Feed aggregator

Intensive Qatari efforts to broker an agreement between the United States and Iran have failed to break a deepening diplomatic stalemate, with Washington demanding meaningful concessions on Tehran’s nuclear program and Iran insisting on relief from the American naval blockade and economic restrictions before making major moves of its own.

Three sources familiar with the negotiations told Axios that the latest round of shuttle diplomacy produced little progress, despite hours of discussions in New York and Washington and a new two-page compromise proposal drafted by Qatar. The impasse is increasing concern that the current diplomatic effort could collapse and major military operations could eventually resume.

Some U.S. officials reportedly believe President Trump could consider a return to large-scale combat operations after the November midterm elections if diplomacy fails. Trump himself said Sunday, when asked whether he was considering renewed strikes against Iran, “I am always thinking about it.”

Qatar intends to continue trying to bridge the divide, but mediators are becoming increasingly frustrated with the unwillingness of either Washington or Tehran to substantially alter its position, according to officials briefed on the discussions.

Qatari mediator Ali al-Thawadi spent several hours Monday in New York meeting Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi and members of the Iranian delegation. The discussions centered on a two-page Qatari compromise intended to find common ground between the competing American and Iranian demands.

At the center of the dispute is the sequence in which concessions would occur. Iran wants the United States to end its naval blockade, ease economic restrictions and permit greater Iranian oil exports as part of a process that would reopen the Strait of Hormuz. Washington, however, wants concrete Iranian concessions concerning its nuclear program as part of any agreement.

The Iranian proposal presented during the U.N. General Assembly called for the United States to release frozen Iranian funds, lift sanctions and end the blockade of Iranian ports. Tehran said those measures could be implemented within several days, after which Iran would reopen the Strait of Hormuz and begin negotiations on a broader agreement, including its nuclear program, within approximately one week.

Trump rejected that proposal Saturday.

“They have made a proposal and I rejected it,” Trump said.

He nevertheless indicated a day later that he expected negotiations to continue.

“I expect more talks with Iran [this week]. They want to make a deal, but it is not the deal that I want to make. It is what we would have maybe agreed to a year ago. They overplayed their hand,” Trump said Sunday.

Following Monday’s meeting with the Iranian delegation, al-Thawadi traveled to Washington and met with Trump adviser Jared Kushner and other senior American officials. Vice President JD Vance participated in part of the discussions. The White House declined to publicly detail what was discussed.

For a time Monday, American officials were describing the negotiations much more optimistically.

U.S. officials briefed several news organizations that the indirect talks were “positive and constructive” and that Iran “indicated they are flexible on the nuclear issues.”

Those officials also indicated that Trump could consider sanctions relief and releasing frozen Iranian assets if Tehran took concrete steps to restrict its nuclear program. Axios reported that the administration’s message to Iran included precisely that possibility.

Trump publicly contradicted that account only hours later.

“Axios just released a story that ‘Trump’ offered Sanctions Relief and Frozen Funds to Iran. This is untrue. I offered them NOTHING!,” Trump wrote on Truth Social.

Trump also called the report “a HOAX” and demanded that Axios withdraw it. Reuters subsequently reported Trump’s denial.

The conflicting accounts underscored the uncertainty surrounding negotiations that are taking place almost entirely through intermediaries rather than sustained direct U.S.-Iranian talks.

One source familiar with Monday’s diplomacy said that despite the more upbeat descriptions from some American officials, there had been no meaningful breakthrough.

“It is stuck. The Iranians are asking for things the US can’t accept and the US thinks it is winning so there is no need for compromise,” the source told Axios.

The Trump administration appears to believe that time is working in Washington’s favor as Iran faces mounting economic and military pressure.

The United States on Tuesday imposed additional sanctions on ten individuals and entities in Iran, Hong Kong and Pakistan that Washington says have assisted Iran’s military procurement network. The sanctions are part of the administration’s “Operation Economic Outcast,” an effort to further restrict Tehran’s ability to obtain equipment and financing for its military.

Iran’s currency has meanwhile fallen to historic lows, dropping to roughly 2.5 million rials to the dollar as sanctions, the blockade and months of war continue to hammer the Iranian economy.

Washington also argues that Tehran has less leverage over the Strait of Hormuz than Iranian officials claim. U.S. military forces have been escorting or assisting commercial shipping through the strategically vital waterway, allowing significant quantities of Middle Eastern oil to return to world markets.

U.S. officials recently said approximately 60 million barrels of oil had passed through Hormuz over a 72-hour period. Trump separately said that more than 20 million barrels moved through the strait over one weekend, with a U.S. defense official confirming that approximately 22 million barrels were exported on Friday night alone.

Overall Middle Eastern crude exports rebounded in September to approximately 12.8 million barrels per day, their highest level since the war began, though still substantially below the roughly 18.8 million barrels per day recorded before the conflict.

Iran, however, continues to insist that Washington must address its conditions before a wider settlement can be reached.

Araghchi said the latest discussions with Qatar focused on finding a practical formula for satisfying those demands.

“We talked about ideas and how to find solutions to fulfil Iran’s conditions and how to implement those conditions,” he said. “They had some ideas, and we had a discussion that they will also present to the American side.”

Araghchi said the Qatari mediators could deliver Washington’s response to Tehran after he left New York.

“Whenever the Qataris have a response, they know how to get it to us,” he said.

He has described the latest mediation as an extension of messages being exchanged through Qatar and Pakistan, saying those communications have taken on “a more serious form” since Iran submitted its proposal.

Iranian officials have also pushed back against suggestions that the Trump administration currently holds the stronger hand.

Mohsen Rezaei, secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, said Tuesday that Tehran had already made its conditions clear and accused Trump of being unable to choose between negotiations and continued warfare.

“Trump is incapable of making a decision,” Rezaei said, according to Iranian media. “Trump is trapped in a quagmire in which he can neither negotiate nor fight.”

Trump offered precisely the opposite assessment Tuesday, portraying Iran as increasingly desperate and predicting that Tehran would eventually be forced to relent.

“They are doing very poorly. I don’t know if they are ready to give up yet. They will give up. This is to stop a nuclear weapon. Iran will not have a nuclear weapon.”

The latest impasse follows months of intermittent diplomacy and fighting. The Strait of Hormuz has become one of the central bargaining points because the waterway handled roughly 20% of the world’s oil and liquefied natural gas supplies before the conflict. Iran sharply curtailed passage following the U.S.-Israeli offensive that began on Feb. 28, sending energy prices higher and disrupting global shipping.

The United States and Iran previously reached a tentative arrangement in June, but that effort ultimately failed to produce a durable settlement. American officials have accused Iran of subsequently violating commitments by attacking commercial vessels, while Tehran says Washington failed to fulfill its own commitments involving Israeli military operations and shipping arrangements.

Despite the present deadlock, neither side has publicly closed the door to diplomacy. Araghchi said over the weekend that Iran remains prepared to negotiate even after Trump rejected Tehran’s latest proposal.

“We only care about our national interests. We are ready for negotiations,” Araghchi said.

“Although we heard from President Trump that he’s rejecting this deal … we are still waiting for an official response through the mediators,” he added.

The disagreement now appears to hinge less on whether negotiations should occur than on what must happen first. Tehran is seeking immediate relief from the blockade and economic pressure before reopening Hormuz and moving into wider nuclear negotiations, while Washington is unwilling to provide major concessions without receiving concrete nuclear commitments from Iran.

For Qatar, which has spent days shuttling proposals between the two governments, that sequencing dispute has become the central obstacle — and, for now, neither side appears prepared to blink.

A new purported ransom message connected to the disappearance of Nancy Guthrie, the 84-year-old mother of Today co-anchor Savannah Guthrie, has been determined to be not credible, authorities said Tuesday, hours after revealing that they were investigating the latest potential development in the nearly eight-month-old kidnapping mystery.

The Pima County Sheriff’s Department and FBI initially announced that investigators had learned of another possible ransom communication and were examining it along with social media activity surrounding the message.

“The PCSD/FBI Guthrie Task Force was recently made aware of a new possible ransom note related to the Nancy Guthrie investigation,” a spokesperson for the Pima County Sheriff’s Department said in a statement during the early morning hours of Tuesday.

“Investigators are also aware of social media comments regarding the note and are looking further into the information to determine its credibility,” the sheriff’s department — which has been investigating the abduction alongside the FBI — added.

By later Tuesday, however, investigators had completed an initial review and concluded that the message was not authentic.

“After further review, investigators determined the text message is not credible,” the sheriff’s department said in an updated statement. “Investigators will continue to review reported messages for credibility and investigate any potential attempts at extortion.”

The purported message reportedly involved a woman who was contacted through social media by someone claiming that Guthrie remained alive and demanding money. The woman herself apparently questioned whether the communication was legitimate and brought it to authorities.

The episode is only the latest ransom-related lead investigators have been forced to examine since Guthrie vanished from her Catalina Foothills home outside Tucson in the early hours of Feb. 1. Authorities believe she was forcibly abducted and continue to investigate the case as a kidnapping for ransom. No suspect has been arrested or publicly identified.

Investigators have received numerous purported ransom communications during the investigation, with some dismissed as attempted scams while others have received considerably more serious scrutiny.

“Some have been deemed to be extortion attempts without legitimacy. Other ransom demands may potentially be legitimate and are still being investigated as such,” the FBI said previously.

Two messages sent during the first week after Guthrie disappeared have been treated as potentially significant. Authorities released their full text in July in hopes that someone might recognize the language, phrasing or writing style of the sender.

The first arrived Feb. 2, one day after Guthrie was reported missing, and claimed she was alive and frightened. It demanded $4 million in Bitcoin for her return, with the price increasing to $6 million if the initial deadline passed without payment. The sender threatened to kill Guthrie if the second deadline was missed.

That communication immediately attracted investigators’ attention because it contained information about the crime scene that had not been widely known. It referenced a white smartwatch lying near the foot of Guthrie’s bed and a damaged white floodlight in her backyard.

Investigators later determined that a second communication, received Feb. 6, came from the same IP address as the first, according to law-enforcement sources.

That message delivered a dramatically different claim, saying Guthrie had died shortly after being abducted because those responsible had underestimated the seriousness of her medical condition. The writer claimed she had been buried somewhere in nature and expressed remorse over what had happened. Authorities have never confirmed that account, and Guthrie’s condition and whereabouts remain unknown.

The emergence of ransom demands has also produced deliberate hoaxes.

Earlier this month, California resident Derrick Callella was sentenced after admitting that he sent Guthrie’s family a fraudulent ransom demand. Callella had pleaded guilty in federal court to transmitting a ransom demand in interstate commerce and using a telecommunications device with intent to abuse, threaten or harass.

The continuing flood of genuine tips, questionable claims and outright extortion attempts has complicated an investigation that has already stretched for nearly eight months.

Investigators do possess surveillance evidence from Guthrie’s home. Video released by authorities shows a masked individual apparently tampering with a camera at the residence and obstructing it with a plant around the time of her disappearance.

Despite the surveillance footage, the ransom communications and an extensive investigation involving both local authorities and the FBI, no arrests have been made and investigators have not publicly said whether they believe Guthrie remains alive.

Guthrie’s family has continued making public appeals for information while offering $1 million for information leading to her recovery. The FBI is separately offering a reward of up to $100,000, bringing the potential reward connected to the case to more than $1 million.

Savannah Guthrie has continued speaking publicly about her mother while acknowledging the possibility that the family may ultimately receive devastating news.

“We just want our mom home [to] give her a proper goodbye.”

For now, authorities say the newest ransom claim has been eliminated as a credible lead, while the larger mystery of what happened inside Nancy Guthrie’s Tucson-area home on Feb. 1 remains unsolved.

The State Department has abruptly postponed a memorial ceremony honoring the American victims of the Oct. 7 Hamas massacre that had been scheduled for Wednesday, Sept. 30, leaving families without a new date just days before the third anniversary of the attack on the Jewish calendar.

The department never publicly announced the ceremony, but multiple sources familiar with the arrangements had confirmed that the event was set to take place in Washington. Planning had reached senior levels of the State Department, including the office of Secretary of State Marco Rubio, with the American Jewish Committee working alongside officials on arrangements for victims’ families traveling to Washington.

The decision to postpone the ceremony appears to have been made Tuesday morning. No explanation was immediately provided, and as of Tuesday evening, no replacement date had been announced.

The memorial had been intended to focus specifically on the Americans murdered during the Hamas-led invasion of southern Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, as well as Americans subsequently killed while being held hostage in Gaza. At least 46 American citizens were among those murdered in the attack or killed in captivity.

The planned event would have represented a significant formal acknowledgment by the U.S. government of the American toll from Oct. 7, nearly three years after Hamas terrorists stormed southern Israel, murdering approximately 1,200 people and abducting 251 others into Gaza.

The effort to establish a dedicated American memorial was driven in significant part by Ruby Chen, the father of Itay Chen, a 19-year-old Israeli-American IDF soldier who was killed fighting Hamas terrorists on Oct. 7.

Itay Chen, who was born in the United States and raised in Israel, was serving in a tank unit near the Gaza border when Hamas terrorists overran the area. He was killed while defending Kibbutz Nahal Oz, and his body was dragged into Gaza.

For months after the attack, Itay was believed to be alive and was counted among the hostages. The IDF announced in March 2024 that intelligence had established that he was killed on Oct. 7. His remains were ultimately returned to Israel in November 2025, more than two years after the massacre.

Ruby Chen spent those years traveling repeatedly to Washington and elsewhere to press American officials to secure his son’s return. Since Itay was brought home for kevurah, Chen has continued lobbying for greater recognition of the American victims and for an examination of how the Oct. 7 attack was allowed to occur.

