to do the rest of the Iran thing, we’re very much locked and loaded,” he stressed.

The president’s warning came just two days after Republicans suffered major losses in the midterm elections, handing Democrats control of both chambers of Congress amid widespread voter dissatisfaction with the administration’s handling of the Iran conflict and its economic consequences.

Trump also indicated that the White House was preparing a series of announcements and initiatives over the coming days, although he offered no specifics about what they would involve.

“We’re going to do a lot of things. You’ll be seeing a lot of things over the next week, two weeks. We have a lot of things cooking,” he said.

Trump’s latest warning came as diplomatic efforts involving Qatar appeared to be gaining momentum, with Iran reportedly examining proposals aimed at resolving the dispute over its nuclear program. The discussions follow weeks of resistance from Tehran to renewed negotiations with Washington.

According to officials familiar with the talks, the proposals contain substantive provisions concerning Iran’s nuclear activities, although their precise terms have not been publicly disclosed. The renewed diplomatic activity has raised the possibility of an agreement that could avert another round of American attacks.

In a further development Thursday, a senior Iranian official said Tehran had submitted a nuclear proposal to Washington through Qatar. The official indicated that Iran wanted the United States to satisfy seven demands before negotiations could proceed, while American officials were reviewing the Iranian submission.

Earlier in the week, Trump told the Financial Times that he was not planning an immediate new military campaign against Iran, expressing confidence that Washington held a strong negotiating position.

“It’s a brilliant situation,” Trump said.

The president also challenged descriptions of the confrontation as an ongoing war, pointing to previous American operations that he said had severely damaged Iran’s nuclear capabilities.

“We’re not really in a war, because we hit them with the B2 bombers and wiped out their nuclear potential incapacity. We then hit them again, Epic Fury, etc… But if you think about it, we haven’t really had a war with them in a long time, six months, maybe more.”

“I don’t consider that we’re in war like Ukraine, wars like World War I, World War II,” he added.

Trump confirmed that indirect communications with Tehran were continuing, including negotiations over approximately 1,000 pounds of enriched uranium that remains a central point of contention between the two countries. He referred to the material as “nuclear dust”.

The president acknowledged concerns about leaving the uranium in Iranian territory, even if it remains buried beneath debris from previous military strikes.

“Even though it’s under hundreds of tons of rock, I would say that I’m not happy that it will be there,” he said. “So it’s one of the things that we do talk to them about. But you know, we’re having discussions, and we’ll see how that all works out.”

Trump said American military preparations would remain in place throughout the negotiations, while suggesting that diplomacy might ultimately make another operation unnecessary.

He described U.S. forces as “locked and loaded if we need to go, but there may be no reason for it,” adding that “We seem to be getting everything we want” in the negotiations.

Russian President Vladimir Putin held an unannounced meeting Thursday with Iran’s top national security official, Mohsen Rezaei, who arrived in Moscow carrying a personal message from Iranian Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei, as the two countries intensified discussions over regional security, military cooperation, and a proposed natural gas pipeline.

The Kremlin confirmed the meeting through spokesman Dmitry Peskov, according to Russia’s Interfax news agency. Iranian state television reported that Rezaei personally delivered Khamenei’s communication to Putin, although neither government disclosed its contents.

Following the Kremlin talks, Rezaei said the discussions centered on developments in the Middle East, particularly efforts to establish new regional security arrangements following the military conflict involving Iran and the United States.

According to the Iranian official, Khamenei had instructed him to deliver the message to Putin without delay, reflecting the importance Tehran attached to the meeting.

Rezaei said Putin expressed support for a regional security framework that would exclude outside powers, an approach the Iranian official described as consistent with China’s position.

The Russian leader was also briefed on a recent four-nation meeting held in Tehran, which Rezaei said Putin welcomed as a constructive diplomatic initiative.

Rezaei further claimed that Putin had indicated Russia’s readiness to assist efforts to bring the conflict to an end, although no specific peace proposal or agreement was announced.

