Financial planners are urging Americans to take immediate steps before December 31 to prepare for major tax code changes that will take effect in 2026. “Taking action before the end of this year can be a huge benefit to your financial health in 2026,” said Dan Snyder, director of financial planning at the American Institute of CPAs (AICPA). “There have been many changes in the tax and financial planning space this year and now is the time to educate yourself and make changes that can affect your tax bill before April 15, 2026.”
One of the most notable changes announced by the Trump administration is the discontinuation of IRS Direct File, the free electronic filing system created under Joe Biden. Officials confirmed earlier this month that the program will not return next year, arguing that private companies can better handle online tax services. Treasury Secretary and IRS Commissioner Scott Bessent explained at the White House, “It wasn’t used very much. And we think that the private sector can do a better job.” He added that there are “better alternatives” available.
The Direct File platform, despite its limited reach, had grown in popularity among taxpayers who praised its simplicity and cost-free approach. The Center for Taxpayer Rights obtained an internal report showing that 296,531 taxpayers successfully submitted returns for the 2025 filing season — more than double the 140,803 accepted through the system in 2024. The findings suggest that interest in a government-run filing option was increasing before its cancellation.
Republican lawmakers long criticized the initiative as an unnecessary government expense, arguing that free filing tools already exist, even if they are complicated to use. The private tax-preparation industry, which earns billions annually from software fees, also opposed the program’s expansion, lobbying heavily against it throughout Biden’s term.
Meanwhile, the Trump administration has introduced sweeping new provisions under the “One, Big, Beautiful Bill Act.” The legislation raises the standard deduction and adds a $6,000 bonus deduction for qualifying seniors, offering substantial relief for older taxpayers. However, it also reshapes the rules for charitable donations and itemized deductions, meaning many filers will need to reexamine their strategies before the year closes.
Snyder and the AICPA are advising filers to consider “bunching” — combining multiple years of charitable or medical expenses into one tax year — to determine if itemizing might yield greater savings than taking the standard deduction. According to the Tax Foundation, roughly 86 percent of taxpayers are expected to claim the standard deduction in 2026, which could make timing especially important.
Charitable giving will also face new restrictions. Beginning in 2026, taxpayers can take an above-the-line deduction of up to $1,000 for individuals or $2,000 for joint filers, even if they don’t itemize. Higher-income earners who do itemize will encounter new limits, including a requirement that only donations exceeding 0.5% of their adjusted gross income can be deducted. For many donors, making contributions before December 31 could help them avoid the stricter rules.
Another new provision allows Americans who purchased U.S.-assembled cars to deduct up to $10,000 in interest from their auto loans, though that benefit phases out for individuals earning above $100,000 or couples earning more than $200,000.
As the landscape grows more complex, Snyder cautioned that professional guidance is critical: “Taxpayers should work with a CPA or CPA personal financial specialist as soon as possible to craft a tax and personal finance strategy for 2026.”
{Matzav.com}
A violent neo-Nazi from the country of Georgia, who called himself “Commander Butcher,” has confessed to planning a horrifying terror campaign targeting Jews and other minorities in New York City.
Twenty-three-year-old Michail Chkhikvishvili admitted guilt to federal hate crime charges after he sent detailed instructions for producing bombs and the deadly poison ricin, according to the U.S. Department of Justice.
Investigators revealed that Chkhikvishvili’s plan included distributing poisoned candy to children at Jewish schools in Brooklyn, alongside other acts of violence aimed at minority groups.
Assistant Attorney General John A. Eisenberg condemned the acts in the strongest terms, saying, “Chkhikvishvili’s monstrous plots and propaganda calling for racially motivated violence against civilians, including children, posed a grave threat to public safety.”
U.S. Attorney General Pamela Bondi credited the swift and coordinated response of law enforcement with preventing tragedy, noting that their efforts had “saved untold lives.”
Known by several aliases—including “Mishka,” “Michael,” and “Butcher”—Chkhikvishvili was a key figure in the Maniac Murder Cult (MKY), a global neo-Nazi network that advocates brutal violence against Jews and others. The group, prosecutors said, operates primarily in Russia and Ukraine but maintains followers in the United States and elsewhere.
Authorities uncovered a manifesto authored by Chkhikvishvili titled the Hater’s Handbook. The document glorified murder, promoted “ethnic cleansing,” and urged adherents to record violent acts, including school shootings and suicide bombings. In it, Chkhikvishvili claimed he had “murdered for the white race.”