“The majority of the families are dealing with the rehabilitation aspect,” Ruby Chen told JNS at a recent Republican Jewish Coalition gathering in Las Vegas. “I have created very unique relationships with a number of the people inside of the administration, and we still have an open dialogue.”

Chen said that one product of those discussions was the effort to establish a formal memorial for the American victims, an idea he said had reached senior administration officials.

“It’s not a question of if it’s going to happen,” he told JNS. “It’s more a matter of the logistics of when and how it happens that makes the most sense.”

The Sept. 30 date had been selected to fall three days before the third anniversary of the massacre on the Jewish calendar.

The American Jewish Committee had confirmed its involvement in preparing for the ceremony and assisting families expected to travel to Washington for the commemoration. The organization was also working on additional programming surrounding the families’ visit.

Relatives had expected that their time in Washington could include more than the memorial itself.

Ronen Neutra, whose son Capt. Omer Neutra, an Israeli-American tank commander, was killed during the Hamas invasion, said families could use the Washington visit to meet with federal agencies involved in efforts to hold those responsible for the massacre accountable.

Among the agencies mentioned were the FBI and Treasury Department, whose authorities can play roles in investigating terrorism, tracking terrorist financing and imposing financial sanctions.

The Neutra family, like the Chens, spent an extended period believing their son was being held alive in Gaza. The IDF announced in December 2024 that Omer Neutra had actually been killed during the Oct. 7 attack and that Hamas was holding his body.

The families’ efforts have increasingly shifted from the hostage campaign that dominated the first years after Oct. 7 toward questions of remembrance, accountability and justice for the Americans murdered by Hamas.

Chen has also called for Congress to conduct an investigation into the Oct. 7 attack, arguing that the deaths of dozens of American citizens warrant an American governmental inquiry.

He has said there has been a generally positive response on Capitol Hill to the possibility of such an investigation and suggested that political developments in Israel could create an opportunity for the effort to move ahead.

Chen said the post-election period in Israel “maybe would be an inflection point that would create an opportunity to advance very quickly.”

The postponement comes after the State Department had previously declined to publicly confirm the memorial even while preparations were underway. When reports of the planned ceremony first emerged last week, the department said it had nothing to announce.

The ceremony would have been the first dedicated, in-person State Department memorial focused specifically on the American citizens murdered in the Oct. 7 attack and its aftermath.

Transportation Security Administration officers assigned to check passengers’ identification and boarding passes at airport security checkpoints will no longer be permitted to sit while performing that job, under a new nationwide TSA policy that has already triggered a sharp backlash from the union representing the agency’s workforce.

The change applies specifically to officers working at Travel Document Checker positions — the podiums passengers encounter at the entrance to TSA screening lanes, where identification and travel documents are verified. Chairs are being removed from those stations at airports across the country, TSA confirmed Tuesday.

The rule does not appear to mean that every TSA officer must remain standing throughout an entire shift. Officers rotate through different checkpoint assignments, and chairs reportedly remain at certain other positions, including some X-ray and exit-lane stations. The new directive specifically eliminates seating for officers while they are assigned to the document-checking position.

TSA defended the change as both a security and customer-service measure, arguing that officers who are standing will be better positioned to remain attentive and interact professionally with travelers.

“This welcome change reinforces both our security posture and our commitment to hospitality by having these officers on their feet and alert,” TSA said. “All officers must meet fitness for duty requirements to be capable of performing their vital national security function while simultaneously creating a welcoming and professional environment for travelers.”

The American Federation of Government Employees TSA Council 100, which represents TSA officers, reacted angrily, describing the decision as a “disregard for workers’ rights and safety.”

“These chairs serve as basic ergonomic and safety support for officers that stand and walk on hard surfaces all day,” the union said. “TSA is treating this matter like it is a privilege – it is not; it is basic safety and common decency for the workforce.”

According to union officials, employees began learning about the new requirement Friday afternoon, and the removal of chairs has already started at most commercial airports. One union leader said AFGE and its local chapters did not receive formal advance notification about the change.

Reports from TSA employees began circulating before the agency publicly confirmed the policy. Officers at airports in different parts of the country described being told that chairs at the document-checking stations were being eliminated nationwide, while seating at other checkpoint assignments remained available.

The union’s objections center in part on the physical demands already placed on Transportation Security Officers. TSA employees typically rotate among assignments during their shifts and can spend substantial amounts of time standing and walking on hard airport flooring.

The TSA collective bargaining agreement contains provisions dealing with workplace ergonomics. It calls for the agency to provide ergonomic equipment “as appropriate” and also requires anti-fatigue mats at workstations where bargaining-unit employees stand in one location for extended periods. It is not yet clear whether the union will formally challenge the chair-removal policy under those provisions.

Another unresolved issue involves TSA officers who have medical conditions or disabilities that make prolonged standing difficult. Existing federal reasonable-accommodation requirements have not disappeared as a result of the new policy, and the publicly reported directive does not establish that employees with approved medical accommodations are categorically prohibited from receiving seating or another accommodation. The broad new rule concerns ordinary staffing of the document-checker position, rather than eliminating federal disability protections.

The change comes less than two months after David Cummins was confirmed by the Senate to lead TSA. Cummins has begun an agency-wide initiative known as “Horizon 25,” aimed at rapidly changing several aspects of airport security operations as TSA approaches the 25th anniversary of its creation.

“TSA does not have to choose between a secure checkpoint, an efficient checkpoint, and an elevated passenger experience,” Cummins said in announcing the broader initiative.

Horizon 25 includes efforts to expand TSA PreCheck, deploy new screening technology, increase the role of private screening operations and improve passengers’ experience at airport checkpoints. TSA has not publicly established that the decision to remove chairs from document-checking stations is formally part of Horizon 25.

The seating controversy is unfolding as the Trump administration pursues much broader changes at TSA. President Trump proposed in April eliminating more than 9,400 positions and cutting slightly more than $1.5 billion — approximately 20% — from the agency’s annual budget.

The administration has also proposed moving additional smaller airports toward privately employed security screeners rather than federal TSA personnel. Such a change could eliminate more than 4,500 TSA positions as an initial step toward substantially expanding privatization of airport screening.

Private airport screening is not entirely new. Roughly 20 airports already participate in arrangements using private screening personnel, including airports serving San Francisco, Kansas City and Sarasota, Florida.

Cummins himself came to TSA after serving as a senior vice president at Serco, the British-headquartered government-services contractor. The Senate confirmed him in August after the TSA administrator position had remained without a Senate-confirmed permanent leader for approximately 16 months following Trump’s removal of David Pekoske on his first day back in office in January 2025.

TSA employees have also recently endured an unusually difficult period. A six-week government shutdown this spring left roughly 50,000 TSA employees working without pay and contributed to severe airport disruptions, with security waits at some locations stretching to four hours or longer.

The latest change will be far more visible to passengers: At the front of TSA checkpoints across the country, the officers who examine IDs and boarding passes will now ordinarily be doing so on their feet rather than from chairs.

The Trump administration is considering a major change to the federal income-tax return that would require millions of taxpayers to disclose whether they are U.S. citizens, nationals or legally authorized to work in the country, while a separate Treasury Department proposal could limit refundable tax credits for certain immigrants who are legally present in the United States.

The potential changes are emerging in draft IRS documents for the 2027 filing season, when Americans will submit returns covering their 2026 income. Because the forms remain in draft form, the citizenship question could still be revised or removed before final versions are issued.

A draft Form 1040 released by the IRS this month adds a question that does not appear on the current return. Taxpayers would be required to select “Yes” or “No” in response to: “At the time you file your return, are you, and your spouse if filing jointly, a U.S. citizen, U.S. national, or an alien lawfully authorized to work in the U.S.?”

The question would appear near the beginning of the return alongside basic identifying information, meaning taxpayers would encounter it before reaching the sections dealing with income, deductions and taxes.

The administration says collecting the information would help the IRS determine whether taxpayers receiving federal tax benefits satisfy applicable eligibility requirements.

Critics, however, question why the IRS needs taxpayers to separately attest to their immigration or citizenship status when eligibility for several major tax benefits is already linked to Social Security numbers that are valid for employment.

“The IRS doesn’t need this information to administer the tax law,” said Nina Olson, a former IRS official who leads the Center for Taxpayer Rights. “The only reason you have that attestation is to deter people.”

The proposed change has also revived a broader controversy over the relationship between the IRS and federal immigration authorities and whether information supplied to the tax agency could eventually be used for immigration enforcement.

The issue became particularly sensitive after the IRS entered into an information-sharing arrangement with the Department of Homeland Security that allowed Immigration and Customs Enforcement to seek taxpayer address information in certain criminal immigration investigations.

Last year, the IRS provided ICE with addresses it had on file for approximately 47,000 individuals.

Taxpayer information is normally subject to stringent confidentiality protections under federal law. Section 6103 of the Internal Revenue Code generally prohibits the IRS from disclosing tax-return information except under specifically authorized circumstances.

Federal courts have also intervened in disputes over attempts to share taxpayer information on a large scale with immigration authorities, adding to concerns among immigrant advocates that the proposed Form 1040 question could discourage some people from filing tax returns even if the information could not legally be used to locate them for deportation.

The question could be particularly consequential because people living in the United States illegally are still generally required to pay taxes on income earned in the country.

Many people who are not eligible for Social Security numbers file tax returns using Individual Taxpayer Identification Numbers, known as ITINs. The IRS created the ITIN system specifically to allow people with federal tax obligations to file returns regardless of whether they qualify for Social Security numbers.

Undocumented immigrants collectively pay billions of dollars each year in federal income and payroll taxes as well as state and local taxes. Historically, the IRS has generally encouraged taxpayers to comply with federal tax obligations without routinely requiring them to disclose their immigration status on the basic Form 1040.

The new Form 1040 question is only one part of a broader administration effort involving immigration status and the federal tax system.

The Treasury Department and IRS are separately advancing proposed regulations that would change how the refundable portions of four federal tax credits are treated: the earned-income tax credit, child tax credit, adoption tax credit and American Opportunity tax credit, which helps offset higher-education expenses.

Tax credits reduce a taxpayer’s liability dollar-for-dollar. Refundable credits can go further by generating a payment to a taxpayer even after his tax liability has been reduced to zero.

For example, a taxpayer entitled to a $1,000 refundable credit who owes $200 in federal taxes could use $200 of the credit to erase the tax bill and receive the remaining $800 as a refund.

Under the Treasury proposal, the refundable portion of those credits would for the first time be treated as a “federal public benefit” under the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996.

That change is significant because the 1996 welfare-reform law establishes immigration-status requirements for people receiving federal public benefits. Treasury’s proposal would therefore layer those restrictions onto tax credits whose eligibility requirements were established separately by Congress in the tax code.

Three of the four credits already contain significant Social Security number requirements under existing tax law.

But the proposed rule could exclude some immigrants who are legally present in the United States, have federal authorization to work and possess valid Social Security numbers because the 1996 statute uses the narrower legal category of “qualified alien.”

Green-card holders generally fall within that category, as do certain refugees, people granted asylum and some other specifically protected groups.

Other people who may legally remain and work in the United States do not necessarily qualify. They can include certain recipients of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, individuals present under student or employment visas and some people granted Temporary Protected Status.

“This isn’t about undocumented immigrants, no matter how much they advertise it as such,” said Margot Crandall-Hollick, a researcher at the Tax Policy Center. “This is about going after people who are allowed to be here and allowed to work here.”

The proposed Form 1040 question and Treasury’s tax-credit rule also use different standards, underscoring that they are separate initiatives.

The proposed 1040 language asks whether taxpayers are citizens, U.S. nationals or aliens legally authorized to work in the country. It does not ask whether they meet the 1996 law’s narrower definition of a “qualified alien.”

The IRS has therefore also drafted a separate form dealing more specifically with immigration eligibility for federal tax benefits. That document would require affected taxpayers to provide information establishing whether they fall into the appropriate immigration category.

Treasury says the broader effort is intended to ensure that federal tax benefits are distributed only to people legally eligible to receive them.

A Treasury representative said the new question would give the IRS “important and necessary information” for determining eligibility, while declining to provide additional details about why the basic Form 1040 needs the citizenship and work-authorization question.

The proposals are not yet final. Draft IRS forms routinely undergo revisions before being approved for use, while the Treasury tax-credit regulations must proceed through the federal rulemaking process before taking effect.

If finalized in their current form, however, the changes would mark a significant shift in the relationship between the federal tax system and immigration status, placing a direct citizenship and work-authorization question on America’s principal individual income-tax return while separately using immigration classifications to determine access to the refundable portions of major federal tax credits.

President Trump predicted Tuesday that Iran will ultimately “give up” in its war with the United States, arguing that Tehran is being battered militarily and economically while reiterating that Washington’s overriding objective remains preventing the Islamic Republic from obtaining a nuclear weapon.

Speaking to reporters at the White House, Trump stopped short of saying an Iranian capitulation was imminent but portrayed Tehran as increasingly weakened by the conflict.

“They’re doing very poorly. I don’t know if they’re going to give up yet, but they will give up,” said Trump.

His comments came as indirect diplomacy between Washington and Tehran continues despite Trump’s rejection over the weekend of an Iranian proposal to reopen the Strait of Hormuz. Qatar and other regional mediators have remained engaged with both governments, and U.S. and Iranian officials have indicated that discussions have become more serious even as major disagreements remain over sanctions, the American naval blockade and Iran’s nuclear program.

Trump also pointed to the increased movement of oil through the Strait of Hormuz, the strategic waterway that has become one of the central fronts of the conflict.