Economic cooperation was another major subject of the discussions, with Rezaei raising Iran’s ongoing natural gas shortages and the possibility of constructing pipelines to transport Russian gas into Iranian territory.

Such a project could deepen the energy relationship between Moscow and Tehran at a time when both governments are seeking to strengthen their economic and strategic ties.

The visit followed a telephone conversation between Putin and Rezaei on Monday, during which they reviewed international developments and the situation in the Middle East.

Iran’s official IRNA news agency reported that the two governments reaffirmed their commitment to continuing strategic cooperation under understandings established by their respective leaders.

Photographs released from Thursday’s Kremlin meeting showed Putin accompanied by senior foreign policy adviser Yuri Ushakov and Russian military intelligence chief Igor Kostyukov, according to Reuters.

The presence of Russia’s military intelligence chief came amid fresh reporting about possible Russian weapons supplies to Iran.

The Financial Times reported Thursday that Russian defense industry records point to an agreement to supply Iran with 90 launchers for precision-guided missiles carried by attack helicopters. The weapons are designed for use with Russia’s LMUR missile system, which has been employed extensively during the war in Ukraine.

The production documents, covering 2024 and 2025, identify the purchaser by the designation “K-10,” a code that other Russian records reportedly associate with Iran. The documents do not establish whether the equipment was ultimately delivered.

The reported arrangement adds to evidence of expanding military ties between Russia and Iran. Previous investigations have described Russian assistance with Iranian supersonic cruise missile development and agreements involving advanced portable anti-aircraft weapons.

Moscow and Tehran have maintained frequent high-level contacts in recent months. Putin hosted Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian in Moscow on October 27, while Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi met the Russian president in St. Petersburg in April.

During that earlier meeting, Putin acknowledged receiving a previous communication from Khamenei and reaffirmed Moscow’s commitment to maintaining close strategic relations with Iran.

The latest discussions come as Washington considers whether to resume military operations against Tehran. President Trump has indicated that he has not made a final decision about additional strikes, while suggesting that Iran remains interested in reaching a negotiated settlement.

The immediate diplomatic obstacles include the future of the Strait of Hormuz, American sanctions, the blockade of Iranian ports, and disagreements over Tehran’s nuclear activities.

Rezaei said Iran has presented Washington with seven conditions for renewed diplomacy and will not reopen the Strait of Hormuz or resume negotiations until those demands are satisfied.

Iranian officials have also indicated that substantial differences remain between the two countries, even as international mediators continue efforts to secure an agreement.

Qatar and Iran are facing accusations of attempting to influence American politics through media campaigns, disinformation, and other forms of foreign involvement, with a Syrian-American journalist warning that the results of Tuesday’s midterm elections reflect a troubling shift in Washington’s political landscape.

In an interview with Roy Kais on Israel’s Kan 11, journalist Hayvi Bouzo argued that coordinated disinformation efforts, foreign involvement on American college campuses, and the growing influence of international broadcasters such as Al Jazeera have helped elevate political candidates whose positions challenge America’s traditional foreign policy and its role in the Middle East.

Bouzo directed much of her criticism at Qatar, accusing the Gulf state of using its Al Jazeera television network to promote candidates on the political fringes while providing them with favorable coverage.

Among those she singled out was Abdul El-Sayed of Michigan, whom she accused of promoting antisemitic positions. Bouzo suggested that Qatar’s media activities were intended to influence American voters and help elect lawmakers sympathetic to Doha’s political interests.

The allegations, however, do not establish that Qatar or Iran illegally interfered in the elections or that foreign activities determined the outcome of any particular race.

According to Bouzo, the growing presence of lawmakers from both the far left and the far right who favor reducing American involvement overseas could have far-reaching consequences for U.S. policy toward Israel and the broader Middle East.

She described an emerging ideological convergence between political factions that otherwise disagree on domestic issues but share a desire to limit Washington’s international commitments.

