Feed aggregator

Katie Zacharia is leaving her position as White House press secretary after just one week on the job, following a widely criticized debut briefing, questions about her professional credentials and public remarks from President Donald Trump suggesting that she reconsider whether she wanted the position.

A senior White House official confirmed Friday that Zacharia is “transitioning out” of the role, bringing an abrupt end to a tenure that began with her appointment on October 9 and included only a single appearance behind the White House briefing room podium.

Speaking to reporters on the White House South Lawn on Friday, Trump revealed that he had personally encouraged Zacharia to reconsider her new responsibilities.

“You don’t have to do this if you don’t want to… I think you should reconsider,” Trump said, recounting his conversation with her.

The president acknowledged that Zacharia’s brief time as his chief spokesperson had been difficult.

“Maybe it’s not for her,” Trump said.

When reporters asked whether his comments meant that he had dismissed Zacharia, Trump rejected that characterization.

“No no. I want her to have a good life,” he responded.

“She’s been brutalized by the media,” the president added.

Zacharia’s departure follows an unusually turbulent first week in which her performance before reporters and questions about her legal background became major subjects of discussion in Washington.

She was selected to replace Karoline Leavitt, who had served as Trump’s press secretary before announcing her departure from the administration.

Zacharia made her first appearance in the James S. Brady Press Briefing Room on Tuesday, October 13, but the session lasted only 14 minutes, during which she answered questions from just three journalists.

The unusually short briefing immediately attracted attention, particularly because previous White House press secretaries had generally spent considerably longer fielding questions during their introductory appearances.

Leavitt’s first briefing lasted approximately 47 minutes, while Sean Spicer’s initial session during Trump’s first administration ran about 79 minutes. Sarah Huckabee Sanders’ first briefing as press secretary in 2017 lasted approximately 23 minutes.

Zacharia’s performance also drew criticism over several verbal mistakes, including an awkward moment when she referred to her husband as “my president” before correcting herself.

The difficulties continued after the briefing, as questions emerged about her legal qualifications.

Trump had described Zacharia as an attorney when announcing her appointment, but her professional background subsequently came under scrutiny over whether she had ever been licensed to practice law in the United States.

During an appearance Thursday night on Fox News’ “Hannity,” Zacharia acknowledged that she had not passed the bar examination and had never obtained an American law license.

“I had already pre-registered for the bar exam, and basically during the summer, I knew I would be living in China and the result of the bar would be inconsequential. I sat for it because I didn’t want to have a withdraw status,” she explained.

The interview also provided Zacharia an opportunity to defend her performance during Tuesday’s briefing, which had become the defining event of her brief tenure.

“What I feel is I really stepped up to the plate with very little prep time,” Zacharia said. “Given the fact that I’d been on the job less than maybe eight hours and had a briefing book in the morning, I feel like I did my very best, Sean, to deliver for the American people that day.”

Despite her explanation, the controversy surrounding her debut continued to grow, with criticism focusing on both her preparation and her ability to manage the daily demands of the White House press corps.

Even before Friday’s announcement, speculation had emerged inside the administration that Zacharia might not survive long enough in the position to surpass Anthony Scaramucci, whose famously brief tenure as White House communications director lasted just ten days in July 2017.

An unnamed White House official told MS NOW earlier in the week that Zacharia had made a poor first impression and would need to demonstrate rapid improvement.

“Getting behind the podium is tough, but she got off on the wrong foot,” the official said. “She needs to get much better, fast, otherwise she’ll break Scaramucci’s record.”

The warning proved prescient. Zacharia was removed from the position before delivering a second formal White House briefing, ending her tenure even sooner than Scaramucci’s.

The sudden departure is particularly striking because senior White House officials had publicly defended Zacharia as recently as Wednesday.

White House Communications Director Steven Cheung offered an enthusiastic endorsement when asked about criticism of her performance and speculation about her future.

“Katie is a fabulous and wonderful addition to the team. She is uniquely qualified and whip smart to help inform the American people about all the great things President Trump and his Administration have been doing, and she will do an incredible job as Press Secretary,” Cheung said.

Just two days later, the administration confirmed that she was leaving.

Another unusual aspect of Zacharia’s appointment was that the official White House press secretary account on X never appeared to have been transferred to her control.

The account, previously used by Leavitt before being renamed White House Press Office, had not published a new post since October 7, two days before Zacharia’s appointment.

Before joining the White House, Zacharia worked as a senior communications adviser for Trump Media & Technology Group, the company behind Trump’s Truth Social platform.

She had also served earlier in 2026 as deputy assistant secretary for public affairs and a spokesperson at the Department of Homeland Security, although that assignment lasted only approximately six weeks.

Zacharia earned a law degree from Pepperdine University’s Caruso School of Law in 2011 and subsequently worked in China, including at the international law firm Zhong Lun. She has maintained that her legal education and professional experience entitled her to describe herself as a lawyer, while acknowledging that she was never admitted to practice law in the United States.

Her claims concerning her legal background became the subject of additional scrutiny after a complaint was submitted to the California State Bar requesting an investigation into whether she had improperly represented herself as an attorney.

The White House had defended her professional background, emphasizing her international legal experience and previous communications work.

Friday’s developments also drew attention because Zacharia’s dismissal came after a series of television interviews intended to address the controversy surrounding her appointment. Instead, those appearances generated additional questions about her qualifications and readiness for the position.

Multiple news organizations reported Friday that Zacharia had been dismissed, although Trump avoided describing the departure as a firing and instead emphasized the pressure she had experienced.

Her departure leaves the White House searching for another chief spokesperson less than two months after Leavitt’s exit, with no immediate announcement identifying who will permanently assume the position.

{Matzav.com}

Israel’s Central Elections Committee has ordered former IDF Chief of Staff Gadi Eisenkot and his Yashar party to either clearly identify a digitally manipulated campaign video or remove it from their social media accounts, after the footage depicted Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu holding a fictitious telephone conversation with slain Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar and congratulating him.

The ruling, issued Thursday by Supreme Court Justice Noam Sohlberg, chairman of the Central Elections Committee, followed a petition by Netanyahu’s Likud party challenging the video under Israel’s election propaganda laws.

The controversy erupted just 12 days before Israel’s October 27 Knesset elections, as the increasingly bitter campaign between Netanyahu and Eisenkot has become dominated by accusations concerning responsibility for the October 7 massacre and the government’s handling of the subsequent war against Hamas.

The video, published Thursday by Eisenkot, uses digital manipulation to create the appearance of Netanyahu speaking with Sinwar, the Hamas leader who masterminded the October 7, 2023, terrorist attacks in southern Israel.

Sinwar, who was killed by Israeli forces in Gaza in October 2024, is depicted as the recipient of a congratulatory telephone call from the Israeli prime minister.

The fictitious conversation is intended as a political attack on Netanyahu, whom Eisenkot has repeatedly accused of failing to prevent the Hamas massacre and failing to fulfill his promises to eliminate the terrorist organization.

At the conclusion of the video, Netanyahu is shown covering his eyes as a message appears accusing him of ignoring warnings ahead of October 7.

“Netanyahu, you were warned, and you didn’t prevent [it],” the message states.

Netanyahu has denied allegations that he received actionable warnings of the impending Hamas attack and failed to respond appropriately.

The video was accompanied by a message from Eisenkot criticizing the prime minister’s wartime leadership.

“For three years, our heroic fighters have been on the front lines, and Netanyahu has failed to eliminate Hamas as he promised the people of Israel,” Eisenkot wrote.

“There is another way! On October 27, vote Yashar for the fighters,” he added.

Following the video’s publication, Likud submitted a petition to the Central Elections Committee, arguing that the campaign advertisement had been created or altered using digital technology and therefore required an appropriate disclosure under Israeli election law.