“We took more oil out of the Hormuz Strait over the last couple of days than at any point in history, including long before we had the war to stop the nuclear weapon. And this is to stop the nuclear weapon,” he added.

U.S. officials say dozens of tankers have recently been moving through the strait under American military protection. U.S. Central Command chief Adm. Brad Cooper said over the weekend that American forces had assisted approximately 2,000 transits carrying more than 1 billion barrels of oil in recent months. Middle Eastern crude exports climbed to roughly 12.8 million barrels per day in September, according to shipping data cited by Reuters, a substantial recovery from earlier in the conflict but still below the approximately 18.8 million barrels per day recorded in February.

The Strait of Hormuz carried roughly one-fifth of global oil and gas supplies before the war, making its disruption one of the conflict’s most consequential effects on the global economy. Iran effectively closed the waterway after the United States and Israel launched their offensive on Feb. 28, and subsequent attacks on commercial shipping have sharply reduced normal traffic through the area.

Iran’s economy, meanwhile, is showing increasing signs of strain. The Iranian rial plunged Tuesday to a record low of more than 2.5 million to the U.S. dollar as the war, sanctions and American blockade continue to weigh on the country.

Trump was also pressed Tuesday on why Washington insists Iran cannot possess nuclear weapons when North Korea already maintains a sizable nuclear arsenal. He responded by pointing to his relationship with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un and arguing that previous American administrations had failed to stop Pyongyang’s nuclear development.

“Because you had a different president. Kim Jong Un,” replied Trump, referring to the North Korean leader and adding, “He’s a friend of mine. He likes Trump. I’m about the only person in the world that he likes. And I like him. I get a lot of heat when I say that. He does have a pretty large nuclear capacity. That could have been stopped, but they had presidents that weren’t Trump. As long as I’m around, he’s going to be fine. You know why? Because he respects me.”

Trump’s latest comments followed similarly confident remarks Monday, when he predicted that the conflict with Iran could end quickly and said the United States would emerge victorious.

Speaking from the Oval Office, Trump said, “We’re going to win, as far as I’m concerned, it’s going to ‌be ⁠one way or the other,” adding, “It’s going ⁠to go pretty quickly.”

He also predicted that gasoline prices, which have been affected by disruptions to Middle Eastern energy supplies, would “come tumbling down” following an American victory.

Trump has repeatedly said that the purpose of the military campaign is to ensure that Tehran never obtains a nuclear weapon. On Monday, he defended that position by warning about the potential consequences if Iran were permitted to develop one.

“If you want to see turmoil, let them take out a city with a nuclear weapon. I’m not only talking about Israel and big parts of the Middle East. Let them hit us with a nuclear weapon, for all those stupid people that think it’s okay,” said Trump.

The president also used unusually blunt language in describing Iran’s leadership.

“They are crazy. There’s no question about it. They are very crazy people. I tell them all the time. I say, ‘You are crazy, man.’ But they cannot have a nuclear weapon.”

Even as Trump publicly talks about defeating Iran, diplomatic efforts have continued behind the scenes.

During last week’s United Nations General Assembly gathering in New York, U.S. envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner participated in indirect discussions with Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi. Qatari officials served as intermediaries, carrying messages between the two sides. Trump said the discussions lasted approximately three hours.

Iran used those contacts to present its conditions for reopening the Strait of Hormuz and resuming formal nuclear negotiations.

Under Tehran’s proposal, Iran would reopen the strait and restart nuclear negotiations within approximately one week if Washington lifted its naval blockade, eased restrictions on Iranian oil exports and restored a regional ceasefire. Iran has also sought access to frozen assets.

Trump rejected the proposal Saturday.

“They have made a proposal and I rejected it,” Trump said.

The rejection did not end the diplomatic channel. A U.S. official subsequently described the indirect discussions as “positive and constructive,” while making clear that Washington will not agree to a settlement that leaves the nuclear issue unresolved. Iranian officials have indicated some flexibility on nuclear questions, but the two sides remain divided over which concessions would occur first.

Araghchi confirmed that Qatari intermediaries were continuing to carry proposals between Tehran and Washington.

“We talked about ideas and how to find solutions to fulfil Iran’s conditions and how to implement those conditions,” he said. “They had some ideas, and we had a discussion that they will also present to the American side.”

The U.S. Senate on Tuesday rejected a resolution that would have required the Trump administration to produce a detailed report on allegations of violence by Israeli civilians and security forces in Yehudah and Shomron, including incidents in which nine American citizens have been killed since 2022.

The measure, S. Res. 852, failed to advance in a 47-51 procedural vote, effectively ending an effort led by Sen. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland and more than 20 other senators to compel the State Department to provide Congress with information about Israeli human-rights practices and investigations into the deaths of American citizens.

The vote largely followed party lines. Sen. John Fetterman of Pennsylvania was the lone Democrat to vote against advancing the resolution, while Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky was the only Republican to vote in favor.

Van Hollen introduced the resolution alongside Sens. Tim Kaine, Bernie Sanders, Ed Markey, Jeff Merkley, Peter Welch, Martin Heinrich, Elizabeth Warren, Mazie Hirono, Tina Smith, Ben Ray Luján, Richard Blumenthal, Ron Wyden, Brian Schatz, Chris Murphy, Chris Coons, Dick Durbin, Lisa Blunt Rochester, Jeanne Shaheen, Patty Murray, Jack Reed and Sheldon Whitehouse. Additional support was subsequently announced by Sen. Tammy Duckworth.

The resolution invoked Section 502B(c) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, an unusual congressional mechanism allowing lawmakers to demand information about the human-rights record of a country receiving U.S. security assistance.

Had the measure passed, the State Department would have been required to submit a report within 30 days addressing a broad series of questions involving Israel’s conduct in Yehudah and Shomron. Failure by the administration to provide the report could have triggered restrictions on certain categories of U.S. security assistance to Israel.

The resolution sought information concerning nine U.S. citizens whom its sponsors say were killed by Israeli security personnel or Israeli civilians in Yehudah and Shomron since January 2022: Omar Assad, Shireen Abu Akleh, Tawfic Abdel Jabbar, Mohammad Khdour, Aysenur Ezgi Eygi, Amer Rabee, Sayfollah Kamel Musallet, Khamis Ayyad and Nasrallah Abu Siyam. Those descriptions reflect allegations and findings cited by the resolution’s sponsors; circumstances surrounding individual cases have been disputed in some instances.

The resolution also sought information about an August incident involving 82-year-old Palestinian-American Khamis Rabee Jabara, who the measure says was hospitalized after Israeli soldiers used a flashbang grenade against him in Turmus Ayya.

Beyond the cases involving Americans, the proposal would have required the State Department to assess broader human-rights conditions in Yehudah and Shomron, including Israel’s detention of Palestinian minors and allegations of violence involving Israeli residents of the area.

One of the cases prominently cited by Van Hollen involved Sayfollah Kamel Musallet, a 20-year-old American from Florida who was killed near Sinjil in July 2025. His family said he was beaten during a confrontation involving Israeli settlers and alleged that access by emergency medical personnel was delayed. U.S. Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee subsequently called Musallet’s killing a “criminal and terrorist act” and said “there must be accountability.”

Another case cited in the resolution was that of Aysenur Ezgi Eygi, a 26-year-old American-Turkish activist who was fatally shot during a protest in September 2024. The IDF said at the time that an initial investigation found it highly likely she had been unintentionally struck by Israeli fire aimed at another person whom soldiers identified as an instigator of violent activity.

The measure also cited Palestinian-American journalist Shireen Abu Akleh, who was fatally shot while covering an Israeli military operation in Jenin in 2022. An IDF investigation later concluded there was a “high possibility” she was unintentionally struck by Israeli gunfire during an exchange of fire, while saying it was not possible to conclusively determine the source of the shot.

Van Hollen argued on the Senate floor that regardless of disagreements surrounding individual incidents, the deaths of American citizens warranted a formal accounting from the State Department.

“If the killing of nine Americans does not justify a report from our own state department, I would ask my colleagues: what would?” Van Hollen said. “How many more Americans must be killed before the executive branch does its job? These families deserve answers.”

Following the resolution’s defeat, Van Hollen said he would continue pressing the administration for information.

“While I was pleased that so many of my Democratic colleagues joined this effort, it’s clear the United States must do more,” Van Hollen said. “It is our responsibility to ensure recipients of US taxpayer dollars act in line with our laws and our values – this resolution was an opportunity to shed light on a reality that flies in the face of that principle.”

Supporters emphasized that the resolution itself would not have cut off American assistance to Israel upon passage. Its immediate requirement was production of the State Department report. Congress could then have considered further action based on the findings. However, the Foreign Assistance Act mechanism contains consequences if an administration fails to provide a required report, potentially affecting covered security assistance.

The resolution’s sponsors also cited what they described as a broader increase in violence in Yehudah and Shomron. The United Nations reported this month that it had documented more than 1,430 incidents involving Israeli settlers resulting in Palestinian casualties, property damage or both during 2026 through early August. The U.N. also reported 76 Palestinians killed by Israeli forces or settlers in Yehudah and Shomron through Aug. 10, while three Israelis — one civilian and two members of the security forces — had been killed in confrontations or an alleged Palestinian ramming attack during the same period. Those figures are U.N. assessments and do not by themselves establish responsibility in individual incidents.

The resolution did not address Palestinian terrorism in comparable detail, focusing instead on Israel because Section 502B is designed to examine the human-rights practices of governments receiving American security assistance. Its sponsors framed the measure as an accountability and oversight initiative rather than a resolution determining guilt in the individual cases.

Tuesday’s vote also underscored divisions in Congress over U.S. policy toward Israel. While nearly the entire Republican conference opposed the measure, most Senate Democrats supported moving it forward. The 47-51 result nevertheless left the resolution short of the votes required to proceed.

The defeat means the Trump administration will not be legally compelled under S. Res. 852 to produce the requested 30-day report, although senators remain free to seek the same information through hearings, letters, appropriations provisions and other congressional oversight mechanisms.

President Trump emerged from a high-powered White House gathering with Elon Musk, Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang, House Speaker Mike Johnson and some of the biggest names in American technology Tuesday to announce a new industry-wide agreement aimed at keeping the United States dominant in artificial intelligence — or, as Trump now wants the federal government to call it, “Super Intelligence.”

The agreement is real and was signed Tuesday by leading technology executives, according to multiple reports. But it is not a legally binding government regulation or a new federal law. Rather, the White House is describing it as a voluntary industry compact under which the country’s leading AI companies commit to policing the development of increasingly powerful systems through internal safeguards, risk assessments and independent outside reviews.

Trump described the agreement as essentially a “morally binding” constitution governing the industry’s conduct as the technology advances at extraordinary speed. The document itself also leaves open the possibility that some of its principles could eventually be formally codified.

The accord followed what Trump described as a highly productive White House lunch with Johnson and more than a dozen of the country’s leading technology executives. Participants included Musk, Huang, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg, Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei, Amazon founder Jeff Bezos and executives representing OpenAI and Google.

Trump praised the executives following the gathering, saying they “LOVE our country” and presenting the agreement as an unusual moment of cooperation among companies that ordinarily compete fiercely against one another.

Among the companies signing the voluntary accord were Google, Meta, Nvidia, Anthropic, Musk’s xAI and OpenAI, whose president, Greg Brockman, signed on behalf of the company.

The agreement declares that companies developing advanced AI systems bear responsibility for making sure their products are built safely and retain public confidence.

“In order to build a positive future for the American people and the world, we believe every company is responsible for developing its own technology safely and in a way that builds trust with customers and the public,” the agreement states.

Under the compact, participating companies agreed to establish internal controls intended to prevent advanced AI systems from behaving in dangerous or unintended ways. They also committed to conducting risk assessments, submitting their safeguards to independent external auditors and establishing internal board-level structures to review the findings of those audits.

The arrangement represents an important element of Trump’s broader AI policy: rather than imposing a sweeping federal regulatory structure on the rapidly developing industry, the administration is seeking to preserve aggressive American innovation while relying heavily on technology companies to police themselves.

“I’m seeing tremendous self-policing,” Trump said after the meeting.

Johnson said the agreement would establish “robust internal controls and layers of internal and external review,” while making clear that Washington would continue watching how the technology develops.

“Congress is going to keep steady hands at the wheel on this. We’ll continue to assess and further deliberate in the days ahead,” Johnson said.

Huang rejected the premise that technological development and safety necessarily have to come at the expense of one another.

“There’s no conflict between innovation, technology and safety,” Huang said. “We are going to have to create new technologies to advance the capabilities of AI, but we’re also creating new technologies to advance the safety of it.”

Amodei, whose company Anthropic has been among the most vocal major AI developers warning about the potential dangers posed by increasingly capable systems, also endorsed the agreement.

“This is a start,” Amodei said.

Trump’s approach nevertheless stops well short of the government-imposed safeguards sought by some AI researchers, lawmakers and technology executives. The president has repeatedly resisted efforts to substantially slow AI development, arguing that doing so could surrender America’s technological advantage to China.

“We do not surrender to fears about what technologies will do to us,” Trump said Tuesday. “We decide that those technologies will do for us some very, very incredible things.”

The president made the competition with Beijing a central theme of his remarks, portraying control of the next generation of AI as potentially decisive in determining global technological leadership.

“Whoever wins super intelligence wins. You know, it’s an expression. Whoever wins super intelligence wins. You’re going to have a winner and a loser, and you’re probably not going to have a second place. You’re going to have a winner or you’re going to have a loser. We’re leading now over China and everyone else, and I want to keep it that way,” Trump said.