Bouzo warned that this isolationist outlook could weaken America’s willingness to confront Iran and other governments accused of supporting terrorism, particularly as some political figures increasingly question the need for an assertive American military presence abroad.

The journalist also criticized the policies of several Gulf governments toward Tehran, arguing that their efforts to avoid another regional war have contributed to Iran’s ability to exert pressure on neighboring countries.

Despite facing threats and attacks from Iran, Gulf states have continued pursuing diplomatic arrangements intended to discourage additional American military action against the Islamic Republic.

Bouzo contended that this approach has allowed Tehran to maintain considerable leverage over regional security and international energy supplies, with consequences extending well beyond the Middle East.

She also linked instability in global energy markets to the economic pressures facing American households, arguing that rising costs played an important role in shaping voter sentiment during the midterm elections.

Bouzo nevertheless offered a more optimistic assessment of Israel’s regional position. While acknowledging that Israeli society is experiencing deep political divisions resembling those in the United States, she argued that Israel’s military capabilities and willingness to confront terrorist organizations would strengthen its standing in the Middle East.

Her assessment comes as the Democrats’ election victories have raised questions about future American policy toward Israel and Iran. Newly elected Michigan Senator Abdul El-Sayed has advocated ending U.S. financial assistance to Israel, while Iranian leaders have publicly welcomed the Republican defeats as a rejection of President Trump’s military campaign against Tehran.

Bouzo maintained that Israel’s continued military resistance to terrorist organizations would remain an important source of regional stability, potentially allowing the Jewish state to assume an even more influential leadership role in the Middle East.

Shin Bet director Dovid Zini has compared suspicions of massive foreign financial interference in Israel’s recent elections to the intelligence and security failures of October 7, describing the alleged operation as the most serious strategic attack in the country’s history.

The extraordinary remarks were delivered during a closed gathering of Shin Bet personnel and revealed Thursday evening by Channel 12 News, amid an escalating dispute between Zini and Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara over the investigation into suspected foreign efforts to influence the election results.

“I view the money that entered here during the elections in the same way as the failure of October 7. This is our Yom Kippur. This is the greatest strategic attack in the history of the state,” Zini reportedly told those attending the internal meeting.

His comments reflect the seriousness with which Israel’s domestic intelligence agency is treating allegations that hostile foreign interests funneled substantial sums into the country in an effort to influence the political process.

According to Channel 12, Zini informed Central Elections Committee chairman Justice Noam Sohlberg that foreign and hostile elements may have transferred as much as 100 million shekels into Israel in connection with the elections.

Zini reportedly expressed frustration that despite intelligence gathered by the Shin Bet, authorities had not authorized the questioning of even one suspect in the affair.

The dispute has placed the Shin Bet chief at odds with Baharav-Miara and other legal officials, who have insisted that investigators must establish an adequate evidentiary foundation before proceeding with interrogations, particularly when elected officials may be involved.

Law enforcement representatives have countered Zini’s criticism by maintaining that the Shin Bet has not provided all the necessary intelligence materials and supporting evidence required to authorize the proposed investigative measures.

Earlier Thursday, the Shin Bet issued a public statement acknowledging suspicions that money originating in foreign countries had been directed toward influencing Israel’s elections. The agency said additional intelligence work and investigative steps were necessary to determine the extent of the suspected activity.

The allegations have surfaced at an especially sensitive moment, with Israel’s political parties negotiating the formation of a new government following the elections and President Isaac Herzog completing consultations over which candidate should receive the mandate to assemble a coalition.

The allegations of foreign election interference remain under investigation and have not been established as fact. Justice Sohlberg has also clarified that even if the suspicions are ultimately substantiated, they would not provide grounds for altering the election results.

Additional reporting Thursday indicated that the investigation had begun moving forward, with the Shin Bet starting to transfer intelligence materials to a special investigative team that includes police representatives. The information was being delivered in stages as investigators sought to establish whether the suspected funding could be connected to specific individuals or criminal offenses.