The petition was filed through attorneys Ilan Bombach, Shai Levi and Kim Verona, who sought action against Eisenkot and his party under the Elections Law governing campaign propaganda.

Justice Sohlberg examined the material and concluded that there was sufficient preliminary evidence that digital methods had been used in creating or editing the advertisement, triggering the legal requirement for disclosure.

He issued an interim order requiring Eisenkot and Yashar to add a clear indication throughout the video that it had been digitally manipulated, or alternatively to remove it immediately from their social media accounts.

The order applies to the party’s and Eisenkot’s accounts across social media platforms and remains in effect unless the committee chairman rules otherwise.

Importantly, Sohlberg did not order the unconditional removal of the advertisement. His ruling allows the party to continue distributing it if the required disclosure is added.

The judge also emphasized that the decision was temporary and did not constitute a final determination of whether the party had violated election law.

Eisenkot and Yashar were instructed to submit their response to the petition by Sunday, October 18, at noon.

The committee will then continue examining the legal questions surrounding the advertisement, including whether its presentation complied with the disclosure requirements for digitally manipulated political material.

The dispute comes amid growing concern in Israel over the use of artificial intelligence and other digital editing techniques to create realistic but fictitious political advertisements.

Earlier in the election campaign, Sohlberg ordered Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich and his Religious Zionism party to remove a digitally generated video depicting Eisenkot alongside Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas and Ra’am chairman Mansour Abbas.

In that case, the judge concluded that the advertisement portrayed a political encounter that had never occurred and could mislead viewers into believing that Eisenkot maintained a political relationship that did not exist.

The latest controversy reverses the political roles, with Eisenkot’s party now facing scrutiny over its own use of manipulated imagery targeting Netanyahu.

The ruling also comes as Eisenkot has emerged as one of Netanyahu’s principal electoral challengers, with recent opinion polls indicating that Yashar could become the largest party in the next Knesset.

The committee’s interim order requires the video to be properly labeled or removed while the legal proceedings continue. Eisenkot’s formal response is due Sunday.

Elon Musk stunned spectators Thursday night when Tesla unveiled its long-awaited next-generation Roadster with a demonstration that appeared to defy gravity, sending the electric sports car racing up a towering ramp, driving upside down, flipping through the air and landing safely on its wheels.

The extraordinary presentation, held at a SpaceX testing facility in McGregor, Texas, showcased a vehicle equipped with advanced propulsion technology developed through a collaboration between Tesla and Musk’s aerospace company, SpaceX. The car demonstrated the ability to lift itself off the ground, maneuver while airborne and accelerate from zero to 60 miles per hour in less than one second.

The unveiling marked a major milestone for a vehicle first announced in 2017 and repeatedly delayed over the ensuing nine years. Musk now says the redesigned Roadster is expected to enter production in 2028.

During the event, a Roadster prototype approached an enormous curved ramp resembling a giant loop. Rather than falling as it climbed the increasingly steep structure, the vehicle remained attached to the surface, eventually reaching a completely inverted position.

The car then accelerated toward the end of the ramp, launched into the air, rotated approximately 180 degrees and descended in a controlled maneuver before landing upright on the pavement.

The demonstration drew cheers from the audience, with Musk acknowledging the successful stunt.

“Well, it worked,” he remarked.

Tesla followed the opening maneuver with another display in which the Roadster lifted off the ground and traveled over a lineup of Tesla vehicles, including a Cybertruck, Cybercab, Model Y, Model 3 and Tesla Semi.

The car performed an aerial maneuver before returning to the ground, demonstrating the capabilities of its propulsion system.

Unlike conventional electric vehicles, which rely exclusively on their motors and wheels for movement, the experimental Roadster uses high-pressure compressed air released through specially designed thrusters.

Tesla engineering vice president Lars Moravy explained that the vehicle incorporates a powerful suction system underneath its body, allowing it to maintain contact with surfaces even when driving upside down.

According to Moravy, the system can generate the equivalent of approximately twice the force of gravity to keep the car attached to the road.

“Then we borrowed some technology from SpaceX to do the rest,” Moravy said.

The propulsion system reportedly uses 10 nozzles connected to compressed-air storage tanks, allowing the vehicle to produce controlled bursts of thrust in different directions.

Musk explained that the system includes specialized thrusters for controlling the car’s position in the air, along with more powerful units mounted toward the rear.

“It can do rolls, it can do crazy gymnastics,” Musk said.

The technology enables the Roadster to perform brief airborne maneuvers that would be impossible for an ordinary passenger vehicle. However, the demonstration did not establish that the car can sustain conventional flight over long distances.

Musk acknowledged that the Roadster’s extraordinary capabilities come with practical limitations, joking that it is “not necessarily a safety optimised car.”

The presentation also featured an acceleration test in which Tesla reported that the Roadster reached 60 miles per hour in just 0.81 seconds, a figure that would place it among the quickest-accelerating vehicles ever demonstrated.

Tesla is targeting a top speed exceeding 230 miles per hour for the new Roadster, although the performance figures have not yet been independently verified under standardized production-vehicle testing conditions.

The redesigned vehicle features an aggressive, angular appearance that differs substantially from the sleek Roadster concept Tesla originally introduced nearly a decade ago.

The car is intended to serve as a technological showcase for Tesla, demonstrating the potential of electric propulsion combined with aerospace-inspired engineering.

Musk has long promised that the next-generation Roadster would push automotive performance beyond conventional expectations. When the vehicle was first announced in November 2017, Tesla projected a 2020 production date and advertised acceleration, speed and range figures that generated considerable excitement.

Those plans were repeatedly postponed as the company concentrated on expanding production of its existing vehicles and developing newer projects, including the Cybertruck, autonomous driving technology and humanoid robotics.

Thursday’s unveiling provided the first major public demonstration of the redesigned vehicle’s unusual flight-related capabilities.

Tesla has also introduced multiple versions of the Roadster, including Performance, Thrust and Rocket configurations.

The company is accepting reservations for the Performance and Thrust models, with reservation amounts reported at $50,000 and $250,000, respectively. The more extreme Rocket configuration is being offered by invitation only.

The Rocket model, designed around the vehicle’s most advanced propulsion features, is not currently approved for ordinary public-road use.

Tesla has indicated that the Roadster will be produced in relatively limited quantities, with Musk acknowledging that it is unlikely to contribute significantly to the company’s overall revenue compared with its mass-market vehicles.

The unveiling comes as Tesla continues expanding its focus beyond traditional automobile manufacturing, investing heavily in artificial intelligence, autonomous transportation and robotics.

The Roadster’s debut also highlights the increasingly close technological relationship between Tesla and SpaceX, with engineers from both companies contributing to the development of the compressed-air propulsion system.

Despite the dramatic demonstration, questions remain about how many of the prototype’s capabilities will ultimately be incorporated into vehicles sold to customers, whether regulators will approve the technology for road use and whether Tesla will meet its latest production deadline.

For now, the sight of a Tesla sports car driving upside down, launching itself into the air and landing safely has provided the clearest demonstration yet of Musk’s longstanding ambition to build a car capable of doing considerably more than driving on the road.

{Matzav.com}

Members of the Alexander chassidus around the world have expressed shock and outrage following the desecration of the entrance to the historic Jewish cemetery in Aleksandrów Łódzki, Poland, where several of the chassidus’s revered Rebbes and other distinguished rabbonim are buried.

The vandalism was discovered Wednesday by visitors who had arrived at the cemetery to daven at the kevarim of the tzaddikim. They were stunned to find that unknown individuals had spray-painted offensive graffiti across the cemetery’s entrance gate.