Trump also said he is moving ahead with his unusual effort to replace the term “artificial intelligence” in federal government usage with “Super Intelligence,” abbreviated “SI.”

“This kind of innovation in government is just a preview of what is possible with super intelligence or SI, and that’s the official name in the United States. I’ll be signing a very powerful executive order,” Trump said.

“This isn’t — this is extreme intelligence. It’s superior intelligence. It’s, uh, supreme also intelligence, but the word super is the best word of all and it’s the simplest. And so we’re going to be naming it SI, super intelligence, but we don’t want to hear artificial because it’s not artificial. It’s very powerful,” he said.

The terminology is not entirely new. Trump announced at the United Nations last week that federal documents would begin referring to AI as “Super Intelligence,” arguing that the word “artificial” inaccurately suggested that the technology was somehow fake. The United States and China also recently established a U.S.-China Super Intelligence Dialogue and a communication channel intended to address major AI-related incidents.

Tuesday’s White House meeting therefore did not create “SI” itself, as some early social-media accounts suggested. The term is Trump’s administration-wide rebranding of artificial intelligence, while the agreement signed by technology executives is a separate voluntary safety accord.

The president also suggested that a roughly 10-member committee could be created to oversee developments in advanced AI, potentially drawing some of its members from the technology leaders who attended Tuesday’s gathering. Trump said he was also close to choosing a new administration official to coordinate federal AI policy.

Tuesday’s announcements extended beyond the industry agreement. Earlier in the day, Trump unveiled America.gov, a new AI-powered government portal intended eventually to serve as a single digital gateway for Americans seeking federal services and information.

The new platform is being developed with technology from Google’s Gemini and Musk’s Grok and is intended to function as what U.S. Chief Design Officer Joe Gebbia called a “concierge to navigate government.”

At launch, the system can search information contained across government websites. The administration says future versions are intended to help Americans complete tasks involving federal programs and services, potentially including Medicare enrollment and passport renewals.

The White House gathering comes amid an increasingly intense national debate over AI safety. Leading developers have acknowledged that their newest systems are rapidly becoming more capable, while researchers and executives have publicly disagreed over whether government intervention is necessary to prevent catastrophic misuse or loss of control.

Trump, however, made clear Tuesday that he intends to pursue American dominance without imposing restrictions that he believes could cripple innovation.

“This is one more example of why I will never stifle the growth of technology that will be bigger than the Industrial Revolution,” Trump said.

For the moment, the centerpiece of that approach is the new voluntary compact: America’s most powerful AI companies pledging to install safeguards and subject themselves to internal and outside scrutiny, while the Trump administration largely leaves development in the industry’s hands.

California will outlaw the sale of disposable nicotine vapes beginning in 2028 under a new law signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom — while explicitly exempting cannabis vaping products from the ban.

Assembly Bill 762 prohibits retailers and distributors from selling or distributing single-use nicotine vaping devices in California beginning Jan. 1, 2028. The state will begin phasing out the products even earlier, with manufacturing and importing covered disposable vapes prohibited starting in 2027.

The legislation specifically targets electronic cigarettes and vaping products that combine a permanently embedded battery with a nicotine- or tobacco-containing cartridge designed to be discarded when the liquid or battery runs out.

Vaping products will still be permitted under the new rules if they meet requirements intended to make them reusable. Legal devices will generally need rechargeable batteries and either refillable reservoirs or replaceable cartridges or pods rather than being thrown away after a single cycle of use.

Cannabis vaping products, however, are specifically excluded from the prohibition, meaning disposable marijuana vapes sold through California’s regulated cannabis market will not be affected by the nicotine-device ban.

Supporters of AB 762 have framed the legislation largely as an environmental measure rather than simply another restriction on tobacco and nicotine products.

Disposable vapes typically contain lithium-ion batteries, plastics, electronic components and residual nicotine liquid. Because the batteries generally cannot be easily removed, the devices are difficult to recycle and are frequently discarded with ordinary household garbage.

Environmental and public-health groups have warned that discarded vaping devices can leak nicotine and toxic metals into the environment. Lithium batteries tossed into garbage and recycling streams can also be punctured or crushed, potentially triggering fires at waste facilities, garbage trucks and recycling plants.

Advocacy organizations have estimated that hundreds of thousands of disposable vaping devices are discarded across the United States every day, creating a growing stream of electronic and hazardous waste.

The legislation gives California businesses an extended period to transition away from disposable products. Retailers will be permitted to continue selling existing inventory through the end of 2027 before the retail prohibition takes effect on Jan. 1, 2028.

Manufacturers and importers face the earlier cutoff in an effort to prevent additional disposable devices from continuing to enter the California market as the retail deadline approaches.

Businesses that violate the new restrictions will face civil penalties beginning at $500, with fines increasing for subsequent violations.

The disposable-vape measure was among a broader package of environmental and public-health legislation signed by Newsom in late September.

California has already imposed some of the nation’s toughest restrictions on tobacco and nicotine products, including a statewide prohibition on the retail sale of most flavored tobacco products. The new law takes a different approach by targeting the physical design and disposability of vaping devices rather than banning vaping altogether.

The exemption for cannabis products creates a notable distinction: Beginning in 2028, a disposable vaping device containing nicotine will be prohibited from retail sale in California, while a comparable disposable device containing cannabis can continue to be legally sold through the state’s licensed marijuana market.

The U.S. Supreme Court handed the Trump administration a significant victory Tuesday, allowing the government to resume expedited deportations of migrants to countries other than their homelands while the justices prepare to decide whether the administration’s controversial “third-country” removal policy is legal.

The court’s order temporarily blocked a lower-court ruling that required the government to provide migrants with notice and a meaningful opportunity to argue that they could face torture or persecution before being deported to a country with which they may have no connection.

The justices also agreed to hear the case on its merits, with oral arguments scheduled for December. That means Tuesday’s action does not constitute a final ruling that the administration’s policy is lawful; rather, it permits the deportations to continue while the Supreme Court considers the broader constitutional and legal questions.

The court’s three liberal justices — Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson — indicated that they would have denied the administration’s request and allowed the lower-court restrictions to remain in place.

The court did not provide an explanation for its decision, as is common with emergency orders.

The case, Department of Homeland Security v. D.V.D., centers on the Trump administration’s practice of sending people with final removal orders to so-called third countries when deportation to their country of origin is unavailable or impractical.

Since the policy was expanded after President Trump returned to office, the administration has deported more than 25,000 people to 29 countries under third-country arrangements. The overwhelming majority have been sent to Mexico, but deportees have also been transferred to countries including Liberia, Guyana, South Sudan, Uganda, Equatorial Guinea and the Central African Republic.

Some of those arrangements have been negotiated privately between the United States and foreign governments, with the receiving countries providing assurances that deportees will not be tortured or persecuted.

The administration says the program is particularly important for removing individuals whose home governments refuse to accept them or when other obstacles prevent their repatriation. Officials have also argued that the policy provides a mechanism for deporting individuals with serious criminal records who might otherwise remain in the United States.

The latest Supreme Court intervention came after a three-judge panel of the Boston-based 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously upheld a ruling by U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy finding that the administration’s procedures violated migrants’ due-process rights.

Murphy did not prohibit third-country deportations altogether. Instead, his ruling required the government to provide migrants with sufficient notice of where they would be sent and an opportunity to raise claims that they could face persecution or torture there.

The administration argued that those requirements would severely hinder its ability to carry out deportations and complicate negotiations with foreign governments willing to accept migrants who are not their citizens.

“The government has been able to remove thousands of aliens to third countries in recent months, and thousands more are eligible for such removal,” Solicitor General D. John Sauer wrote.

Federal attorneys told the Supreme Court that the lower-court restrictions had already forced the cancellation of a flight carrying approximately 70 deportees with criminal convictions who were scheduled to be sent to three different countries.

The administration also argued that requiring individualized proceedings before every third-country removal could leave dangerous individuals inside the United States when their native countries refuse to take them back.

“Meanwhile, the very aliens whose removal is most urgent, including those who have committed serious crimes like murder, attempted murder, rape, child rape, kidnapping, and aggravated assault, will be allowed to remain — and often will be released (given practical and legal constraints on detention), to the peril of law-abiding Americans,” the administration told the Supreme Court.

Government lawyers have further maintained that assurances obtained from receiving governments should generally be sufficient to address concerns that deportees could face torture or persecution.

“The decision that a foreign government’s categorial assurance against torture or persecution is sufficient for all aliens is itself a ‘foreign policy’ judgment the Judiciary ‘is not suited’ to question,” the administration’s Supreme Court application said.

Attorneys representing the migrants strongly dispute that position. They contend that blanket diplomatic assurances cannot replace an individual opportunity to explain why a particular person may face imprisonment, persecution, torture or other serious dangers in the proposed destination country.

“Denying a stay does not prevent third-country removals; rather, it simply requires them to do so lawfully,” the Supreme Court filing for the immigrants who challenged the policy said.

Attorneys challenging the administration have also argued that the program extends beyond violent criminals. They say some deportees have no criminal convictions and that others have already been found to face a danger of persecution or torture if returned to their own countries.

Some third-country deportees have reportedly been detained after arriving in countries with which they had no previous connection. Critics of the policy say others have been placed in situations where their only practical option is to return to the homeland from which they originally sought protection.

South Sudan has emerged as one of the most controversial destinations used by the administration. The State Department itself warns Americans against traveling there because of armed conflict, crime and kidnapping.

The legal battle previously reached the Supreme Court after Judge Murphy imposed restrictions on third-country deportations. The justices allowed the administration to proceed with removals while litigation continued, including a closely watched case involving eight men who were ultimately deported to South Sudan.

The dispute took on renewed urgency this month after the 1st Circuit upheld Murphy’s final ruling that the administration’s procedures were unlawful. The administration quickly returned to the Supreme Court, asking the justices to prevent that decision from disrupting its deportation program.

Attorney General Todd Blanche described the administration’s approach as “an entirely lawful and critical tool for immigration enforcement.”

The Supreme Court has now agreed to address not only whether the third-country policy itself is lawful, but also whether the migrants were entitled to bring their challenge and whether the lower federal courts possessed the authority to impose broad restrictions on the administration’s program.

Those questions could produce a ruling with implications extending beyond third-country deportations, particularly as the Trump administration continues its broader effort to sharply increase removals of people living illegally in the United States.

New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani unveiled a sweeping new strategy Tuesday that he says will combat antisemitism through millions of dollars in security funding, education and hate-crime prevention, but the plan immediately came under sharp criticism from major Jewish organizations, rabbonim and Israeli officials who said it conspicuously avoids confronting anti-Zionism and anti-Israel hostility as major sources of contemporary antisemitism.

The 33-page City Hall strategy, billed by the Mamdani administration as New York City’s first comprehensive municipal plan devoted specifically to combating antisemitism, includes $6.4 million for community-based hate-prevention efforts, another $1 million for security improvements at shuls and other houses of worship, expanded Holocaust and Jewish-history education, and millions more for Jewish cultural projects.

But perhaps the most consequential element of the document is what it does not contain. The plan does not adopt a definition of antisemitism, barely discusses Israel or Zionism, and declines to restore the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance working definition of antisemitism that Mamdani revoked after taking office in January. The IHRA definition includes several examples involving attacks on Israel that can, depending on context, constitute antisemitism.

The UJA-Federation of New York, Jewish Community Relations Council-NY, American Jewish Committee New York and New York Board of Rabbis issued a joint response saying that “any effort to confront antisemitism in New York City must fully address the realities Jewish New Yorkers face today.”

The organizations acknowledged that Mamdani’s strategy contains “a number of positive elements, including some increased security funding for Jewish institutions and expanding proven programs.” But they said it “fails to address a central issue that the mayor himself has perpetuated: rhetoric that demonizes and delegitimizes Israel inevitably leads to the targeting of Jewish New Yorkers.”

“Those who truly seek to address antisemitism must unequivocally reject such rhetoric and help ensure that Jewish New Yorkers are never made to feel suspect, excluded or unsafe in their own city,” the groups said.

The criticism was echoed by Ofir Akunis, Israel’s consul general in New York, who argued that funding security programs cannot substitute for confronting rhetoric directed against Israel.

“Money can’t buy values,” he said.

“Until you recognize that your language against the Jewish state, which you don’t recognize as the homeland of the Jewish people, is the fundamental reason for the rise of antisemitism in New York City, it will continue to increase,” the Israeli envoy told the mayor.

“Truly combating antisemitism requires readopting the IHRA working definition of Antisemitism, which you overturned as the first decision of your administration on day one,” Akunis stated.

“To truly fight antisemitism would be to call for your supporters to stop shouting ‘from the river to the sea’ and ‘globalize the intifada,’ have them condemn the Oct. 7 massacre and instead of supporting Hamas, declare that they are a terror organization,” he added.

Rabbi Ammiel Hirsch, senior rabbi of Manhattan’s Stephen Wise Free Synagogue, said the fundamental problem with the strategy is that it fails to confront what he regards as the connection between the surge in antisemitism and hostility toward Israel. Hirsch also pointed to Mamdani’s own record of accusing Israel of “genocide” and calling for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s arrest.

Hirsch told JNS that “fundamentally, the report is such a disappointment and frankly unworthy of the mayor and administration.”

“Because it omits the central driver of antisemitism which is anti-Israel hostility,” the strategy “of course omits the mayor’s own role in adding to that,” the rabbi said.

The new strategy “will not stop or even slow down the surge of antisemitism in the city as long as the mayor and forces that are opposed to Israel’s existence” speak about Israel as he does, Hirsch told JNS.