The extremist traveled from his home in Tbilisi, Georgia, to Brooklyn in June 2022, where he stayed with his grandmother. During his time in New York, he boasted of committing hate crimes.
By that summer, he began using encrypted messaging apps to recruit and direct others to carry out attacks for MKY. He shared footage of assaults and provided materials on making explosives and biological weapons, urging participants to seek recruits with military or chemical expertise.
One of the people he contacted was, in fact, an undercover FBI agent posing as a potential recruit. In conversations with the agent, Chkhikvishvili proposed a large-scale New Year’s Eve attack in New York City in which someone dressed as Santa Claus would distribute poisoned candy to minorities.
He instructed the agent to strike specifically at Jewish schools, saying, “Jews are literally everywhere” in Brooklyn and suggesting that “some Jewish holiday” would provide the ideal time to target “Jewish schools full of kids.” He then added chillingly, “Dead Jewish kids.”
In messages with another extremist from the Feuerkrieg Division (FKD), Chkhikvishvili bragged, “Mky is only group so far that done so many kills,” claiming to have attacked and attempted to murder a Jewish victim in Brooklyn.
Members of New York’s Joint Terrorism Task Force later discovered that Chkhikvishvili had once been employed at a rehabilitation center in Brooklyn and had worked for an Orthodox Jewish family, caring for one of their relatives.
Prosecutors said he sent the FBI’s undercover agent detailed instructions for creating chemical weapons, along with video manuals urging the filming of violent acts. He even borrowed tactics from radical Islamist groups such as ISIS, praising jihadist ideology while blending it with neo-Nazi extremism.
Chkhikvishvili was captured in Chișinău, Moldova, on an Interpol warrant, extradited to the United States, and brought before the federal court in the Eastern District of New York.
His online incitement was later linked to multiple deadly attacks, including a school shooting in Tennessee in January, in which a 17-year-old gunman—who cited MKY—killed one person and then himself while livestreaming the rampage.
Chkhikvishvili faces a maximum prison sentence of 40 years when he is sentenced in March. Federal officials say his arrest prevented “a catastrophe of unimaginable proportions.”
{Matzav.com}
In an unusual move, the Shas faction convened on Monday at the Knesset rather than at the party’s Har Chotzvim headquarters, where meetings have been held since the beginning of the war. The session, chaired by party leader Aryeh Deri, was called amid recent tensions and incidents involving attacks on chareidi lawmakers.
Deri gathered all Shas Members of Knesset for a briefing following a series of assaults and demonstrations by extremists, including an attack on MK Yoav Ben-Tzur and protests outside the home of MK Yaakov Asher of Degel HaTorah.
During the closed-door meeting, Deri expressed optimism that the long-debated Giyus Law would soon reach its conclusion. “I hope that today or tomorrow the matter will be finalized, one way or another,” he told his colleagues. “As of yesterday, I was informed that the Litvishe Gedolei Yisroel will rule in favor of the Bismuth proposal. If they indeed decide in favor, an official announcement will be published in Yated Ne’eman,” he said.
Deri further predicted that “Porush and Eichler will join Shas and vote in favor,” signaling growing support for the compromise version of the draft law.
Addressing the ongoing wave of protests and attacks, the Shas chairman suggested that the demonstrations could paradoxically strengthen their cause. “They’re only helping us,” Deri remarked. “The legal advisors now see that the chareidim are paying a heavy price, and that increases the likelihood that the law will pass in the High Court.”
He also strongly condemned the violence targeting public representatives. “We all completely denounce and reject the severe attack on MK Yoav Ben-Tzur that took place on Motzoei Shabbos,” Deri declared. “When you hear Lieberman today, and the disgraceful way he speaks about those who study Torah in response to the incident, you understand the tremendous chillul Hashem caused by those rioters. The incident itself was a real danger to life and could easily have ended much worse. To our dear friend, Reb Yoav, we say: Chazak ve’ematz, Hashem imcha gibor chayil!”
{Matzav.com}
During his “Medabrim” radio program, Israeli media personality Yaakov Friedman launched a fierce critique of Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, contrasting him sharply with National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir, whom he described as the only politician in the right-wing bloc who continues to stand firmly with the chareidi public.
Friedman noted that although Smotrich’s Religious Zionism party and Ben-Gvir’s Otzma Yehudit ran on a joint list in the last election—winning 14 seats together—their partnership has grown increasingly strained. “Anyone who remembers how much muscle Smotrich flexed before agreeing to run with Ben-Gvir can see that things look very different today,” Friedman said. “Ben-Gvir isn’t just growing stronger—he’s eating up Religious Zionism. Some polls show them hovering near the electoral threshold.”