According to members of the chassidus, the perpetrators apparently arrived late Tuesday night and defaced the gate of the old cemetery, which holds particular significance for Alexander chassidim because of the generations of Torah leaders buried there.

The discovery caused considerable distress among visitors and members of the chassidus, who regard the cemetery as one of their most important historical and spiritual sites.

Following the discovery, local representatives contacted the administrators of Alexander Hoif, the hachnosas orchim organization that operates in the area throughout the year and assists visitors traveling to the kevarim.

The organization’s leadership, together with the committee responsible for preserving the burial sites of the Alexander Rebbes, immediately filed a complaint with the local Polish police.

Authorities subsequently opened an investigation into the incident, gathering evidence from the scene and examining security-camera footage from the surrounding area in an effort to identify those responsible.

Members of the chassidus expressed hope that Polish law enforcement officials would pursue the perpetrators vigorously and take appropriate action to prevent further acts of vandalism against the historic Jewish burial ground.

At the same time, efforts were initiated to remove the graffiti and restore the cemetery entrance to its previous condition.

The desecration comes as Alexander chassidim are preparing for the upcoming yahrtzeit of the Yismach Yisroel, Rav Yerachmiel Yisroel Yitzchok Danziger, whose kever is located at the cemetery. The yahrtzeit falls on Erev Rosh Chodesh Shevat and traditionally draws large numbers of chassidim who travel to Poland to daven at the resting place of the revered Rebbe.

The cemetery, established in 1822, is among the most significant surviving landmarks of the once-thriving Jewish community of Aleksandrów Łódzki, a town near Lodz that became an important center of Polish chassidus.

Among those buried there are Rav Yechiel Danziger, the first Alexander Rebbe; his son, the Yismach Yisroel; Rav Shmuel Tzvi Danziger, the Tiferes Shmuel; and Rav Betzalel Yair Danziger. The cemetery also contains the kever of Rav Chanoch Henoch Hakohen Levin, who served as a prominent chassidic leader in the region.

The cemetery suffered extensive destruction during World War II, when German occupiers removed numerous matzeivos and used them as construction material. Further damage occurred in the years following the war, leaving only a portion of the original gravestones intact.

In more recent years, preservation efforts have sought to protect the remaining kevarim and maintain the cemetery as a destination for visitors. A substantial entrance gate and protective fencing were installed, and the ohel housing the Alexander Rebbes has been maintained for those who come to daven.

The latest vandalism has therefore caused particular distress among chassidim who have invested considerable effort in preserving the site and ensuring that future generations can continue visiting the kevarim of their Rebbes.

With preparations underway for the Yismach Yisroel’s yahrtzeit, those responsible for maintaining the cemetery are working to restore the entrance while awaiting the results of the police investigation.

{Matzav.com}

Amazon could shut down all 15 of its last-mile delivery warehouses in New York City and eliminate as many as 7,000 jobs if a labor proposal supported by Mayor Zohran Mamdani becomes law, according to industry specialists who believe the online retail giant is prepared to carry out its warning rather than abandon its longstanding business model.

The proposed Delivery Protection Act would require Amazon to directly employ approximately 5,000 delivery drivers who currently work for independent contractors. Supporters argue that the legislation would provide stronger workplace protections, better compensation and improved safety standards for employees of major delivery companies, including Amazon, FedEx and DoorDash.

Amazon, however, has warned that the measure could force it to dismantle its existing delivery network within the five boroughs. In addition to the 5,000 drivers whose jobs could be affected, approximately 2,000 employees working at the company’s 15 local distribution facilities could also face layoffs if those locations close.

Industry analysts say the company’s record of responding aggressively to labor disputes suggests that its warnings should be taken seriously, particularly because Amazon has never directly employed its delivery drivers under this model anywhere else in the United States.

One example frequently cited by logistics experts is Amazon’s withdrawal from Quebec, where the company closed seven warehouses in early 2025 following a labor dispute at one of its facilities.

The conflict centered on a warehouse in Laval, near Montreal, where approximately 300 employees had organized under the Confédération des syndicats nationaux, known as CSN.

By March 2025, the shutdowns had resulted in the elimination of roughly 1,900 warehouse positions and affected another 2,800 workers employed by delivery contractors serving those locations.

Marc Wulfraat, founder and president of Montreal-based logistics consulting company MWPVL International, said Amazon’s actions in Canada offer a warning about what could happen in New York.

“Amazon will retaliate, because it has to send a firm message to the rest of the country that ‘If you mess with us, this is what will happen,’” Wulfraat said.

“When you look at Amazon’s global operations, they close buildings left, right and center when there is union activity.”

Wulfraat said Amazon continues to pay rent on more than 1.6 million square feet of now-vacant warehouse space in the Montreal area, despite having invested hundreds of millions of dollars in constructing and outfitting the facilities. Real estate advertisements indicate that at least two of those properties are being marketed for sublease.

The New York proposal was originally introduced by Queens Council Member Tiffany Cabán last year and brought back before the City Council in 2026. It currently has approximately 34 co-sponsors, giving it considerable legislative support.

Nevertheless, concerns about widespread job losses have complicated negotiations, including among council members who otherwise support stronger labor protections.

A person familiar with the discussions said several lawmakers, including City Council Speaker Julie Menin, are “uncomfortable” with the possibility that the legislation could cost thousands of New Yorkers their jobs.

“This bill will have to pass in some form,” the source said, pointing to Mamdani’s support for the measure.

The source suggested that negotiations could ultimately produce an agreement leaving “both sides unhappy.”

Among the possible compromises being considered is an arrangement under which Amazon could continue relying on independent delivery contractors while accepting additional obligations to protect drivers’ safety.

No date has been established for a City Council vote.

Amazon currently employs or supports more than 12,000 hourly positions in New York City, more than double the number of workers affected by its Quebec warehouse closures.

The approximately 7,000 jobs connected to its last-mile delivery network represent only part of that workforce.

Another 5,500 employees work at the company’s JFK8 fulfillment center on Staten Island, where workers voted in 2022 to establish the first union at an Amazon facility in the United States. Despite that vote, the employees have yet to secure a collective bargaining agreement.

The Delivery Protection Act would not directly apply to those Staten Island warehouse workers.

Amazon has faced numerous labor organizing battles in recent years, particularly at its American facilities, even as the company operates with unionized employees in parts of Europe.

The company remains involved in legal proceedings concerning its responses to organizing campaigns in Staten Island and Bessemer, Alabama.

In April, the National Labor Relations Board directed Amazon to begin negotiations with the Teamsters on Staten Island. Amazon has challenged the labor board’s authority and legitimacy through litigation.

The Teamsters, which support stronger protections for delivery workers, accused Amazon of attempting to avoid responsibility for the people who perform work on its behalf.

“Amazon will say or do whatever it takes to deny workers stronger rights and wages and abdicate its responsibilities for its own employees,” the union said.

For the approximately 40 independent delivery businesses operating within New York City, the controversy presents a potentially existential threat.

Those companies collectively employ approximately 5,000 drivers whose livelihoods depend on contracts to deliver Amazon packages.

Kris Basmagy, who owns DashWave Delivery and oversees Amazon deliveries on Manhattan’s Upper East Side, warned that the company could simply relocate its distribution network beyond city limits.

“Look at what happened in Quebec,” Basmagy said. “There was pressure on Amazon’s model, and it pulled out.”

Basmagy, whose business employs approximately 150 drivers, noted that Amazon could shift operations to the numerous “warehouses being built along the New Jersey Turnpike.”

Such a move would allow the retailer to continue serving New York customers from facilities outside the city, although delivery times and operating costs could change.

Amazon has denied that its Quebec closures were retaliation for union organizing, and the dispute remains the subject of proceedings before Canadian labor authorities.