Ignoring the connection between anti-Zionism and Jew-hatred “is a big evasion, very disappointing and I think that the mayor knows better,” Hirsch said.

Other Jewish leaders offered similar criticism. Rabbi Rick Jacobs, president of the Union for Reform Judaism, praised portions of the plan while arguing that Mamdani himself needs to change the tenor of his rhetoric regarding Israel.

“For this effort to be effective, Mayor Mamdani must also commit to stopping his harsh anti-Israel rhetoric that makes Jewish New Yorkers vulnerable as there are clearly times when antisemitic attacks are fueled by anti-Zionism,” Jacobs said.

The debate comes against troubling statistics. Mamdani himself acknowledged in the introduction to the strategy that Jews constitute a relatively small percentage of the city’s population while accounting for a vastly disproportionate share of reported hate-crime victims.

“The numbers are indisputable: Jewish New Yorkers make up only 12% of our population, yet they are the victims of roughly half of all reported hate crimes,” Mamdani wrote, in an introduction to the report.

Recent NYPD figures provide additional context: during the first seven months of 2026, reported anti-Jewish hate incidents increased by 8.5%, with Jewish victims accounting for 57% of reported hate crimes during that period.

City Hall’s plan points to $26 million that Mamdani previously allocated to the city’s Office for the Prevention of Hate Crimes. Within that broader expenditure, $6.4 million is being directed to the Partners Against the Hate grant program, which supports community organizations working on hate prevention, education, victim assistance, data collection and efforts against online hatred.

The Jewish Community Relations Council of New York is slated to serve as an anchor organization in that initiative. Individual community groups will be eligible for grants of up to $10,000.

An additional $1 million is earmarked for physical security at nonprofit and religious institutions, including shuls. The program is intended in particular to assist smaller institutions that may struggle to qualify for larger federal security grants. Potential upgrades include reinforced locks, shatter-resistant glass and security equipment.

The strategy also calls for reviving an interagency Security Infrastructure Working Group involving the NYPD, Department of Transportation and other agencies to help shuls and Jewish institutions assess vulnerabilities and improve their security.

Education forms another major component. City Hall intends to expand opportunities for eighth-grade public-school students to visit the Museum of Jewish Heritage and continue incorporating Jewish-American history into the school curriculum.

The administration is also committing $2 million toward completion of the Queens Holocaust Memorial and $2.5 million for the Center for New Jewish Culture in Central Brooklyn. A public campaign on LinkNYC kiosks throughout the five boroughs will highlight Jewish contributions to New York.

The strategy describes Jewish life as central to the city’s history and identity. Phylisa Wisdom, executive director of the Mayor’s Office to Combat Antisemitism, described New York as “Jewish people’s front door to America.”

“My administration has zero tolerance for antisemitism. Not on our subways. Not in our workplaces. Not online. Not anywhere,” Mamdani stated. “As mayor, I will use every power entrusted in me to protect Jewish New Yorkers and ensure that Jewish life flourishes for generations to come.”

The administration developed the plan following a five-borough listening tour in which Wisdom’s office met with Jewish New Yorkers representing different levels of religious observance and political views. Mamdani has also held meetings with rabbonim and Orthodox and chassidishe communal leaders as he has attempted to address deep concerns within parts of the city’s Jewish community about his positions on Israel.

Still, the most contentious question — how the city defines antisemitism and when anti-Zionism crosses into Jew-hatred — remains unresolved.

The strategy discusses three different frameworks used to define antisemitism but adopts none of them. Those include the IHRA working definition, the Nexus Document and the Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism. City Hall says it can combat antisemitism without formally selecting one definition.

That represents a sharp break with the policy in effect before Mamdani became mayor. On his first day in office, Mamdani rescinded an executive order adopted under Mayor Eric Adams that embraced the IHRA definition. Among the examples contained in the IHRA framework is denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, such as claiming that the existence of Israel as a Jewish state is inherently illegitimate.

Mamdani has been an outspoken opponent of Zionism and has repeatedly accused Israel of committing genocide in Gaza. During his campaign for mayor, he said he would seek to have Netanyahu arrested if the Israeli prime minister entered New York pursuant to an International Criminal Court warrant, although his administration subsequently acknowledged that City Hall lacks the legal authority to independently carry out such an arrest.

He also drew intense criticism during the campaign after declining at first to condemn the slogan “globalize the intifada.” Mamdani did not himself use the phrase and later said he would discourage its use. He also skipped the city’s annual Israel Day Parade in June.

Netanyahu directly attacked Mamdani from the podium at the United Nations last week, accusing the mayor of helping create an environment in which Jewish New Yorkers feel threatened. Mamdani rejected Netanyahu’s criticism and continued to defend his characterization of Israel’s conduct in Gaza.

The new City Hall document does refer to the October 7, 2023, Hamas massacre and the war that followed in discussing the environment surrounding the rise in antisemitism, but it does not directly identify anti-Zionism as a cause. The report instead places the current surge within a broader timeline of antisemitic activity that includes the 2017 Charlottesville rally and the 2018 massacre at Pittsburgh’s Tree of Life shul.

The report states that antisemitism should also be confronted alongside other forms of hatred.

“One form of hatred cannot be combated in a vacuum,” the report states. “Antisemitism can, and must, be addressed hand in hand with all other forms of hatred.”

The strategy also notes that neither the NYPD nor FBI automatically regards demonstrations outside houses of worship as antisemitic or hateful. That issue has been particularly contentious following anti-Israel demonstrations outside shuls hosting events connected to Israel.

City Council Speaker Julie Menin previously pushed legislation requiring the NYPD to develop procedures for buffer zones when demonstrations outside houses of worship involve intimidation, harassment or threats. Mamdani had expressed concerns about restricting lawful protests and ultimately allowed the legislation to become law without his signature.

Eric Dinowitz, co-chairman of the City Council’s Jewish Caucus and its bipartisan task force on antisemitism, welcomed several practical portions of Mamdani’s initiative, particularly those dealing with education and security.

Dinowitz praised the report for “its focus on education, prevention, enforcement and ensuring Jewish New Yorkers can live openly and proudly in our city.” But the mayor’s strategy “misses an opportunity to confront the reality of the intersection between anti-Zionism and antisemitism,” the Jewish council member stated.

“Though Zionism is not an endorsement of a particular Israeli government or political agenda, we cannot ignore that attacking or excluding ‘Zionists’ can and has become a convenient way to disguise antisemitism as political disagreement,” Dinowitz stated.

Not all Jewish communal figures shared those objections. Nancy Kaufman, chair of the progressive New York Jewish Agenda, argued that a municipal strategy focused on Jewish life and safety in New York does not need to center Israel.

“This really is singularly focused on Jews in New York and celebrating Jews in New York, so it doesn’t surprise me that Israel isn’t part of it,” she said. “It hits the right tone and hopefully will reassure Jewish New Yorkers, who have questions about the commitment of the mayor to their safety.”

Brad Lander, the Democratic congressional nominee and ex-New York City comptroller, also backed the initiative.

“Mayor Mamdani’s plan to combat antisemitism is a thoughtful, strategic combination of education for tolerance, enforcement of civil rights and investments in safety,” stated Lander.

“It’s no secret that we don’t all agree on many things, from how we pray to how we relate to Israel, but we can all agree and work together on this: Jewish New Yorkers—like all New Yorkers, and in all our diversity—deserve to be and feel safe in our shuls, streets, homes and workplaces, and to feel a valued and integral part of this extraordinary city that has welcomed us, and where we have welcomed so many others,” Lander stated.

Rabbi Mark Goldfeder, CEO and director of the National Jewish Advocacy Center, offered a considerably harsher assessment, arguing that much of the substance of the new initiative resembles measures pursued by the previous administration while eliminating the components dealing directly with Israel.

“Mamdani’s ‘first-ever’ antisemitism strategy is mostly just the Adams plan that he deleted on day one of his administration but with every page that touches Israel torn out.”

“That is the whole review, the rest is commentary,” he said.

The controversy even reached Albany on Tuesday, where Gov. Kathy Hochul declined to offer a substantive assessment of Mamdani’s plan, saying she had not yet reviewed it in detail. New York State maintains its own approach to defining antisemitism, while state lawmakers have separately pushed legislation to formally codify the IHRA definition.

Hours after releasing the strategy, City Hall announced that Mamdani “will celebrate Sukkot with Jewish New Yorkers.” According to the mayor’s office, the event is “available to invited press only.”

A New Jersey man who arrived at a Washington cathedral with more than 100 operable homemade explosive devices, a nine-page list of demands and threats directed at Jews, Catholics, Supreme Court justices and major government sites has been sentenced to nearly six years in federal prison.

Louis Geri, 42, of Vineland, N.J., was sentenced by U.S. District Judge Randolph Moss to 70 months — five years and 10 months — behind bars, followed by three years of supervised release. Federal prosecutors had asked the judge to impose an 87-month sentence.

Geri pleaded guilty in March to Hobbs Act extortion by wrongful use of force, violence or fear and possession of an unregistered destructive device. The charges stemmed from his arrest outside the Cathedral of St. Matthew the Apostle in Washington on Oct. 5, 2025, hours before the annual Red Mass, a high-profile Catholic service traditionally attended by Supreme Court justices, Cabinet members, members of Congress and diplomats.

“Threatening to detonate explosive devices at a house of worship during an important historic religious service, known as the Red Mass, is an attack on our community and on the fundamental right to worship freely,” stated Jeanine Ferris Pirro, U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia.

Geri “chose to terrorize a sacred space, St. Matthew’s Cathedral, and endanger officers and parishioners, thereby preventing Supreme Court justices from attending an annual religious event,” she stated. “Seventy months in federal prison reflects the seriousness of his conduct and our commitment to protecting every community from extremist threats and violence.”

The incident began on the evening of Oct. 4, when Geri rode a motorcycle to the cathedral on Rhode Island Avenue NW and erected a tent directly on its front steps. Inside, according to federal authorities, he assembled an arsenal of more than 100 homemade explosive devices.

The bombs were made with materials that included nitromethane, magnesium, charcoal and thermite. Authorities said Geri had purchased the materials in Arkansas and assembled the devices in Virginia before bringing them into Washington.

Geri also brought with him nine pages of written demands. Those demands included hundreds of thousands of dollars in payments to himself and others, extended accommodations at Washington’s Mayflower Hotel and what he described as an “expatriation flight” to Japan.

Among his more unusual demands, Geri wanted the U.S. Supreme Court to remove Arizona from the United States and formally designate the state a “foreign enemy.”

The documents also contained demands aimed specifically at Catholic and Jewish religious leaders. Police said paperwork found with Geri demonstrated “significant animosity” toward the Roman Catholic Church, Jews and the Supreme Court, as well as U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

The timing and location of Geri’s actions prompted particular alarm because the Red Mass was scheduled to take place at the cathedral the following morning. The annual service marks the beginning of the Supreme Court’s term and has historically drawn members of the nation’s highest court and other senior government officials. No Supreme Court justices ultimately attended the 2025 service.

At approximately 5 a.m. on Oct. 5, Metropolitan Police Department officers conducting security patrols before the Mass approached Geri’s tent and told him he would have to leave the area.

Geri refused.

He then threatened to throw one of his explosive devices into the street to prove what it could do and warned officers what would happen if federal authorities refused to negotiate with him.

“several of your people are gonna die from one of these,” he told officers, if federal agents did not accept his demands.

Police established a barricade around the tent as the confrontation continued. At approximately 5:53 a.m., Geri briefly stepped outside, giving officers an opportunity to take him into custody.

Investigators found an explosive device in Geri’s pocket along with a butane lighter. A subsequent search of his tent uncovered more than 100 additional explosive devices.

The FBI later tested the devices and determined that they were genuine, operable improvised explosive devices — rather than inert props or fake bombs.

After his arrest, Geri waived his Miranda rights and referred to his homemade devices as “grenades” and “rockets.” He admitted that he planned to use threats of violence to force government officials to negotiate with him.

Geri also acknowledged that he was prepared to use the explosives against people and property. The potential targets he identified included St. Matthew’s Cathedral itself, the White House, the Washington Monument, the U.S. Capitol and the Supreme Court.

Federal prosecutors said the evidence left little ambiguity about the danger posed by Geri’s actions.

“The defendant’s intent was clear: If his list of demands was not met, innocent people would die and prominent, historic landmarks, such as the Washington Monument, the Supreme Court, and the White House, would be destroyed,” prosecutors wrote.

At sentencing, Judge Moss described the incident as extraordinarily dangerous while also considering Geri’s documented psychiatric history and his need for treatment.

“This was an extremely serious offense,” the judge said. “It may have been carried out in a bizarre manner, but the threat of violence was a serious one.”

Geri’s defense attorney, Elizabeth Mullin, told the court that her client had been diagnosed with bipolar disorder more than two decades earlier and had stopped taking his medication during the months preceding the cathedral incident.

“His conduct was the product of a treatable medical condition spiraling out of control, not malice or an actual intent to harm,” Mullin wrote.

The prosecution and defense had previously agreed that a sentence ranging from five years and 10 months to seven years and three months would be appropriate under Geri’s plea agreement. Moss ultimately selected the bottom of that range, imposing the 70-month sentence.

A frightening Chol Hamoed outing in Kiamesha ended b’chasdei Hashem with everyone safely back on shore Tuesday after a boat carrying what appeared to be a family overturned in cold water near Route 42, prompting Catskills Hatzolah members to race into the water to reach the stranded passengers.

Everyone aboard the vessel was wearing a life vest when the boat overturned, a precaution that proved critical as the occupants suddenly found themselves in the water. The group remained afloat and was ultimately able to hold onto another boat while rescuers made their way toward them.