The host emphasized that Ben-Gvir’s loyalty to the chareidi cause has been consistent, particularly regarding the sensitive issue of the draft law. “When it comes to the matters that matter most to us—especially the Chok HaGiyus—there’s not one word against us. Not one person on his team can be accused of turning his back on the chareidim,” Friedman asserted. In contrast, he accused Smotrich of “siccing the media” on the chareidi community and cited Smotrich’s earlier remark that “the unwritten pact is over.” Friedman shot back: “It didn’t end with you, Mr. Minister—and it certainly didn’t start with you.”
Friedman also pointed to what he called Smotrich’s “arrogance,” referencing comments made earlier that day at an Yisroel Hayom conference. When asked if he liked Ben-Gvir, Smotrich curtly replied, “No.” According to Friedman, when pressed about the possibility of another joint run, Smotrich hesitated—proof, Friedman said, that “he knows he needs Ben-Gvir.”
In contrast, at an Otzma Yehudit press conference later that evening, Ben-Gvir was asked by journalist Yehuda Schlesinger to respond to Smotrich’s remark. Ben-Gvir replied simply: “I love every Jew.” When asked again, he repeated, “I love every Jew—except maybe Ofer Cassif—and I love Minister Smotrich.”
Friedman concluded by highlighting the stark difference in tone between the two men. “Look at the contrast,” he said. “I don’t know what’s going on with Smotrich—maybe he’s chasing headlines, maybe he’s just trying to stay above the threshold—but the difference in derech eretz speaks for itself.”
{Matzav.com}
The East Wing of the White House, which had stood for generations, was demolished last month at President Donald Trump’s direction. Rising in its place is a sprawling new ballroom — a gleaming 90,000-square-foot monument that may not outlast the next election cycle.
If a Democrat wins the presidency in 2028, the ornate new space could quickly become a political lightning rod. While any incoming administration would have weightier issues like foreign crises and domestic policy to tackle, there’s already growing chatter among Democrats about what should be done with the ballroom that Trump built. They could actually tear it down.
Within the Democratic Party, influential voices are brainstorming ideas for transforming the $300 million structure into something less reflective of Trump’s opulent tastes. Some have floated proposals that would turn the space into a cultural or civic center, rather than the gilded venue Trump envisioned for high-profile events and dinners.
Rep. Jamie Raskin of Maryland, who has hinted at a possible presidential run if Democrats reclaim the House, said he has no intention of leaving Trump’s vision intact. “No way,” Raskin declared. “This is a space that’s owned by the people and that serves the people. So, it should be used opposite of what Trump has in mind, which is for the American aristocracy and plutocracy to gather.”
California Rep. Ro Khanna, also viewed as a potential presidential contender, echoed that sentiment, suggesting that the hall should instead “celebrate and empower forgotten Americans,” rather than serve as a setting for lavish state banquets.
Critics within the party argue that maintaining the ballroom would reward what they call Trump’s disregard for process — tearing down the East Wing without warning and using private donations to bankroll the construction. To them, preserving it as a ballroom would symbolize complicity.
Tennessee Democrat Steve Cohen takes the opposition even further. “I don’t think it would be a bad idea to tear it down,” he said bluntly. “It’s this gigantic blob there that’s Donald Trump.”
Asked about what might become of the ballroom after Trump leaves office, the White House declined to comment. Trump himself, however, has defended the project as a practical improvement, designed to eliminate the need for outdoor tent events. He has said the ballroom will allow future leaders to “hold large events in a convenient indoor space.” White House officials insist that presidents for over 150 years have wanted precisely such a facility.
Anita McBride, a board member of the White House Historical Association and former chief of staff to First Lady Laura Bush, praised the idea — provided it is done right. “I hope it remains a ballroom and hope that it’s tastefully and beautifully done so that future presidents will be proud to host honored guests there,” she said. “But what I mostly hope is that the new building includes offices for the Office of the First Lady, White House social office and White House Visitor Office. Those offices serve the presidency in a unique and special way, welcoming all visitors to the People’s House.”
History shows that presidents altering the White House often invite criticism. Harry Truman was ridiculed for adding a balcony to the South Portico in 1948, prompting a cartoon that mocked him saying, “Love me… love my balcony.” Yet none of those renovations compare to the scale of Trump’s new addition — or to the controversy surrounding it.