The investigation has also focused on allegations that voters in Arab communities were offered cash or fuel vouchers in exchange for their votes, potentially using money originating outside Israel, including through the Palestinian Authority. Authorities have not established the full extent of the alleged activity or whether particular political figures were involved.

Zini and Baharav-Miara met Wednesday in an effort to resolve their disagreement over investigative procedures. Despite the tensions, the two sides reportedly reached an understanding on how to continue examining the allegations.

The Shin Bet chief has also reportedly acknowledged that the intelligence gathered thus far does not establish that the overall election outcome was affected, even as he continues to demand a thorough investigation of the suspected foreign funding.

Gadi Eisenkot emerged Thursday evening with a commanding advantage in the race to form Israel’s next government, securing recommendations from 67 Knesset members compared with 46 for Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, as President Isaac Herzog concluded two days of consultations with the parties elected to the Knesset.

The most significant development came from United Torah Judaism, whose seven Knesset members declined to endorse either candidate, leaving Netanyahu without the support of a party that has traditionally been a central component of his political alliance. UTJ representatives cited the unresolved controversy over the drafting of yeshiva bochurim as a major factor in their decision.

The final tally leaves Eisenkot, chairman of the Yashar party, with the backing of six factions: Yashar, Beyachad, Yisrael Beiteinu, the Democrats, Ra’am, and the Joint List. Netanyahu received the support of Likud, Shas, Religious Zionism, Otzma Yehudit, and Zehut.

Thursday’s consultations concluded with a contentious appearance by Likud representatives, who urged Herzog to assign Netanyahu the task of forming a government despite Eisenkot’s numerical advantage.

Education Minister Yoav Kisch warned that the parties opposing Netanyahu could threaten the country’s Jewish character, declaring, “The left-wing parties must not turn out the lights on the Jewish state.”

Kisch proposed establishing a national government that would include all parties aligned with Netanyahu while allowing additional factions to join.

Herzog questioned whether Likud would consider excluding more extreme elements from a prospective coalition to make a broader unity government possible.

“Anyone who accepts our basic principles is welcome,” Kisch replied.

The president also confronted Transportation Minister Miri Regev over attacks directed at Eisenkot during the election campaign, arguing that such rhetoric was incompatible with calls for national unity.

“You can’t say about Eisenkot, ‘Either the right or Palestine,’ and then say we want a unity government. A little perspective,” Herzog told Regev.

Another issue raised during the meeting concerned tensions between Shin Bet chief Dovid Zini and Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara over the investigation into suspected foreign interference in the elections.

Herzog informed the Likud delegation that Zini and Baharav-Miara had met Wednesday and reached understandings regarding the handling of the investigation. According to the president, the disagreement between the two officials had been resolved.

Earlier Thursday, representatives of Otzma Yehudit endorsed Netanyahu, while delegations from Yashar, Beyachad, the Democrats, and the Joint List recommended Eisenkot.

United Torah Judaism was the only faction to refrain from supporting either candidate, a decision that could prove especially consequential as coalition negotiations proceed.

On Wednesday, the first day of consultations, Shas, Religious Zionism, and Zehut recommended Netanyahu. Yisrael Beiteinu and Ra’am endorsed Eisenkot.

Although Eisenkot received recommendations from a majority of the Knesset, the parties supporting him have not necessarily agreed to serve together in a coalition. His ability to form a government will depend on overcoming significant political differences among the factions that endorsed him.

The position of United Torah Judaism has become particularly important amid reports of discussions about a possible government involving the chareidi parties and factions that have opposed Netanyahu.

With the consultations completed, Herzog is expected to deliver a statement before deciding which candidate will receive the presidential mandate to attempt to form the next government.

Under Israeli law, Herzog is not obligated to choose the candidate with the largest number of recommendations. His responsibility is to select the Knesset member he believes has the strongest prospect of assembling a governing coalition.