CSN filed a complaint with Quebec’s labor tribunal challenging the shutdowns. Even if the union succeeds in establishing that Amazon violated labor laws, the company could face financial penalties and damage to its reputation rather than being compelled to reopen its warehouses.

The closures also prompted legal action from customers who claimed that the disruption interfered with the expedited shipping benefits they had purchased through Amazon Prime.

A class-action lawsuit filed by a Quebec Prime subscriber in February 2025 alleged that delivery promises of one or two days were replaced, in some instances, by waits of four to six days.

A Quebec court permitted the lawsuit to move forward in May.

The plaintiffs acknowledged that the worst service interruptions lasted approximately two months, while Amazon maintained that its delivery performance recovered after Canadian logistics company Intelcom assumed responsibility for local distribution.

“Then they got their act together and stopped the delays,” said Saro Turner, a partner at Slater Vecchio, the law firm representing the plaintiffs.

Amazon has argued that the consequences for New York consumers would extend beyond employment, potentially increasing delivery costs and slowing shipments throughout the five boroughs.

The company financed an economic analysis conducted by AKRF estimating that the legislation could impose an additional $664 in annual expenses on the average New York household, equivalent to approximately $5.20 per package.

That projection includes deliveries by companies other than Amazon, such as FedEx and DoorDash, and reflects assumptions about the wider impact of the proposed requirements. It remains a company-sponsored estimate rather than an established cost increase.

Amazon spokesperson Steve Kelly said the New York delivery market is considerably larger and more complicated than the company’s former Quebec operation.

He described New York as “fundamentally different” from Quebec, where Amazon maintained “far fewer sites.”

“New York City is one of the largest and most complex delivery regions in the country,” Kelly said. “It’s best served by a network of local small businesses deeply embedded in their communities and leveraging our operations infrastructure.”

A person familiar with Amazon’s distribution system said closing its city warehouses would likely have the greatest impact on customers accustomed to receiving purchases within hours.

Same-day and early-morning deliveries could become significantly less available, while fewer products might qualify for the expedited shipping benefits offered through Amazon Prime.

“There are a lot of same-day and same-morning deliveries in the city” that could arrive the next day, the source explained.

Amazon’s New York distribution network includes facilities throughout Brooklyn, Queens and Manhattan, with warehouses in Red Hook at 270 Richards Street and Maspeth at 55-15 Grand Avenue.

The company also operates an approximately 87,000-square-foot last-mile distribution facility at 706 Eleventh Avenue in Manhattan, according to a report examining delivery-related safety concerns issued by City Comptroller Mark Levine.

Brittain Ladd, a retail and logistics consultant who previously worked as an Amazon executive, said the company could view the New York legislation as a threat extending far beyond the five boroughs.

“Amazon wouldn’t blink about shutting down the 15 facilities in New York City if it felt that the legislation was a threat to its business model,” Ladd said. “This is about a model that could be copied in other cities.”

Supporters of the legislation reject the argument that the prospect of closures should prevent the city from establishing stronger worker protections.

When Mamdani formally endorsed the measure in August, his administration argued that the current subcontracting system allows major delivery companies to exercise extensive control over drivers while avoiding direct responsibility for their working conditions.

The administration also cited traffic safety concerns surrounding last-mile warehouses. A 2025 city comptroller’s report found that 78% of areas examined near such facilities experienced increases in crashes causing injuries after the warehouses opened.

The proposed law would establish city licensing requirements for certain distribution facilities, impose additional safety and training standards and require companies operating those facilities to assume direct responsibility for workers performing essential delivery functions.

Cabán and labor organizations supporting the bill maintain that the changes are necessary to improve conditions for workers and protect pedestrians and motorists on New York streets.

Independent delivery company owners, however, say they fear becoming casualties of a confrontation between city officials and one of the world’s largest corporations.

“There is a laser focus on punishing Amazon no matter what the repercussions might be, what it does to us as business owners, fathers and husbands,” Basmagy said. “It’s as if we no longer exist.”

Among the businesses facing an uncertain future is WGA Transit, a Harlem-based delivery company that has made a particular effort to provide employment opportunities to people who were previously incarcerated or experienced homelessness.

Its owner, Joe Artus, said the legislation in its current form would make it impossible for his company to continue operating.

Artus, whose business employs 189 people, described the personal and financial consequences he fears if the measure becomes law.

“I have a 21-month-old daughter,” Artus said. “If this thing passes, there is no way for my company to exist or to keep my 189 employees.”

[COMMUNICATED]

LAST CALL!
Classes Starting Monday, 10/19

The PCS/FDU Master’s in Accounting combines top credentials with a singular focus on helping graduates build successful accounting careers.

🏆 The Stats That Matter

✅ 98% employment rate
✅ Top-tier graduates earning $250K+
✅ Ranked among the Best Master’s in Accounting by Eduniversal (2026) and Best Colleges by Forbes (2026)
✅ Highest first-time CPA exam pass rate in NJ

Last call! Classes starting Monday, 10/19

For more info: https://pcsnynj.org/masters-in-accounting-cpa

👤 Men: 732-905-9700 x665 | Sara@nj.pcsjobs.org
👤 Women: 732-367-1500 | Tova@nj.pcsjobs.org

A Singular Focus on Success: The Key to Building a Thriving Accounting Career

Moshe Rubinovich is an Accounting Student and Tax Preparer at Minster-Kohavi. “My improved performance has also been recognized by my employers through raises since completing the FDU/ PCS course. I’ve repeatedly heard from employers that PCS graduates are particularly desirable because they have a stronger command of fundamental accounting principles and are better equipped to approach and solve accounting problems.”

Rubinovich recommends the field of accounting to anyone looking for a stable and versatile profession, particularly someone who enjoys problem-solving and working with details. “Accounting is a very robust field, and it encompasses far more than I originally imagined,” he says. “There is room for people with many different interests, strengths, and career goals within the profession.”

The FDU/ PCS program’s strong emphasis on accounting fundamentals and adaptability to the changes in the profession (such as AI) provides students with a solid foundation.

“What makes PCS particularly valuable is its singular focus on the success of its graduates,” says Rubinovich. “The program is guided by one central goal: giving its students the knowledge and tools they need to succeed in their careers.”

Rubinovich also appreciated the accessibility of the professors, placement division, and alumni network. “Even after graduation, the professors remain willing to provide guidance, answer questions, and offer assistance when needed. Another major strength is the PCS placement department and the network of PCS graduates. It is a large, closely connected community that is invaluable for advancing in one’s career.”

FDU Master’s in Accounting is Ranked Among the Best Master’s in Accounting by Eduniversal and Best Colleges by Forbes. PCS graduates maintain a 98% employment rate. 

Maran Rav Moshe Hillel Hirsch, Rosh Yeshivas Slabodka, has called for strengthening United Torah Judaism’s representation in the upcoming Knesset elections, warning that mounting pressure on chareidi education and the yeshiva community threatens the ability of Torah-observant families to maintain their way of life.

Speaking during a meeting at his home with rabbonim from Toldos Yeshurun, an organization serving Jews from Russian-speaking backgrounds, Rav Hirsch stressed that the election carries consequences extending well beyond ordinary political considerations. He described the ability of chareidi families to continue educating their children and observing their religious traditions without interference as a central issue facing the community.

The Rosh Yeshiva pointed to mounting difficulties confronting chareidi educational institutions, including the Chinuch Atzmai school system, Bais Yaakov schools and Talmudei Torah. He cited reductions in government funding, increasingly restrictive requirements and the ongoing military draft controversy as developments placing substantial pressure on the community.

According to Rav Hirsch, these challenges are affecting families throughout the chareidi sector and reflect a broader effort to change the community’s character and make it increasingly difficult for its members to continue living according to their beliefs.