For many Democrats, the ballroom is an irresistible political symbol. It plays perfectly into their narrative of Trump’s excess and disregard for norms. Polling backs their instincts: a recent Washington Post-Ipsos survey showed that 88% of Democrats and 61% of independents oppose the project altogether.
California Governor Gavin Newsom, another name floated for a 2028 presidential bid, pulled no punches when discussing it. “It’s a metaphor for this administration — the recklessness to which he goes about things, the fact that he doesn’t believe in rules, he doesn’t believe they apply to him,” Newsom said in an interview on NBC’s Meet the Press. “So, you know, he’s a wrecking ball presidency.”
Still, tearing it down could prove politically cumbersome. With other priorities competing for attention, a Democratic president might simply decide to ignore the ballroom and focus elsewhere. Even Newsom, who is no admirer of Trump, hasn’t said what he would do with it. His office declined to comment.
Some on the left, however, are already pitching creative ideas. Saikat Chakrabarti, a congressional candidate from San Francisco running for the seat being vacated by Nancy Pelosi, said he would introduce legislation to turn the ballroom into a Smithsonian museum about “corruption and autocracy.” The exhibit, he said, would showcase the private donors who financed the project, to “really put into the sunlight how this thing came to even be.”
Raskin envisions something different — a mixed-use hall that hosts some official events while also serving as an educational space on American democracy. “One side of the space,” he proposed, would trace the history of attempts to “undermine and thwart popular democracy in American life,” from King George III to Trump’s challenge of the 2020 election results. His suggested name: the “Democracy Matters Ballroom.”
Khanna, meanwhile, thinks the public should have the final say. “We need a White House that is not for the tech billionaires, but for forgotten Americans,” he said. “In that spirit, we should ask Americans — in rural communities, urban centers and hollowed-out factory towns — for their ideas of what to do with the space.”
Republican presidents might choose to keep the ballroom intact, viewing it as part of Trump’s enduring legacy. Yet even within the GOP, tastes differ. Trump’s penchant for gilded décor and grand halls isn’t universally shared. As one historian observed, the project risks altering the image of the White House itself.
“The White House is a residence that symbolizes American democracy,” said Edward Lengel, former chief historian of the White House Historical Association. The ballroom, he cautioned, makes it look less like a presidential home and more like “a palace.”
{Matzav.com}
WATCH:
President Trump delivered a fiery address at the McDonald’s Impact Summit on Monday, telling attendees that America narrowly avoided an economic collapse by electing him in 2024. Speaking before an audience of McDonald’s owners, suppliers, and executives, he declared, “You are so […] lucky that I won that election, I’m telling you,” a line that drew laughter and applause from the crowd.
Trump contrasted his record with that of Vice President Kamala Harris, asserting that her leadership would have plunged the nation into disaster. “Welfare was going up. Everything was going up. Government jobs were going up, real jobs were going down,” he said, claiming that Harris’s policies would have drained the economy. “So you would have had that catastrophe, and on top of that, instead of $20 trillion coming in, you would have had $10 trillion leaving our country. In other words, you would have had a catastrophe. You probably would have had a bankrupt country,” he warned.
The president’s remarks come amid mounting frustration among voters and economists over the nation’s sluggish economic performance. While Trump campaigned on reversing inflation and cutting costs after what he called the “Biden-era price explosion,” inflation has remained stubbornly high through his second term. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, consumer prices rose 3 percent in September — the same level as when he assumed office — and the job market has cooled sharply, with fewer than 30,000 new positions being added per month. Several major corporations have already announced upcoming layoffs heading into the end of the year.
Throughout his campaign, Trump promised to reignite growth, vowing to restore the strength of the U.S. economy through tariffs and deregulation. However, the reality of persistent inflation and job losses has forced a recalibration within the administration and the broader GOP. After Republicans suffered setbacks in last month’s elections, party strategists have urged a renewed focus on the cost-of-living crisis that has dominated voter concerns.
To that end, Trump has introduced new measures in recent weeks aimed at easing financial pressures. He moved to roll back tariffs on key imported food products such as beef, bananas, and coffee — a reversal of policies he had once touted as economic leverage. Additionally, he directed the Justice Department to launch an investigation into the meatpacking industry, accusing major producers of conspiring to inflate prices for consumers.
Trump and his allies have continued to emphasize positive indicators like record-breaking tax revenue from tariffs and promises of future corporate investment, seeking to reassure the public that his strategy remains sound. Still, the administration faces growing skepticism from both economists and everyday Americans as prices remain stubbornly high and job growth falters.
{Matzav.com}