The president has until November 11 to make that decision. Whoever receives the mandate will initially have 28 days to form a government, with the possibility of a 14-day extension.

UTJ’s refusal to endorse Netanyahu follows mounting frustration within the party over his failure to secure legislation protecting the status of yeshiva students. Representatives of both Degel HaTorah and Agudas Yisroel have made clear that their future coalition decisions will depend heavily on an acceptable resolution to the draft issue.

{Matzav.com}

In a potentially dramatic development in Israel’s post-election coalition negotiations, Yisrael Beiteinu chairman Avigdor Lieberman has reportedly abandoned his longstanding refusal to join a government with the chareidi parties, authorizing negotiations with United Torah Judaism over the formation of a coalition that would exclude Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu.

The development was reported Thursday evening by Channel 12 political commentator Amit Segal, who said Lieberman has agreed to explore a coalition arrangement based on the military draft legislation he proposed in 2018, when he served as defense minister in Netanyahu’s government.

The reported reversal could significantly alter the political landscape, potentially giving the bloc seeking to replace Netanyahu a path to a 61-seat Knesset majority with the participation of the chareidi parties.

Throughout the election campaign, Lieberman repeatedly insisted that he would not join a government with Netanyahu, the Arab parties, or the chareidi parties. According to Segal, he has now decided to maintain his opposition to Netanyahu and the Arab parties while setting aside his objection to governing alongside chareidi representatives.

The proposed basis for negotiations is Lieberman’s 2018 draft law, which was rejected by the chareidi parties at the time but is now reportedly being viewed more favorably in light of subsequent legislative proposals.

Under the earlier framework, financial penalties against yeshivos that failed to meet enlistment targets would not take effect until after three years. The proposal also did not include personal sanctions against individual yeshiva bochurim, making it considerably less stringent than legislation promoted during the outgoing Knesset.

Segal reported that some chareidi figures now regret rejecting the 2018 proposal, particularly given the more severe measures that have since been considered.

One development being interpreted as particularly significant is United Torah Judaism’s decision Thursday morning not to recommend Netanyahu to receive the mandate to form the next government.

According to Segal, representatives of the bloc seeking to replace Netanyahu view that decision as an indication that UTJ may be seriously considering alternative coalition arrangements. Preliminary contacts between the sides have reportedly already begun.

The coalition formula being examined would combine 48 Knesset members from the anti-Netanyahu bloc with the 13 seats held by the chareidi parties, producing the 61-member majority necessary to establish a government.

Segal also raised the possibility that such an arrangement could involve a rotation agreement for the premiership between Yashar party chairman Gadi Eisenkot and Lieberman. That scenario, however, remains the commentator’s assessment rather than an agreement reached by the parties.

The situation is more complicated with Shas, which has already recommended Netanyahu for prime minister. Shas chairman Aryeh Deri remains interested in maintaining his party’s alliance with Likud, and senior Shas rabbonim have expressed reservations about joining a government led by Netanyahu’s opponents.

Earlier Thursday, Rav Moshe Maya stated that Shas should not enter a left-wing government and instead called for the establishment of a national unity government.

Nevertheless, figures in the anti-Netanyahu bloc reportedly believe that if United Torah Judaism agrees to participate in an alternative coalition, Shas could eventually follow.

Particular attention is being paid to the position of Hagaon Rav Dov Landau, whose guidance could play a decisive role in determining whether UTJ would consider joining such a government and potentially influence the broader chareidi political leadership.

Meanwhile, Eisenkot is reportedly pursuing a separate option that would allow him to establish a minority government as early as next week, without waiting for an agreement with the chareidi parties.

The anti-Netanyahu bloc is therefore examining two possible paths: moving quickly to swear in a minority government or continuing negotiations aimed at securing a stable 61-seat majority through the inclusion of United Torah Judaism and Shas.