Addressing the visiting rabbonim, the Rosh Yeshiva emphasized the importance of encouraging broader participation in the election and reaching individuals who might not ordinarily consider supporting United Torah Judaism.

“Each and every person sitting here must speak to friends and family,” Rav Hirsch said, urging those present to bring “more and more and more people to vote for Gimmel,” the ballot symbol of United Torah Judaism.

“This affects our very lives,” he declared, stressing that participation in the effort should be regarded as an obligation rather than merely a worthwhile undertaking.

During the discussion, the visiting rabbonim raised a particularly sensitive question concerning their work with Jews who are at different stages of becoming more observant.

They explained that many of their talmidim and the families with whom they maintain relationships do not identify as fully chareidi, even as they continue developing a stronger connection to Torah and mitzvos.

The rabbonim asked how they could approach such individuals about voting for United Torah Judaism without creating the impression that their relationship was being used to advance a narrow political interest. They were especially concerned that such conversations could undermine the trust and spiritual connections they had worked to establish.

In response, Rav Hirsch explained that the issue should be presented in terms of every individual’s fundamental right to determine how to live.

“Everyone has the right to live as they choose,” he said.

“A chareidi should have the right to be chareidi, and someone who wants to be half chareidi should be half chareidi, and someone who wants to be a quarter chareidi should be a quarter chareidi.”

Rav Hirsch explained that the message was not that every person should adopt a fully chareidi lifestyle or change his present level of observance. Rather, the objective was to preserve the freedom of individuals and families to pursue a Torah way of life to whatever degree they choose, without having that option restricted by government policy.

He emphasized that this freedom must remain available not only to those who currently identify as chareidi, but also to their children and future generations, regardless of the level of religious observance they ultimately embrace.

The rabbonim subsequently asked how additional votes for United Torah Judaism could make a practical difference when other political parties and public officials remained firmly opposed to the positions of the Torah community.

Rav Hirsch responded that greater representation in the Knesset would provide the chareidi parties with additional parliamentary strength to prevent legislation and government measures that could interfere with Torah education and religious life.

He explained that even when political opponents remain committed to their own views, a sufficiently strong parliamentary presence can enable chareidi representatives to block initiatives that threaten the community’s institutions and way of life.

{Matzav.com}

A serious internal dispute within Agudas Yisroel has taken a new turn after the Ger chassidus announced Thursday evening that it would not participate in a joint election campaign headquarters being organized by several major chassidic factions ahead of Israel’s October 27 Knesset elections.

The decision came just hours after representatives of Ger, Belz, Vizhnitz and Shlomei Emunim had reached an agreement to establish a coordinated campaign operation aimed at securing support for United Torah Judaism. Despite the earlier understanding, Ger subsequently informed the other factions that it would not join the initiative.

Importantly, the announcement concerns Ger’s participation in campaign activities and does not constitute an instruction to its chassidim to refrain from voting for United Torah Judaism, whose ballot symbol is the Hebrew letter gimmel.

According to a report by Emess, the original arrangement called for a joint election headquarters staffed by representatives of the four factions. Those designated to participate included Yisroel Dranger of Ger, Shiki Mandel of Vizhnitz, Tzachi Brim and Areleh Elboim.

The proposed headquarters was intended to bring the factions’ election efforts under a single organizational framework, allowing them to coordinate campaign activities and mobilize voters during the final days before the election.

That arrangement unraveled within hours when Ger notified the other participants that it would not be taking part, effectively ending the attempt to establish a fully unified campaign operation involving all four groups.

Following Ger’s withdrawal, representatives of Shlomei Emunim and Belz decided to proceed with their election preparations independently, without waiting for the participation of Ger or Vizhnitz.

The development is particularly notable because Vizhnitz had been the first of the major chassidic groups to publicly announce, on Motzoei Simchas Torah, that it would work to ensure the success of the United Torah Judaism list.

Ger’s absence, however, represents a significant organizational challenge for the remaining factions. The chassidus has an experienced network of election activists and a well-established system for mobilizing its members, coordinating local operations and ensuring that supporters reach polling stations on Election Day.

Without that infrastructure participating in the joint headquarters, Belz and Shlomei Emunim will have to rely more heavily on their own organizational resources to carry out the campaign and encourage voter turnout.

The disagreement also raises questions about whether the internal tensions will remain confined to campaign logistics or eventually affect the number of votes received by United Torah Judaism.

Although Ger has not called for a boycott of the party, its decision to stay out of the joint campaign effort could reduce the level of organized election activity in communities where its activists would otherwise play a substantial role.

The latest development follows weeks of internal maneuvering within Agudas Yisroel, particularly over the status of Shlomei Emunim and Belz, which established a separate registered political framework while remaining part of the United Torah Judaism electoral list.

That arrangement, announced when the candidate lists were submitted in September, allowed the two factions to maintain their representation within the joint ticket while operating through a distinct party structure. Representatives of Shlomei Emunim and Belz described the move at the time as a means of protecting their organizational independence and ensuring fair treatment within the broader chassidic political framework.

The arrangement has nevertheless contributed to growing friction with Ger, whose representatives have traditionally held a leading position within Agudas Yisroel.

The tensions intensified this week when Vizhnitz-Merkaz entered into a new political cooperation agreement with Belz and Shlomei Emunim, creating an additional alliance within the chassidic political establishment.

That agreement was reached following discussions involving Elyakim Shtark, Belz’s new representative on the United Torah Judaism list, and Shlomo Greenberger, chairman of the Vizhnitz-Merkaz political committee.

The agreement was viewed as a significant shift in the longstanding relationships between the major chassidic factions, particularly because Vizhnitz-Merkaz had previously been associated with Ger’s political camp.

The dispute is also taking place against the backdrop of concerns over the allocation of Knesset seats among the chassidic factions.

Under the current United Torah Judaism candidate list, Agudas Yisroel’s representatives occupy the even-numbered positions. Yitzchok Goldknopf of Ger is in second place, Meir Porush of Shlomei Emunim is fourth, Elyakim Shtark of Belz is sixth, and Yaakov Tessler of Vizhnitz is eighth.

For Agudas Yisroel, the number of seats won by the joint list is particularly important because of the alternating arrangement with Degel HaTorah, which represents the Litvish community.

An even number of mandates would produce equal representation for the two parties, while an odd number could leave one side with an additional seat, depending on the total.

The eighth position occupied by Tessler is widely regarded as difficult to secure under current political conditions. The absence of Ger’s campaign organization could create further complications for the chassidic factions seeking to maximize their representation.

Reports Thursday indicated that Ger had not yet issued its customary public call for chassidim to vote for United Torah Judaism. The absence of such an announcement has fueled speculation about the possibility of reduced participation by Ger voters, although no instruction to abstain has been issued.

According to one report, Ger has approximately 30,000 eligible voters, making its participation a potentially important factor in the final result.

The dispute is understood to involve demands concerning the relationship between Agudas Yisroel and the newly established political framework representing Porush and Shtark, including questions about their obligations to the party’s institutions and future political agreements.

{Matzav.com}

Two bochurim from Yeshivas Ohr Hachaim, headed by Rav Reuven Elbaz, a member of the Shas Moetzet Chachmei HaTorah, were arrested overnight in Rishon Lezion after police discovered during a routine inspection that they were classified by the military as draft evaders. Both were subsequently transferred to the military police, amid the continuing wave of arrests targeting yeshiva students whose military service status remains unresolved.

The arrests took place late shortly after midnight Friday, when patrol officers conducting a routine check encountered the two talmidim. Upon determining that they were wanted by military authorities, the officers detained them and arranged for their transfer to military custody.

According to sources, the bochurim managed to contact the Tzeva Shachor emergency hotline, which alerts the chareidi community to arrests of yeshiva students and coordinates assistance for those detained.