The incident occurred in Kiamesha, in Sullivan County’s Town of Thompson, during Chol Hamoed. The area, located along Route 42 between Monticello and Fallsburg, has a substantial frum population during the summer and Yom Tov periods.

As word of the overturned boat reached emergency responders, Catskills Hatzolah members rushed to the scene. One Hatzolah volunteer who arrived at the water grabbed another boat from the shoreline and immediately began paddling toward the stranded group.

At the same time, four other Hatzolah members did not wait on shore for additional water-rescue equipment. Still fully dressed, they jumped directly into the cold water and began swimming toward the family.

The occupants of the overturned vessel managed to remain together and hold onto another boat until rescuers reached them. The Hatzolah members and other emergency personnel then assisted the group and brought everyone safely back to shore.

Catskills Hatzolah personnel were joined by additional emergency responders at the scene. There were no reports of serious injuries, and everyone involved was reported to be okay following the rescue.

The primary medical concern after the rescue was exposure to the cold water. No reports indicated that anyone suffered life-threatening injuries or required treatment for a serious drowning-related condition.

The incident highlighted the potentially lifesaving importance of wearing flotation devices while boating. Because everyone aboard was reportedly wearing a life vest before the vessel capsized, they were able to remain above water as rescuers made their way out to them.

Catskills Hatzolah maintains a substantial year-round operation across Sullivan County and also operates a dedicated search-and-rescue capability for emergencies throughout the sprawling Catskills region.

Tuesday’s incident could easily have ended very differently. Instead, through the immediate response of Hatzolah members, the fact that the passengers were properly wearing life vests and tremendous Siyata Dishmaya, the entire group was brought safely out of the water.

B’chasdei Hashem, all were reported safe following the frightening ordeal.

{Matzav.com}

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis and the state Cabinet voted Tuesday to officially designate the Council on American-Islamic Relations, the Muslim Brotherhood and more than 90 other groups as terrorist organizations, activating a sweeping new state law that could strip designated organizations of public funding and contracts, force certain entities to dissolve and impose penalties on those who provide them with material support.

The action represents the latest and most consequential step in DeSantis’ months-long effort to use Florida law to target organizations his administration says are connected to terrorism. The designations are scheduled to take effect on Nov. 5, although CAIR and civil-liberties organizations are already seeking to have the measure blocked in federal court.

The Florida Cabinet approved the designations with little discussion and without taking public testimony. The panel consists of DeSantis, Attorney General James Uthmeier, Chief Financial Officer Blaise Ingoglia and Agriculture Commissioner Wilton Simpson.

Florida officials said the action includes domestic terrorist designations for CAIR, its Florida chapter, the Muslim Brotherhood and the anti-fascist movement known as antifa. The state also designated more than 90 foreign organizations already listed by the federal government as foreign terrorist organizations, among them al-Qaeda, Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, the Houthis, the Venezuelan Tren de Aragua gang and Mexican drug cartels.

A more than 400-page package prepared for Tuesday’s Cabinet meeting laid out the state’s case against the organizations. In addressing CAIR specifically, Florida asserted that “there is substantial evidence that CAIR is engaging in terrorist activity” and cited alleged connections between the organization and Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad.

State officials also pointed to CAIR’s history in connection with the Holy Land Foundation terrorism-financing prosecution. CAIR was named as an unindicted co-conspirator in that federal case, in which the Holy Land Foundation and five of its leaders were convicted in 2008 of providing millions of dollars to Hamas.

CAIR describes itself as “America’s largest Muslim civil liberties organization” and has stressed that the organization itself has never been criminally charged.

The latest action follows an earlier attempt by DeSantis to impose similar restrictions through executive authority. In December 2025, he signed an executive order designating CAIR as a terrorist organization and directing state agencies to deny the group and those providing it material support access to state and local contracts, employment, funding and other public benefits.

CAIR and CAIR-Florida challenged that order in federal court. In March, a federal judge issued a preliminary injunction blocking its enforcement, finding that CAIR was likely to succeed on its argument that the order violated the First Amendment by pressuring third parties to cut ties with the organization. DeSantis appealed that decision to the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Florida lawmakers subsequently gave the governor and Cabinet an entirely new statutory mechanism to make terrorist designations. The legislation, HB 1471, took effect July 1 and authorizes Florida’s chief of domestic security to recommend that organizations be labeled domestic or foreign terrorist organizations, subject to approval by the governor and Cabinet.

Under the law, a group can be classified as a domestic terrorist organization if it operates in Florida or elsewhere in the United States, is found to be engaged in terrorist activity and is determined to represent an ongoing threat to Florida or the country.

The legislation carries potentially far-reaching consequences for groups that receive the designation. Florida can move to legally dissolve certain designated organizations, while individuals who knowingly provide prohibited material support can face criminal penalties.

The law also reaches Florida’s educational system. Students in the Florida College System who promote designated terrorist organizations can face expulsion under specified circumstances, while state colleges and universities are barred from using public money to support programs or activities that promote such groups.

The statute defines prohibited student promotion in part through conduct that can reasonably be interpreted as an actual threat of violence, materially disrupts the educational environment, violates the rights of others or provides material support or recruitment assistance to a designated organization.

Schools affiliated with designated terrorist groups can also lose access to Florida’s K-12 scholarship funding programs.

DeSantis has described the broader legislation as an “anti-Sharia law” and, when it took effect July 1, immediately announced his intention to make CAIR and the Muslim Brotherhood among the first organizations targeted under its provisions.

The initial designation effort was temporarily put on hold after CAIR and CAIR-Florida filed another federal lawsuit challenging the new statutory system. State officials told the court in July that no designation would take place until the Florida Department of Law Enforcement established regulations governing the process.

FDLE subsequently adopted an emergency rule on Sept. 11 setting out procedures for making the designations, clearing the way for Tuesday’s Cabinet vote.

DeSantis said at the time that the new system provides “an appropriate framework, where the state can take action appropriately to be able to defend the people of Florida against hostile actors and terrorists groups.”

The ACLU, ACLU of Florida and Southern Poverty Law Center are representing CAIR and CAIR-Florida in their challenge to the law. Their attorneys contend that Florida has created a system that allows state officials to stigmatize and effectively cripple domestic organizations without adequate due process.

“Gov. DeSantis’s use of Florida’s dangerous new ‘terrorism’ designation regime against CAIR and its Florida chapter is baseless and unconstitutional,” Hina Shamsi, director of ACLU’s national security project, stated on Tuesday.

“There are simply no legitimate grounds to brand our clients with a reviled label, impose crippling criminal penalties and force them to shut their doors in Florida,” Shamsi said.

Shamsi said CAIR filed a written objection ahead of Tuesday’s meeting and that she sought permission to address the Cabinet on behalf of CAIR-Florida but was not recognized to speak.

She separately challenged the factual basis Florida offered for designating the organization.

“There is nowhere in that notice any allegation or evidence that CAIR has engaged in any violent or dangerous act in violation of Florida or U.S. law,” Shamsi said Tuesday outside the Cabinet meeting. “And that’s the first requirement for something as serious as this.”

Shamsi said CAIR-Florida functions as a nonprofit civil-rights organization whose work includes representing individuals alleging government violations of their rights, conducting rights-awareness programs and advocating on public-policy issues.

“Like any other U.S. nonprofit, in Florida and around the country, they carry out ‘know your rights’ trainings, they engage with and represent community members whose rights have been violated by government action,” Shamsi said. “They speak up for and against government policies. They are representing their communities and they’re doing it every single day here in this state, for the benefit of the people of Florida.”

The ACLU says it plans to seek a preliminary injunction preventing the latest designation from taking effect.

“When the designation goes into effect, because this is steamrolling its way forward, and if it is not prevented, our clients will be unable to carry out their constitutionally protected activities in this state,” Shamsi said. “And that, as we have said, and I would have said today, is in violation of their due process rights under the (U.S.) Constitution and in violation of their First Amendment rights, among other things.”

Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier, however, said Tuesday’s action “drew a line on terrorism.”

“The free state of Florida will not launder terrorism through our schools,” he said. “We will name these groups, cut off the money and hold those who bankroll them accountable.”

The legal fight is now expected to intensify ahead of Nov. 5, when the designations are scheduled to formally take effect. CAIR and its attorneys are arguing that Florida’s new system violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments, while the DeSantis administration maintains that the state now has statutory authority to identify organizations it concludes are engaged in terrorist activity and prevent Florida institutions and taxpayer funds from supporting them.

New York Republican gubernatorial candidate Bruce Blakeman unveiled a sweeping tax proposal Tuesday that would eliminate New York state income taxes altogether for many lower- and middle-income residents while sharply reducing the bills of many others, as he makes affordability a centerpiece of his campaign against Gov. Kathy Hochul, the New York Post reports.

The Nassau County executive said that if elected in November, he would exempt the first $50,000 earned by individual filers and the first $100,000 earned by married couples from state income taxes. Under the proposal, households whose taxable income falls entirely within those thresholds would owe no state income tax.

Blakeman said the average married-couple income in 45 of New York’s 62 counties is below $100,000, meaning the plan could completely eliminate state income taxes for many households across much of upstate and rural New York.

“[Gov.] Kathy Hochul made New York the highest taxed state in the nation by taxing paychecks, electric bills and driving up every possible expense in your household. That ends when I am governor,” Blakeman said.

“I am proposing the largest middle-class income tax cut in New York state history to make New York affordable and put thousands of dollars back where it belongs — in your pocket.”

New York’s unusually heavy tax burden has prompted some critics to derisively dub it the “Vampire State,” a play on its traditional Empire State nickname.

An analysis released last week by the nonpartisan Citizens Budget Commission found that, when state and local taxes are combined, New York has the highest per-resident tax burden in the country. The group also found that New York collects more personal income tax per $1,000 of personal income than any other state.

According to the analysis cited in the report, New York’s personal income tax collections relative to income are 94% above the national average. They are also 13% higher than California’s, 23% above Massachusetts’ and 42% higher than Connecticut’s.

Under the existing system, an individual earning approximately $50,000 pays around $2,100 annually in New York state income taxes, while a married couple earning $100,000 pays approximately $4,200.

Under Blakeman’s proposal, both of those taxpayers would see their state income tax liability fall to zero.

The plan would move New York significantly closer, for many earners, to states such as Florida, Texas and Tennessee, which levy no state individual income tax.

New York currently employs a progressive income tax system in which rates rise as income increases. Rates begin at 4% for lower-income taxpayers and climb to 9.65% for individuals and families earning more than $5 million, while those earning more than $25 million face a 10.9% rate.

A married couple earning $250,000 currently faces a top marginal rate of 6% and pays approximately $13,000 in state income taxes. An individual earning $100,000 also reaches a 6% top marginal rate and pays roughly $5,000 annually.

Blakeman’s proposal would reduce the $250,000 couple’s state income tax bill to approximately $6,000, according to his campaign, while the individual earning $100,000 would see the bill fall to roughly $2,000.

His campaign also said taxpayers earning between $100,000 and $500,000 would see their tax rate reduced to 4%, compared with current rates ranging from 6% to 6.85%. A similar tax structure — exempting the first $50,000 for individuals and $100,000 for married couples and applying a 4% rate above those thresholds through specified income levels — was proposed earlier this year by New York Senate Republicans.

The Blakeman campaign did not immediately provide details about what tax rates would apply to New York’s highest-income residents under his proposal.

Blakeman’s office estimated that the overall package would reduce state tax collections by approximately $35 billion, raising the question of how Albany would replace such a large amount of revenue.

Blakeman, who is challenging Hochul in the November 3 gubernatorial election, said he expects stronger economic growth and reductions in what he considers wasteful government spending to make up for the lost revenue.

“My plan pays for itself by stopping the ‘Hochul Exodus’ of businesses and families to other states, keeping our tax base right here in New York,” he said.

The proposal recalls the successful 1994 gubernatorial campaign of George Pataki, the last Republican to serve as governor of New York. Pataki campaigned heavily on cutting income taxes, and tax reductions were enacted after he took office the following year.

Hochul’s campaign pushed back against Blakeman’s proposal and defended the governor’s record on taxes.

“While Governor Hochul fights tooth and nail for New Yorkers, cutting middle-class taxes to their lowest rate in 70 years, Bruce Blakeman did the opposite: he jacked up property taxes twice. New York families can’t afford a record like his, and are ready to reject his ‘MAGA all the way’ agenda in November,” said Hochul campaign spokesperson Ryan Radulovacki.

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis has repeatedly contrasted his state’s tax and regulatory policies with those of New York, describing Florida as the “free state” and pointing to the movement of residents from New York to Florida.

“New York leads the nation in out-migration,” he said. “Florida is seeing people coming in droves. Why is that? When people look at a state like Florida, they know that their money is going to go further.”

Texas has also increasingly competed with New York for financial-sector jobs and now employs more people in financial services, despite New York’s longstanding position as the world’s leading financial center.

“Over the past decade, the state [Texas] has combined tax advantages, legal modernization, workforce growth, and aggressive economic development tools to attract headquarters, talent, and capital,” the Partnership for the City of New York said in a report released in February.

Larisa Amir-Trimbobler, the wife of Yigal Amir, has sharply criticized Israeli National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir after prison authorities rejected Amir’s request for a one-time humanitarian furlough to visit his seriously ill 85-year-old father.

Amir, who assassinated Prime Minister Yitzchak Rabin in 1995 and has now been imprisoned for nearly 31 years, submitted an urgent request approximately three weeks ago after his father’s medical condition reportedly deteriorated significantly.