Earlier this week, a senior United Torah Judaism official acknowledged that cooperation with Lieberman was possible despite years of bitter political hostility. The official said the decisive issue would be whether an acceptable draft law could be secured, making clear that without such legislation, there would be no basis for negotiations.

During Thursday’s consultations with President Isaac Herzog, Agudas Yisroel chairman Yitzchok Goldknopf reiterated the party’s demand for draft legislation without enlistment quotas or sanctions, a position that could complicate negotiations over the 2018 framework.

Another complication is Lieberman’s opposition to a minority government. Although Eisenkot is considering that option, Lieberman has previously argued that such an administration would be too unstable to survive.

No coalition agreement has been reached, and the chareidi parties have not committed to joining Eisenkot’s bloc.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom announced Thursday that he is commuting the death sentences of all 548 inmates on the state’s death row, replacing their punishments with life imprisonment without the possibility of parole in one of the most sweeping acts of executive clemency in American history.

The extraordinary decision, made during the final months of Newsom’s eight-year tenure as governor, effectively eliminates the prospect of execution for hundreds of convicted murderers, including some responsible for California’s most notorious crimes. The move does not mean the prisoners will be released from custody, but it permanently removes capital punishment from their existing sentences once the commutations receive any required legal approval.

Newsom, a Democrat widely viewed as a potential presidential contender in 2028, said he believes the death penalty is fundamentally incompatible with California’s values and the principles of a fair justice system. He acknowledged that his decision would cause considerable anguish for the families of murder victims, describing it as one of the most difficult choices of his political career.

The action represents the largest mass commutation of death sentences in modern American history. California has long maintained the nation’s largest death row population, accounting for roughly one-quarter of all prisoners facing execution across the United States.

The decision builds on Newsom’s longstanding opposition to capital punishment. Shortly after taking office in 2019, he imposed a statewide moratorium on executions and ordered the dismantling of execution equipment at San Quentin State Prison.

Although California has not executed a prisoner since 2006, hundreds of inmates continued to carry death sentences, leaving open the possibility that a future governor could resume executions by lifting Newsom’s moratorium.

The new commutations are intended to prevent that possibility for the 548 prisoners currently facing execution.

The process, however, is not entirely within Newsom’s control. Under California’s Constitution, the governor must obtain approval from the state Supreme Court before commuting the sentence of anyone convicted of more than one felony. A substantial portion of the death row population falls into that category, meaning many of the commutations will require judicial review before becoming effective.

Newsom’s announcement immediately reignited a longstanding debate over capital punishment in California, where voters have repeatedly rejected attempts to abolish the death penalty.

In 2012 and again in 2016, California voters defeated ballot initiatives that would have eliminated capital punishment. In the 2016 election, voters also approved a separate measure intended to accelerate the appeals process for condemned prisoners.

Critics argue that Newsom’s decision disregards those election results and effectively circumvents the will of voters who have chosen to retain the death penalty.

Prosecutors and victims’ rights advocates have also warned that blanket commutations could reopen painful wounds for families who endured lengthy criminal trials and appeals before securing death sentences against those convicted of murdering their loved ones.

San Luis Obispo County District Attorney Dan Dow was among the prosecutors who urged Newsom not to take such action.

“A blanket commutation would be a slap in the face to every special-circumstance murder victim and the loved ones they left behind,” Dow said in a statement issued before Thursday’s announcement.

Supporters of Newsom’s decision contend that California’s capital punishment system has become extraordinarily expensive, inconsistent, and ineffective, with decades of litigation producing relatively few executions.

A recent examination of the state’s death penalty system found that California had carried out only 13 executions since reinstating capital punishment in the 1970s, despite more than 1,000 death sentences being imposed over that period.

The state’s condemned prisoners include individuals convicted of particularly brutal murders, among them Richard Allen Davis, who kidnapped and murdered 12-year-old Polly Klaas in 1993. The girl’s father, Marc Klaas, has been an outspoken critic of Newsom’s death penalty policies.