The two reportedly informed hotline representatives that their cellular telephones had been confiscated immediately upon their detention, leaving them without access to their devices while in custody.

Both bochurim are receiving legal assistance and representation from an attorney, according to the report.

The arrests come less than two weeks before Israel’s upcoming Knesset elections, as the military’s enforcement campaign against yeshiva students classified as draft evaders continues to generate considerable concern throughout the Torah community. Other chareidi bochurim remain incarcerated in military detention facilities over their draft status.

The latest detentions are part of a broader resumption of enforcement measures against yeshiva students who have not reported for military service. The arrests have sparked demonstrations in chareidi neighborhoods and prompted rabbonim and community representatives to demand an end to the detention of those engaged in full-time Torah study.

Earlier this month, Rav Azriel Auerbach, the leader of the Peleg Yerushalmi, called for large-scale demonstrations in Yerushalayim and the greater Tel Aviv area in response to the imprisonment of yeshiva bochurim and kollel yungeleit.

Those protests followed a series of arrests and attempted arrests in which military police sought to detain chareidi men designated as draft evaders, sometimes encountering crowds of demonstrators who assembled after receiving emergency alerts.

The latest arrests occurred even as a separate, much larger military operation targeting chareidi draft evaders was postponed following a dispute between the IDF and Israel Police.

According to Israeli media reports, the military had planned to conduct a coordinated arrest operation between Sunday and Tuesday of the coming week. However, senior police officials declined to commit the Tel Aviv District to securing the operation, citing concerns that widespread demonstrations could erupt and continue through Election Day on October 27.

Police officials reportedly feared that a large-scale arrest campaign immediately before the elections would inflame tensions in chareidi communities and create serious public-order challenges that could interfere with voting.

The IDF confirmed that the planned operation had been delayed because of police considerations, explaining that arrests conducted in civilian areas require coordination and cooperation between the military and Israel Police.

Further reporting indicated that police officials had demanded the deployment of 300 military police personnel as a condition for proceeding with the operation. The disagreement centered on how responsibility should be divided between military personnel carrying out arrests and civilian police officers tasked with maintaining order and responding to disturbances.

The dispute has intensified scrutiny of the enforcement campaign. Earlier this month, the IDF acknowledged that it had refrained from certain proactive arrest operations during the recent period, explaining that resources had been concentrated at border crossings and that adjustments had been made for the Yom Tov season.

The military has nevertheless maintained that enforcement activity is continuing, including arrests conducted by military police and detentions involving civilian law enforcement authorities.

The difficulties facing the authorities were illustrated earlier this month in Modiin, where military police attempted to arrest another bochur from Yeshivas Ohr Hachaim.

After word of the attempted arrest reached the Tzeva Shachor hotline, hundreds of protesters, including bochurim and avreichim from nearby Modiin Illit, rushed to the area. The gathering developed into confrontations with police, and the military personnel eventually withdrew without taking the bochur into custody.

Other attempted arrests were reported in Dimona and Bat Yam, where military police likewise failed to apprehend the yeshiva students they were seeking after demonstrators assembled in response to emergency alerts.

The continuing detention of bochurim and avreichim has also prompted public gatherings outside military detention facilities.

In one such demonstration, approximately 1,000 children from Breslov Talmudei Torah assembled outside Military Prison 10 at Beit Lid for a tefillah gathering protesting the imprisonment of Torah learners.

The gathering was organized with the encouragement and under the leadership of Rav Yaakov Meir Shechter, one of the senior Breslover rabbonim, as part of the broader communal response to the arrests.

{Matzav.com}

Israeli Prime Minister Binyomin Netanyahu is preparing a 500,000-shekel defamation lawsuit against Yoav Horowitz, a former senior aide who once served as one of his closest advisers, after Horowitz publicly accused the Israeli leader of acting as a “Qatari agent” and claimed that Netanyahu was personally involved in the scandal surrounding alleged connections between members of his inner circle and Qatar.

The planned legal action was announced by the Likud party following a series of interviews in which Horowitz, who previously served as Netanyahu’s chief of staff and director-general of the Prime Minister’s Office, made sweeping allegations about the prime minister’s role in the affair commonly known as Qatargate.

Horowitz, now a founding member of former IDF Chief of Staff Gadi Eisenkot’s Yashar party, alleged that Netanyahu was directly implicated in the controversy involving his longtime adviser Yonatan Urich and reported contacts with Qatari officials.

During one of the interviews, Horowitz declared, “Binyomin Netanyahu is a Qatari agent.”

The accusation represented an extraordinary public attack by a man who previously occupied senior positions in Netanyahu’s office and had firsthand familiarity with the prime minister’s political and administrative operations.

Horowitz also addressed reports that Urich had met with a high-ranking representative of Qatar, arguing that investigators should focus on Netanyahu himself rather than limiting their attention to his advisers.

“The real story is Netanyahu. Netanyahu sent him.”

Expanding on that claim, Horowitz insisted that Netanyahu’s involvement should be treated as a central premise in examining the affair.

“It’s not just that I believe it. I’m saying this should be the working assumption for all of us. The Prime Minister is part of this affair. That’s what we need to assume.”

Horowitz went further, asserting that the prime minister himself should be considered a suspect in connection with the alleged Qatari relationships.

“He is suspected of being a Qatari agent. That includes the Prime Minister. I maintain that the person responsible for this whole affair is Benjamin Netanyahu.”

The allegations prompted an immediate and forceful response from Likud, which announced that Netanyahu would pursue legal action against his former aide over what the party described as defamatory and inflammatory statements.

“Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will file a 500,000-shekel defamation lawsuit against Eisenkot’s partner, Yoav Horowitz, over his serious and false inflammatory statements against the Prime Minister today,” the Likud stated.

The party followed its announcement with a blunt warning directed at those making accusations against Netanyahu.

“Those who lie and incite will pay.”

The dispute centers on Qatargate, the controversy involving allegations of improper relationships between individuals associated with the Prime Minister’s Office and representatives of Qatar. The affair has attracted considerable political attention because of Qatar’s longstanding role as a mediator in negotiations involving Israel and Hamas.

Urich, a longtime Netanyahu adviser, has been among the principal figures scrutinized over the alleged contacts. Recent reports concerning his communications and activities have renewed questions about the extent of the relationships and whether senior officials in the prime minister’s office were aware of them.

Horowitz’s accusations go considerably further than allegations concerning individual advisers. He has argued that Netanyahu himself should be examined in connection with the affair, although the allegations he voiced in his interviews do not, by themselves, establish wrongdoing by the prime minister.

Additional Israeli reporting identified a Channel 12 interview as one of the appearances that prompted Likud’s response. Horowitz also spoke to 103FM, where he questioned how individuals working in the Prime Minister’s Office could face suspicions involving Qatar during a period of war.

During that radio interview, Horowitz criticized Netanyahu’s handling of the controversy and called for greater accountability from the country’s leadership. He also warned that Israel risked another major national failure if lessons from October 7 were not properly investigated.

The confrontation has taken on an additional political dimension because Horowitz is now associated with Eisenkot, a former IDF chief of staff who has entered the electoral arena as a challenger to Netanyahu.

Horowitz served for approximately three years in senior positions under Netanyahu before eventually joining Eisenkot’s political camp. He is among the founders of the Yashar party and has reportedly been placed in charge of its team preparing plans for the first 100 days of a potential new government.

His move into opposition politics has been accompanied by increasingly sharp criticism of Netanyahu’s leadership, making the latest accusations particularly striking given his previous proximity to the prime minister.

Urich has also responded publicly to Horowitz’s attacks. In a social media exchange, he referred to their past friendship and suggested that Horowitz was targeting him for political reasons connected to Eisenkot’s election campaign.