According to the family, Amir’s father is suffering from advanced cancer that has metastasized to his spine and bones, in addition to diabetes and a history of serious heart procedures.

Amir sought permission to leave prison for a single visit with his father under whatever security restrictions authorities deemed necessary.

Trimbobler said that during the three weeks in which the request was being considered, Amir was repeatedly asked to complete forms, provide specific dates and submit the names of individuals who would serve as guarantors.

According to her, those requests led Amir and his family to believe that authorities were seriously considering granting the humanitarian furlough.

The eventual response, however, was a categorical rejection.

Amir’s attorney was informed that security and intelligence officials opposed allowing him to leave prison because of concerns regarding the danger authorities continue to believe he poses. Prison officials also determined that the medical documentation submitted did not meet the requirements for an exceptional furlough under Israel Prison Service regulations.

Amir has been classified by Israeli authorities as a security prisoner, and Israeli courts have repeatedly upheld significant restrictions imposed upon him based on security assessments.

Trimbobler responded with a sharply worded and sarcastic letter questioning how authorities could view a brief, supervised visit by the 56-year-old prisoner as a threat to national security.

“The State of Israel will undoubtedly be in danger if a 56-year-old prisoner, who has already served 31 years behind bars, spends a day or half a day with his seriously ill father,” she wrote.

She also directed criticism at Ben Gvir, questioning why the national security minister had not intervened to permit the humanitarian visit.

Trimbobler argued that approving such a request could even have benefited Ben Gvir politically, despite the intense criticism that such a decision would inevitably have generated.

She further wrote sarcastically that it appeared the authorities would consider the medical circumstances sufficiently serious “only when the patient is, Heaven forbid, on his deathbed.”

This is not the first time Amir has sought temporary release from prison on humanitarian or family grounds.

In 2020, Amir requested a special furlough to attend the bar mitzvah of his son. Prison authorities rejected that application as well, citing the positions of intelligence and security officials, and a court subsequently upheld the decision.

Amir had offered at the time to leave prison for only several hours and comply with any security conditions imposed upon him. His attorney argued that Prison Service regulations permitted special furloughs for significant family events, including the bar mitzvah of an inmate’s child.

The court nevertheless rejected his petition, although it said Amir could request an expanded visit with immediate family members inside the prison to mark the occasion.

Amir also sought a furlough surrounding the birth of his son in 2007, but that request was not granted. He has never been permitted a regular furlough during his decades of incarceration.

In another recent dispute with prison authorities, Amir petitioned the Lod District Court after the Israel Prison Service refused to permit him to study Torah b’chavrusa with another prisoner in the secured wing. Amir argued that the restriction prevented him from fully exercising his religious rights.

Amir is serving a life sentence plus additional prison terms for Rabin’s assassination, the wounding of Rabin’s security guard and conspiracy offenses.

Trimbobler contrasted her husband’s treatment with that of other high-profile Israeli prisoners who have previously received furloughs under tightly controlled conditions.

One example cited in the broader debate is Ehud Olmert, who was permitted his first furlough approximately five months after beginning his prison sentence and left under Shin Bet security.

Trimbobler argues that after more than three decades behind bars, the continued refusal to allow Amir even a tightly supervised humanitarian visit with his gravely ill father cannot reasonably be justified by the security considerations cited by authorities.

Thousands of bnei Torah are expected to gather in Yerushalayim Tuesday evening for a massive procession and celebration honoring approximately 50 bochurim and avreichim who were recently imprisoned by the IDF amid the escalating battle over the drafting of yeshiva students.

The large-scale event, taking place during Chol Hamoed Sukkos, is being organized as a public demonstration of support for those who were arrested by military police or transferred to military authorities after encounters with Israel Police because of their draft status.

The procession is scheduled to begin at approximately 8:30 p.m. from the intersection of Malchei Yisrael and Brandeis streets and continue through the Bar Ilan area, with thousands expected to participate.

At the center of the event will be the recently released prisoners themselves, who have become known in the chareidi community as “Prisoners of the Torah World.”

A major portion of the program will be devoted to siyumei masechtos completed by the prisoners during their time behind bars. Organizers say the masechtos were learned during the detainees’ extended stays in military prison, turning the celebration into both a welcome-home event and a siyum marking their Torah learning while incarcerated.

Leading Gedolei Yisroel and rabbonim are expected to participate and deliver addresses focusing on the current draft battle and the determination of yeshiva students to continue their Torah learning.

Another major moment of the evening is expected to be the presentation of special financial grants to the released prisoners. The money was donated by prominent supporters overseas as an expression of appreciation for what organizers describe as the prisoners’ mesirus nefesh for limud haTorah.

The event is being organized by the Notnim Gav organization and follows a series of large receptions held across the country in recent months for yeshiva students and avreichim released from military prison.

The gathering is expected to have a substantial impact on traffic across central and northern Yerushalayim.

Beginning at 7 p.m., Malchei Yisrael, Yeshayahu, Strauss, Yechezkel, Shmuel Hanavi and Shimon Hatzaddik streets were scheduled to be closed to vehicular traffic. The closures are expected to remain in place until late Tuesday night.

Public transportation routes have also been altered at the direction of police.

Bus routes 1 and 111 were diverted through Betzalel and Hanevi’im streets, while routes 3 and 333 serving the Kosel were redirected through Chaim Bar-Lev Boulevard rather than Shmuel Hanavi Street.

Tuesday night’s gathering is the latest — and one of the largest — in a wave of elaborate public receptions organized for those imprisoned amid the ongoing draft crisis.

In June, thousands packed the streets of Beitar Illit to welcome home avreich Yaakov Muzari and bochur Yonatan Nitzotzi following their release from military prison.

Hundreds of children joined that procession carrying flags, while the two released prisoners traveled through the city in a special vehicle as residents danced along the route and watched from balconies.

The procession culminated in a large reception attended by the city’s rabbonim.

Rav Chaim Weiss, Rav of the city, opened the gathering by describing it as an opportunity to express gratitude for the release of the two prisoners while remembering the bochurim and avreichim who remained incarcerated.

Rav Yaakov Tufik Abiezri also addressed the gathering and offered words of encouragement to those standing firm amid the draft controversy.

A similarly emotional reception was held in Ashdod for Elchonon Mizrachi, a talmid of Yeshivas Tiferes Yonasan Yehoshua, following his release from military prison.

Large crowds waited for Mizrachi near his home, greeting him with singing and dancing as he arrived.

He was lifted onto the shoulders of participants while the crowd celebrated his return and expressed admiration for his refusal to abandon his position during his imprisonment.

Rav Yisroel Meir Zavichi, Rosh Yeshiva of Yeshivas Tiferes Yonasan Yehoshua, praised his talmid’s resolve. Rav Meir Vaknin, Rosh Yeshiva of Yeshivas Lev Yitzchak in Ashdod, subsequently delivered words of chizuk, followed by Rav Yuval Avraham.

Another reception was held at the Temimei Derech bais medrash in Beit Shemesh for several released prisoners, including Breslover chassidim who had spent approximately a week in custody after participating in demonstrations connected to the draft battle.

The released prisoners arrived at the bais medrash dressed in their Shabbos clothing and were greeted by musicians playing songs of gratitude as members of the community and other local residents danced for an extended period.

Among those prominently participating were the community’s children, who danced in the center of the celebration while watching the released prisoners.

The receptions have become an increasingly visible feature of the chareidi campaign against the arrest of yeshiva students.

Earlier this summer, another major campaign brought thousands of vehicles onto Israeli roads in a convoy protesting the imprisonment of yeshiva students. Organizers at the time described the demonstrations as an effort to show public solidarity with those being held in military prison.

Tuesday night’s Yerushalayim procession takes that campaign a step further, bringing dozens of the released prisoners together for a single mass event featuring dancing, speeches, siyumim and financial awards honoring their imprisonment.

Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu has launched a sweeping NIS 2.6 million defamation lawsuit against several of Israel’s largest media organizations and prominent journalists, accusing them of spreading what he calls “two blood libels” alleging that he personally received warnings from senior Egyptian and Emirati officials shortly before the October 7 massacre and failed to alert Israel’s security establishment.
​
The lawsuit, filed Tuesday in Yerushalayim District Court, names Haaretz, Yedioth Achronot, Ynet and Channel 12 News among the defendants, along with journalists Shlomi Eldar, Ruti Yuval, Uri Misgav, Nadav Eyal, Barak Ravid and Attila Somfalvi.
​
Netanyahu is seeking a combined NIS 2.6 million in damages over reports involving two separate alleged warnings in the weeks preceding Hamas’ October 7, 2023, invasion.
​
The suit was filed on Netanyahu’s behalf by attorney Uriel Nizri and marks the fulfillment of threats the prime minister issued after the disputed reports began appearing earlier this month.
​
At the center of the first allegation is a report that UAE President Mohammed bin Zayed personally spoke with Netanyahu approximately a week and a half before October 7 and warned him that Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar was preparing a “major move.”
​
The original account alleged that the conversation lasted approximately 45 minutes and that bin Zayed warned Netanyahu that Sinwar was planning an “event of great significance” that could result in bloodshed, destabilize the Middle East and jeopardize the Abraham Accords.
​
According to the published account, Netanyahu allegedly responded that he was more concerned at the time about developments in Yehuda and Shomron and did not subsequently relay the Emirati warning to the heads of Israel’s security establishment.
​
Netanyahu says the conversation never happened.
​
The Prime Minister’s Office previously said that checks conducted with the relevant government bodies, including the National Security Council and the prime minister’s military secretariat, found no documentation of any such conversation between Netanyahu and bin Zayed during the period in question.
​
Netanyahu announced earlier this month that he intended to sue Haaretz and those responsible for the report, describing the allegation as a politically motivated fabrication published in the run-up to Israel’s October 27 election.
​
“This is a sinister libel with clear political timing, as part of the left’s election campaign, and there will be more such false libels,” Netanyahu said at the time.
​
The second allegation addressed in Tuesday’s lawsuit concerns Egypt and Abbas Kamel, who was then the powerful head of Egypt’s General Intelligence Service.
​
Recent reports have alleged that Egypt repeatedly warned Israel during the months before October 7 that conditions in Gaza were becoming dangerously unstable and that Hamas could be preparing for a major escalation.
​
One of those reports said Kamel made a secret visit to Israel on September 26, 2023, just 11 days before the massacre, and warned Israeli officials that Gaza was approaching an explosion.
​
That warning, according to the reports, did not include a specific date, targets or details of the operation Hamas ultimately launched.
​
The more explosive allegation, and the one challenged by Netanyahu in his lawsuit, is that Kamel subsequently contacted Netanyahu personally approximately 10 days before October 7 and warned him about unusual developments emanating from Gaza.
​
Netanyahu categorically denies that any such contact occurred.
​
“No meeting and/or conversation whatsoever took place between the Prime Minister and the President of the United Arab Emirates, nor did any meeting and/or conversation take place between the Prime Minister and Egyptian Intelligence Minister Abbas Kamel on the dates alleged or at any point between the beginning of September 2023 and October 7, 2023,” the lawsuit states.
​
Netanyahu’s office has separately said that he generally does not hold meetings or conversations with foreign intelligence chiefs without their Israeli counterparts being involved.
​
“In the months before October 7, Prime Minister Netanyahu did not meet or speak with Abbas Kamel, who was then head of Egypt’s General Intelligence Service, and no Israeli intelligence official conveyed an Egyptian warning to the prime minister.”
​
The underlying Egyptian claim has nevertheless received additional attention because reports of an Egyptian warning surfaced almost immediately after the massacre.
​
Days after October 7, then-U.S. House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Michael McCaul publicly said that Egyptian officials had warned Israel shortly before the attack.
​
“We know that Egypt had warned the Israelis three days prior that an event like this could happen,” McCaul said at the time.
​
What has remained disputed ever since is precisely what Egypt knew, how specific its warnings were, which Israeli officials received them and whether any warning reached Netanyahu personally.
​
The latest reporting has dramatically intensified that dispute by alleging direct communications at the highest levels — an assertion Netanyahu is now asking the court to declare defamatory.
​
The controversy has also expanded beyond the courtroom.
​
Netanyahu traveled secretly to Abu Dhabi over the weekend and met with UAE President bin Zayed. Reports subsequently claimed that one purpose of the meeting was to persuade the Emirati leader to publicly deny that he had warned Netanyahu before October 7.
​
Netanyahu’s office rejected that account as false and said the meeting dealt with bilateral relations and regional security matters.
​
The UAE publicly confirmed that the two leaders met but has not issued the sweeping public denial of the alleged pre-October 7 warning that Netanyahu’s critics have demanded.
​
Netanyahu has accused political opponents and elements of the Israeli media of attempting to use the reports to shift responsibility for October 7 onto him as Israel approaches its first national election since the massacre.
​
The prime minister has instead focused attention on the conduct of Israel’s military and intelligence chiefs, particularly during the hours immediately preceding the Hamas invasion.
​
He has argued that senior security officials were discussing troubling indications from Gaza during the night of October 6-7 but failed to wake him or adequately warn him that Hamas might be preparing an attack.
​
Netanyahu has specifically accused then-Shin Bet chief Ronen Bar of failing to properly alert him or take sufficient action despite indications that something unusual was unfolding in Gaza.
​
Bar has vehemently rejected those accusations and, in an extraordinary escalation of the public battle over responsibility for October 7, announced that he intends to file his own defamation lawsuit against Netanyahu.
​
The dueling legal threats come as the question of what Israel’s political and security leadership knew before October 7 has become one of the central issues in the country’s election campaign, with Netanyahu’s opponents demanding a state commission of inquiry and the prime minister maintaining that the full record will ultimately demonstrate that he was not provided with the warnings now being attributed to him.