Newsom has also cited concerns about racial disparities, the possibility of wrongful convictions, and the enormous costs associated with capital cases. A 2025 report estimated that California spends approximately $200 million annually on legal proceedings involving death penalty cases.

The announcement comes as Newsom prepares to leave office in January 2027. His successor will inherit a state where capital punishment remains legal, but where the existing death sentences will have been replaced or submitted for judicial approval of commutation.

The governor’s action does not repeal California’s death penalty law, meaning prosecutors will still be permitted to seek capital punishment in future murder cases. Any broader abolition would require legislative or voter action.

For the 548 prisoners covered by Thursday’s announcement, however, the punishment Newsom is seeking to impose is life behind bars, with no possibility of parole.

Elon Musk’s personal fortune plunged by an estimated $33.5 billion on Wednesday as the value of his holdings in Tesla and SpaceX declined following sweeping Democratic victories in the midterm elections, raising concerns about the potential consequences for his business empire.

The billionaire suffered a 3.7% reduction in his estimated wealth in a single day, according to a report by the Washington Examiner. Investors were reportedly assessing the possibility that Democratic control of Congress could bring tougher oversight of Musk’s companies and their dealings with the federal government.

Despite the enormous decline, Musk retained his position as the wealthiest individual in the world. Bloomberg’s Billionaires Index placed his fortune at approximately $865 billion, nearly $490 billion more than that of Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, whose wealth was estimated at $375 billion.

Tesla stock lost roughly 3.3% of its value Wednesday, while shares in SpaceX reportedly declined approximately 3.8%. Together, the two companies experienced a reduction in estimated market value approaching $100 billion.

The financial setback came immediately after an election cycle in which Musk committed extraordinary sums to supporting Republican candidates and organizations. Business Insider reported that his political expenditures totaled at least $446 million, including approximately $224 million directed toward races in Texas.

Those investments failed to prevent major Democratic gains in the state. Democratic state Rep. James Talarico defeated Republican Attorney General Ken Paxton in the U.S. Senate contest, while Democratic state Rep. Gina Hinojosa defeated Republican Gov. Greg Abbott.

The Texas results carry particular importance for Musk because several of his most significant business operations are based there. Tesla’s Gigafactory is located near Austin, and SpaceX conducts Starship launches from its Starbase facility in southern Texas.

Musk has also outlined plans to establish a major semiconductor manufacturing operation in the Austin area. Hinojosa’s stated intention to impose an immediate freeze on new data center development could create additional obstacles for his artificial intelligence ventures.

On Capitol Hill, the incoming Democratic majority could pursue investigations into Musk’s involvement with President Trump’s Department of Government Efficiency, as well as federal agreements and contracts involving his businesses.

The political losses extended beyond Texas. According to Wired, candidates supported by Musk’s America PAC had been defeated in 20 races as of Wednesday morning, while only one endorsed candidate had secured victory. Another 21 contests remained unresolved at that point.

Musk responded to the election results with humor on X, writing, “Guess my election-interfering space lasers didn’t work this time,”

He also indicated that the Democratic victories in Texas made SpaceX’s proposed orbital data center initiative appear increasingly appealing.

The broader financial markets, meanwhile, moved sharply higher despite the Republican defeats. The Dow Jones Industrial Average climbed approximately 1,570 points, or 3%, while the S&P 500 advanced nearly 1.6% and the Nasdaq gained 1.44%.

Additional campaign finance reporting placed Musk’s total political contributions as high as $474 million, with approximately half directed toward Texas races. Much of that money flowed through Republican-aligned political committees, including groups supporting Paxton’s unsuccessful Senate campaign.

Musk’s losses were not confined to Texas. Republican candidates he supported also suffered defeats in other competitive states, despite substantial spending by his political operation.

The election results could now expose Musk to greater congressional scrutiny, particularly concerning his companies’ federal contracts and his previous role in the Trump administration’s Department of Government Efficiency.