According to the additional reporting, Urich argued that Eisenkot’s camp was concerned about its prospects of establishing a government without the support of Arab parties. He also referred to a previous meeting with Horowitz at his Tel Aviv office, during which the two had discussed business ventures.

For now, Likud’s announcement represents Netanyahu’s declared intention to bring a defamation claim, rather than confirmation that a lawsuit has already been filed or adjudicated. The proposed demand of 500,000 shekels reflects the seriousness with which the prime minister’s party says it regards the allegations.

{Matzav.com}

President Donald Trump said Thursday that Israeli officials are eager for him to become involved in Israeli Prime Minister Binyomin Netanyahu’s reelection campaign, but declined to commit to an endorsement and offered a striking response when asked whether he personally trusts the Israeli leader.

During an exclusive White House interview with Newsmax host Rob Finnerty, Trump praised his longstanding relationship with Netanyahu and the success of their military cooperation against Iran. However, when the conversation turned to personal trust, the president made clear that he approaches political relationships with considerable skepticism.

Asked whether he intended to take an active role in Israel’s October 27 Knesset elections, Trump indicated that his participation would be welcomed by Netanyahu’s supporters.

“Well, they’d like me to be. Yeah, they’d like me to be,” Trump said.

“Look, I’ve had a very good relationship with him. We’ve had good success together.”

Finnerty then asked Trump directly whether he trusted Netanyahu, prompting a response that extended beyond the Israeli prime minister to politicians generally.

“I don’t trust anybody, honestly.”

“I don’t trust anybody,” he repeated. “In the world of politics, I don’t trust anybody.”

Trump did not identify any particular disagreement or incident involving Netanyahu that had prompted his answer, leaving unclear whether the remark reflected specific reservations about the Israeli leader or simply his broader outlook on politics.

Despite his comments about trust, Trump spoke favorably about the strategic relationship between Washington and Jerusalem, particularly their joint military campaign against Iran. He credited American-Israeli cooperation with delivering major blows to Tehran’s military infrastructure and leadership.

“We had a very successful partnership, you know, in terms of a military partnership,” Trump said.

The president also asserted that he enjoys extraordinary popularity in Israel, suggesting that his appeal among Israeli voters might exceed that of the country’s own political leaders.

“The people of Israel, they say if I ran for prime minister, I’d get 99% of them,” Trump said.

Trump’s remarks come at a sensitive moment for Netanyahu, whose Likud party is preparing for a closely fought national election. Recent polling has suggested that the prime minister’s political alliance may struggle to secure the 61 Knesset seats required to form a majority government.

A September 24 survey published by Zman Yisrael, the Hebrew-language sister publication of The Times of Israel, projected an evenly divided contest between the Netanyahu-aligned parties and their opponents. Each bloc was estimated to receive 53 seats, with Arab-led parties collectively projected to win the remaining 14 seats in the 120-member Knesset.

The findings underscored the uncertainty surrounding Netanyahu’s prospects and the potentially significant political impact of an endorsement from Trump, who remains a prominent figure in Israeli political discourse.

Trump’s hesitation to enter the Israeli campaign is consistent with comments he made earlier this month. In an interview with Time magazine published October 1, he declined to endorse Netanyahu, emphasizing instead his commitment to Israel’s security.

“No, my primary thing — I do want to help them defend Israel,” Trump said at the time.

The president was also asked whether he believed he could work more effectively with Gadi Eisenkot, the former IDF chief of staff who has emerged as a leading challenger to Netanyahu. Trump did not offer a comparison, although he indicated that he had not heard unfavorable assessments of Eisenkot.

Reports in August indicated that Netanyahu had been seeking Trump’s endorsement for months, without securing a public commitment. During a White House meeting that summer, Trump reportedly asked Netanyahu about his standing in the polls, underscoring the president’s awareness of the Israeli leader’s difficult reelection campaign.

Trump again left the possibility of an endorsement open earlier this week, but did not identify a preferred candidate. The absence of a clear endorsement has attracted attention because Netanyahu has frequently emphasized his close relationship with the American president during previous election campaigns.

The political uncertainty comes as Washington and Jerusalem continue consultations over Iran, including whether another major military operation should be launched against Tehran.

According to a report published Tuesday, Trump and Netanyahu recently discussed the possibility of renewed strikes on Iran ahead of the Israeli and American elections. The report indicated that Netanyahu had expressed concern about intelligence suggesting Iran was attempting to rebuild elements of its nuclear program.

American officials cited in that account suggested that Trump had become increasingly reluctant to authorize another large-scale operation before the November 3 congressional elections. The White House disputed the reported characterization of the leaders’ discussions, while Netanyahu’s office declined to comment on the substance of their conversations.

During Thursday’s Newsmax interview, Trump indicated that Iran had appealed for a suspension of American and Israeli attacks while negotiations with Washington continued.

“They’ve asked us to please stop. And we do, because we’re negotiating with them,” Trump said.

The president’s comments highlighted the complicated relationship between the two allies as Netanyahu faces a difficult election and both governments weigh their next steps against Iran. Trump continues to praise their military cooperation, but has refrained from publicly backing Netanyahu’s reelection bid or committing to another offensive against Tehran.

{Matzav.com}

President Donald Trump warned Thursday that another Democratic attempt to impeach him could prompt him to reconsider his decision not to pursue criminal investigations of prominent political adversaries, claiming that his administration possesses substantial information about Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and Joe Biden that could be damaging to their reputations.

During an exclusive interview with Newsmax host Rob Finnerty, Trump said he had previously passed up opportunities to take action against several leading Democrats, including Clinton, his opponent in the 2016 presidential election. But with Democrats hoping to regain control of Congress in the November 3 midterm elections, the president suggested that a third impeachment effort could alter his approach.

“I could have done numbers in Hillary Clinton. I could have done numbers in Bill Clinton. I do like Bill Clinton. I could have done numbers in Barack Hussein Obama. Still could. I still could,” Trump said.

“I could do big numbers if I wanted to. I’ve turned down going after Hillary Clinton. Big numbers. I’m talking about going after them criminally.”

Trump went further, asserting that the administration had accumulated information concerning several of his most prominent political opponents that could severely undermine their public standing.

“I could have done something having to do with their reputations, destroyed their reputations,” he said. “We have a lot of information about Hillary. We have a lot of information about Barack Hussein Obama. We have a lot of information on Sleepy Joe Biden.”

When Finnerty asked whether he was prepared to use that information, Trump initially indicated that he was unlikely to do so, before raising the possibility that another impeachment proceeding could change his thinking.

“Well, I mean, I guess not. Probably not. But I think if they impeach me again, you know, again.”

“Things could get ugly,” Finnerty interjected.

The president did not elaborate on the nature of the information he claimed to possess, nor did he identify any specific criminal offenses that might form the basis of proceedings against Clinton, Obama or Biden. His remarks therefore left unanswered what evidence, if any, could support the actions he was discussing.

The warning echoed comments Trump made during an October 7 event in the Oval Office, when he said he had deliberately refrained from targeting political rivals because of his regard for the office of the presidency.

The latest statements come less than three weeks before the congressional midterm elections, with Republicans seeking to preserve their majorities in the House and Senate and Democrats attempting to regain the power needed to challenge Trump’s administration more aggressively.

Democratic leaders have not reached a unified public position on whether they would initiate another impeachment inquiry if they retake the House. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries of New York said in September that the party had neither committed to impeachment nor eliminated it as a possibility.

Representative Pete Aguilar of California, who chairs the House Democratic Caucus, has meanwhile indicated that pursuing impeachment is not among the party’s principal objectives.

Trump, who was impeached twice by the House of Representatives during his first administration and acquitted by the Senate on both occasions, dismissed the prospect of another impeachment as politically unjustified.