A Melbourne Islamic preacher has triggered outrage across Australia after telling followers during a sermon that Muslims should not take Jews and Christians as friends and speaking of an obligation to “take up arms” against the enemies of Islam, prompting condemnation from Jewish leaders, Muslim leaders and politicians and renewed demands for tougher action against extremist preaching.
​
The preacher, who goes by Abu Ahmad, is associated with the Al Bayyinah Islamic Centre in Melbourne’s southeast. His comments were delivered during a sermon in July and subsequently circulated through the center’s social-media channels.
​
During the address, Ahmad told his audience not to “take the Jews and the Christians for friends” and discussed the Islamic theological concept of loyalty and disavowal.
​
“For the sake of Allah, it includes the obligation to declare enmity for his sake, opposition for the sake of Allah. It is to declare opposition: indeed, to take up arms against his enemies, to shun them and to stay far from them both in word and deed,” Ahmad said.
​
“This proves that simple opposition of the spirit is not enough and that it must be complete by honouring of your commitment.”
​
Ahmad went on to identify a broad range of groups he described as enemies of Islam.
​
“If the aim of the enemies of Islam whether they are atheists or Jews or Christians or modernists or Zionists or communists is the emasculation of … Muslims, and the erosion of their unique character in order to make them the ass of the chosen people … then the urgency of this issue should become clear to every Muslim,” he said.
​
The remarks have attracted particular scrutiny because of Ahmad’s connections to controversial Sydney preacher Wissam Haddad and the network surrounding Haddad’s Al Madina Dawah Centre in Bankstown.
​
The Al Bayyinah Islamic Centre was established in Melbourne’s southeast in 2024 and has received support from Haddad, whose Sydney center was shut earlier this year.
​
Ahmad has previously traveled to Haddad’s Sydney center, where he delivered a sermon attacking what he described as “infidel” Western powers.
​
The Melbourne center has also shared material online with an account known as Station of the Seekers, which has featured individuals identified as Islamic State sympathizers.
​
Haddad has publicly encouraged his Melbourne followers to support Ahmad and his activities.
​
The connections have received intensified scrutiny since the December 2025 terrorist attack on a Chanukah celebration at Bondi Beach, in which 15 people were murdered and dozens wounded.
​
One of the two alleged attackers, Naveed Akram, had reportedly attended Haddad’s Al Madina Dawah Centre. There is no evidence that either Haddad or Ahmad participated in the Bondi attack, and Ahmad has not been charged with a terrorism offense in connection with his sermon.
​
Ahmad has now pushed back against the characterization of his remarks as an instruction to attack Jews or Christians.
​
He says the excerpts came from a religious lesson in which he was reading and explaining passages from an Islamic scholarly text dealing with the doctrine of al-Wala’ wal-Bara’, or loyalty and disavowal.
​
Ahmad maintains that his remarks were presented without the surrounding context and says the teaching does not permit Muslims to harm peaceful non-Muslims.
​
He has accused media outlets of portraying theological material as a personal call for violence.
​
The Australian National Imams Council has nevertheless responded to the controversy by strongly condemning any rhetoric encouraging violence.
​
ANIC president Imam Shadi Alsuleiman said Islam upholds the sanctity of human life and that Muslims living in Australia have an obligation to contribute positively to the country and live peacefully alongside their neighbors.
​
The council stressed that incitement to violence against Jews, Christians or any other community is unacceptable while cautioning against using the conduct of individual preachers to condemn Australia’s broader Muslim population.
​
The controversy has also triggered calls for law-enforcement authorities to examine Ahmad’s complete sermon and determine whether Australian criminal laws were violated.
​
One Nation leader Pauline Hanson demanded that the federal government provide security agencies with stronger powers to close religious institutions that promote violence and dismantle networks involved in extremist recruitment.
​
“Fifteen people were murdered in a terrorist act at Bondi,” Hanson said. “Now Australians are reading reports of an Islamic preacher urging followers to take up arms against Australian Christians and Jews. How much more do Albanese and Burke need to hear?”
​
“We need stronger federal powers to shut down the extremist and fundamentalist mosques and Islamic prayer centers,” Hanson said. “Give ASIO and the AFP the resources and targeted powers to dismantle these networks. If current laws are inadequate, change them.”
​
Independent MP Allegra Spender, whose Sydney electorate includes Bondi Beach, said the episode demonstrates the need for stronger and more consistent national hate-speech legislation.
​
Spender said Ahmad’s comments showed “why we needed stronger and nationally consistent hate speech legislation”.
​
“I hope the royal commission will make recommendations relating to this, but regardless, I will continue the push and urge all politicians who express sincere concern about hate preachers to back stronger protections,” Spender said.
​
Robert Gregory, president of the Australian Jewish Association, said the case demonstrated what he described as a continuing failure by authorities to adequately confront radical Islamic preaching following the Bondi massacre.
​
“It is hard to believe that this long after the Bondi terrorist attack, Australia has still not seen a major crackdown on radical Islamic preachers and extremist religious centers,” Gregory said.
​
“Australians are rightly alarmed by reports of a preacher speaking about an obligation to ‘take up arms’ against enemies and telling followers not to take Jews and Christians as friends.”
​
Family First National Director Lyle Shelton separately called on the Australian Federal Police to examine Ahmad’s remarks and determine whether they constitute a criminal offense.
​
“This is chilling language which demands an urgent response from law enforcement,” Shelton said.
​
“Australians should not have to tolerate preachers using places of worship or social media platforms to promote hostility towards Christians, Jews or anyone else, let alone language about taking up arms.”
​
“The AFP should examine the full, unedited sermon and all relevant material and determine whether Commonwealth criminal laws have been breached. If the evidence establishes an offence, Abu Ahmad should be charged.”
​
“Australia has religious freedom, but religious freedom is not a licence to incite violence.”
​
The uproar has reopened a bitter political debate over Australia’s hate-speech laws, just eight months after Prime Minister Anthony Albanese’s government attempted to dramatically expand federal legislation following the Bondi massacre.
​
The original proposal would have created a federal criminal offense for publicly promoting or inciting racial hatred, alongside tougher penalties for hate crimes and new powers aimed at extremist organizations.
​
The proposal ran into opposition from both sides of Australian politics.
​
The Coalition objected to elements of the legislation on free-speech and drafting grounds, while the Greens argued that the protections were too narrow and could interfere with legitimate political expression.
​
Albanese ultimately abandoned the proposed racial-vilification offense after acknowledging that it lacked the votes needed to pass Parliament.
​
A narrower package of hate-crime measures did pass in January. Those laws strengthened penalties for hate offenses, expanded the government’s ability to cancel visas and deport foreign nationals associated with designated hate groups, established a mechanism for banning organizations that promote hatred, and imposed tougher penalties on religious and other leaders who advocate violence.
​
The specific racial-vilification provision sought by Australia’s special envoy to combat antisemitism, Jillian Segal, was left out.
​
Australian security officials have meanwhile repeatedly warned that the country’s extremist threat is growing.
​
ASIO Director-General Mike Burgess has said the underlying terrorism environment is more dangerous than the formal national threat level alone might suggest, with authorities increasingly concerned about rapidly radicalized individuals, online extremist material and young people moving toward violence.
​
Those concerns have been reinforced by a series of recent terrorism investigations in Victoria.
​
Just last week, Australian authorities charged a 65-year-old Melbourne man with terrorism offenses after alleging that he had pledged allegiance to Islamic State and distributed approximately 10,000 files of extremist propaganda online.
​
Investigators allege that the material included videos of executions and torture, Islamic State propaganda and instructions relating to mass-casualty attacks and avoiding law enforcement.
​
Authorities have said that case is separate from the controversy involving Ahmad, and there has been no allegation that Ahmad is an Islamic State member or was involved in the alleged propaganda network.

[Video below.] New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani says the explanation for his unexpectedly cordial relationship with President Donald Trump is surprisingly simple: despite their deep political disagreements, the two share an attachment to New York City and have found concrete issues on which they can work together — particularly Mamdani’s ambitious plan to build 12,000 homes over Sunnyside Yard in Queens.
​
Appearing Monday night on “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” during the program’s special week of broadcasts from Brooklyn, Mamdani opened up about a relationship that has drawn considerable attention since Trump and the democratic socialist mayor began meeting following Mamdani’s election last year.
​
“The president and I have many disagreements, but one thing we do agree on is this city and how much we love this city,” Mamdani told Kimmel, a frequent and outspoken critic of Trump.
​
Mamdani said he decided from his first meeting with Trump that their conversations should focus less on their political differences and more on areas in which cooperation between Washington and City Hall could produce tangible results for New Yorkers.
​
“And so from that first meeting in November of last year, I was just thinking of how can we make this meeting not about us, but about New Yorkers. How can we spend that time talking about the things that could make life in this city a little bit easier. That’s what it’s been, whether we met at the White House or at Gracie Mansion,” the mayor said.
​
The unusual relationship has evolved substantially since last year’s mayoral campaign, when Trump repeatedly attacked Mamdani and Mamdani sharply criticized the president and his policies.
​
Since Mamdani took office, however, the two have maintained direct communication, including telephone calls, text messages and multiple face-to-face meetings.
​
Mamdani revealed to Kimmel that he and Trump text “from time to time,” with much of their recent communication centering on Sunnyside Yard and other issues involving New York City.
​
The Queens project has emerged as perhaps the clearest explanation for why the two politicians have maintained an open line despite their ideological differences.
​
Mamdani wants to construct a massive platform over Sunnyside Yard, the sprawling active rail facility in Queens, and develop an entirely new neighborhood containing approximately 12,000 homes.
​
The project would also create an estimated 30,000 jobs, according to City Hall, but it cannot proceed without substantial federal involvement. Building above the rail yard would require complicated federal approvals and potentially billions of dollars in federal assistance.
​
Trump has shown particular interest in the proposal, drawing on his decades of experience in New York real estate and his familiarity with Sunnyside.
​
During Trump’s visit to Gracie Mansion earlier this month, the president said he had watched developers attempt to figure out Sunnyside Yard for decades.
​
“Well, I can tell you that Sunnyside is a big job. I’ve been watching that for 35 years. Everybody has wanted to do something with Sunnyside Yard. We met at the White House a couple of times. But we met at the White House. The mayor brought that up, the possibility of doing Sunnyside Yard,” Trump said.
​
“It’s a very — I would say that was a very federal-oriented job. You’re going to need a lot of federal approvals and probably some federal money to do it. But it’s always been a great location. I owned a building in Sunnyside. It was a great building. I know it very well. So, when he mentioned Sunnyside Yard, they’ve been talking about developing that for 50 years. So maybe they have a shot at doing it.”
​
The September 21 Gracie Mansion meeting moved the proposal another step forward, with Mamdani and Trump agreeing that technical discussions would begin between City Hall’s housing and operations officials and their counterparts in the White House.
​
No federal funding commitment has been made, and the massive project remains a long way from construction.
​
Mamdani said Monday night that his communications with Trump continue to focus on how the federal and city governments can “deliver for the city.”
​
Kimmel, intrigued by the idea that Mamdani and Trump actually exchange text messages, asked whether Trump’s private texts resemble his social-media posts, which frequently feature capital letters and emphatic punctuation.
​
Mamdani said Trump’s private messages are far more conventional, describing their punctuation and capitalization as normal.
​
Kimmel then suggested that he and Mamdani take a selfie together and send it to Trump.
​
Mamdani declined.
​
“Jimmy, I love you, but I love housing more,” Mamdani quipped.
​
Mamdani also addressed one of the more widely circulated moments from Trump’s recent Gracie Mansion visit: video showing the mayor standing alongside the president and blinking slowly as Trump spoke to reporters.
​
The mayor joked that viewers may have interpreted his expression as a reaction to Trump, but said his mind was actually on the Sunnyside Yard project.
​
The Gracie Mansion meeting was itself unusual. Trump became the first sitting president in decades to visit the mayoral residence, and the two spent roughly an hour privately discussing housing, immigration and other city issues before appearing together before reporters.
​
Mamdani also raised the status of Haitian New Yorkers who face the loss of Temporary Protected Status, an issue on which the mayor has pressed Trump directly.
​
The relationship between the two men has been especially striking because of the rhetoric that preceded it.
​
During the 2025 campaign, Trump repeatedly denounced Mamdani’s democratic socialist politics and warned about the direction New York would take under his leadership.
​
Mamdani, meanwhile, campaigned as a sharp critic of Trump and continues to oppose major elements of the president’s immigration and domestic agenda.
​
Their tone changed dramatically following Mamdani’s election.
​
After meeting with Mamdani, Trump publicly praised him and expressed hope that he would succeed as mayor, while Mamdani emphasized that his willingness to work with the president did not mean abandoning their disagreements.
​
That unexpected détente has continued through multiple meetings.
​
At Gracie Mansion last week, Trump again offered strikingly warm words about the mayor.
​
“I certainly hope he will be a great mayor. You have to understand I want what’s good for New York. I want what’s good for the country. So if I had a choice of having him be a bad mayor or horrible mayor, I don’t want that. I want him to be a great mayor, and he certainly got potential, a great potential,” Trump said.
​
Monday’s interview took place at the Brooklyn Academy of Music’s Howard Gilman Opera House, where “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” is spending the week broadcasting from New York rather than its regular Hollywood studio.
​
When Kimmel jokingly asked whether Mamdani might consider becoming mayor of Los Angeles once his time running New York was finished, Mamdani turned him down, making clear where his loyalties remained.
​
“It’s New York City,” Mamdani said.
​
{Matzav.com}