“The only thing they can impeach me for is making our country really strong,” Trump said.

The president also suggested that his previous experiences had prepared him to confront another impeachment battle, arguing that such proceedings could actually strengthen Republican support rather than weaken his standing.

“And I [have] become good at anti-impeachment. I call it the anti-impeachment movement,” he said.

Beyond the impeachment issue, Trump devoted part of the interview to his efforts to help Republicans retain congressional control. He acknowledged that Republican turnout has historically been weaker in elections when his own name does not appear on the ballot and said he was attempting to overcome that problem by campaigning as aggressively as if he were running himself.

“What I’m trying to do is be on the ticket, essentially. I mean, I’m running like I’m on the ticket,” he said.

Trump also accused major polling organizations of publishing misleading survey results that could discourage Republican voters from participating in the election. He suggested that polls showing either an overwhelming Republican advantage or a significant Republican disadvantage could have a negative effect on turnout.

“No, they’re rigged. They’re rigged polls,” he said.

“In some cases, they have me leading by so much that people aren’t going to vote. And in some cases, they have me losing.”

The president offered no evidence that polling firms were intentionally manipulating their findings.

Trump said his remaining campaign schedule would include two appearances in Michigan before Election Day, and that he was also considering traveling to Minnesota as part of his effort to mobilize Republican voters.

Meanwhile, Democrats are preparing for the possibility of taking control of the House and using their congressional authority to investigate the administration. Their plans include extensive oversight hearings and potential inquiries into Trump’s business interests, administration officials and federal policies.

Jeffries has said that a Democratic majority would examine allegations of wrongdoing and pursue accountability through congressional committees, while leaving the impeachment question unresolved. During a September television interview, he said Democrats would follow the evidence and applicable law before deciding what action to take.

President Donald Trump revealed Thursday that the United States is considering additional military action against Iran, including a possible attack on a heavily fortified nuclear installation known as Pickaxe Mountain, while declining to rule out the use of America’s massive conventional bomb nicknamed the “Mother of All Bombs.”

Speaking with Newsmax host Rob Finnerty during an exclusive White House interview, Trump indicated that further strikes could be necessary to ensure that Tehran never develops nuclear weapons. At the same time, he dismissed the prospect of sending American ground forces into Iran and predicted that the conflict would end soon, either through negotiations or renewed military pressure.

The president’s remarks came as reports emerged that the Pentagon had prepared contingency plans involving the GBU-43/B Massive Ordnance Air Blast bomb, commonly referred to as the MOAB, for possible operations against Iranian nuclear and energy facilities.

When Finnerty asked whether the administration was considering deploying the weapon, potentially after the November 3 midterm elections, Trump stressed that the bomb was conventional rather than nuclear.

“Well, the mother of all bombs is not nuclear,” Trump said.

Finnerty pressed him on whether the weapon might be classified as a tactical nuclear bomb.

“Not tactical nuclear?”

Trump rejected that characterization, explaining that the MOAB’s enormous explosive power does not make it a nuclear weapon.

“No, it’s not nuclear at all. This is just an extremely large bomb,” Trump said.

“It’s like a tiny nuclear bomb. The mother of all bombs is one big bomb, but it’s not nuclear.”

Although Trump discussed the weapon’s capabilities, he did not confirm that he had approved its deployment or disclose whether any specific Iranian installation had been selected as a target.

Reports published Thursday by CNN indicated that American military planners had developed options for renewed strikes against Iranian nuclear installations and energy infrastructure, with the MOAB among the weapons being examined.

CBS News separately reported that the White House and Pentagon had prepared plans that included the possibility of using the enormous conventional bomb.

Responding to questions about the reports, the White House declined to discuss sensitive military planning. Administration officials maintained that Trump was preserving the full range of available options to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.

The MOAB weighs approximately 21,600 pounds and is regarded as the largest conventional bomb in the American arsenal. It was first employed in combat in April 2017, when US forces targeted an ISIS tunnel network in Afghanistan during Trump’s first administration.

Despite its extraordinary explosive force, the weapon is not designed primarily to penetrate deeply buried underground installations. Its destructive effect comes from the enormous blast it produces over a broad area.

That distinction has raised questions about whether the MOAB would be suitable for attacking Iran’s most heavily protected nuclear facilities, some of which are believed to lie beneath substantial layers of rock.

The GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrator, by contrast, was developed specifically to strike hardened underground targets. According to CNN, American officials have expressed doubts about whether the MOAB could destroy nuclear infrastructure located far below the surface.

Trump also identified another potential target during the interview: Pickaxe Mountain, a suspected Iranian nuclear installation believed to be concealed beneath a heavily fortified mountainous area.

“Now, we’re looking at Pickaxe Mountain. We may have to go there,” he said.

“We’ll take a shot at that one. We’ll knock it out fast.”

Asked whether an operation against the site would require deploying American soldiers on the ground, Trump indicated that he did not envision such a mission.

“No, I don’t see that. I don’t see that.”

The president argued that American military operations had already inflicted extensive damage on Iran’s nuclear capabilities, but warned that ending the campaign prematurely could allow Tehran to rebuild its program and force Washington to intervene again.

When questioned about the possibility of declaring victory and bringing the military campaign to a close, Trump suggested that such a decision could prove shortsighted if Iran retained the ability to pursue nuclear weapons.

“Well, we could. But if we do that within a year we may have to do it again,” Trump said when asked why the United States should not declare victory and withdraw.

“We want to make it so that they will never have a nuclear weapon, because if they had it, they would use it, in my opinion, instantaneously.”

Despite the prospect of another military operation, Trump maintained that the conflict was approaching its conclusion and disclosed that Iranian representatives were engaged in discussions with Washington.

“The Iran war will be over very soon. It’s going to end very soon,” he said.

The president suggested that the fighting could conclude through an agreement or through other measures, indicating that he was prepared to pursue either course.

“One way or the other, it’s going to end. You know, they are negotiating with us. Yes,” Trump continued.

“But one way or the other, it’ll end very soon. And oil will go dropping like a rock — and gas prices as well.”

Trump’s prediction comes as the prolonged confrontation continues to disrupt energy markets, particularly because of instability around the Strait of Hormuz, a critical shipping passage for international oil supplies. American forces have maintained pressure on Iran through restrictions on maritime activity, while Iranian threats and attacks against commercial vessels have contributed to concerns about the security of the waterway.

The president has faced growing pressure to bring the conflict to an end before the November congressional elections. Although he previously indicated that the United States would refrain from additional strikes before Election Day, military planners have continued preparing options should he decide to resume operations.

The potential deployment of the MOAB has also generated debate among military officials over whether the enormous weapon would accomplish Washington’s objectives. While its detonation could inflict devastating damage on exposed targets, the bomb’s limited ability to penetrate deeply buried installations raises doubts about its effectiveness against a facility such as Pickaxe Mountain.

Some officials have suggested that the weapon’s psychological impact could be as important as its physical destructive power. A strike employing the MOAB would demonstrate the scale of American military capabilities, although questions remain about whether such an attack would compel Tehran to make concessions or instead provoke further retaliation.

Trump, meanwhile, claimed that Iranian officials had directly appealed to the United States and Israel to suspend military action while diplomatic contacts continued.

“They’ve asked us to please stop. And we do, because we’re negotiating with them,” Trump said.

President Donald Trump marked a special family milestone this week, hosting an intimate birthday celebration at the White House for his grandson, Joseph Frederick Kushner, the son of Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump, who turned 13 on Wednesday, October 14, reaching the age of Bar Mitzvah.

The occasion brought together three generations of the Trump family for a private dinner at the presidential residence, with President Trump personally hosting the celebration in honor of his grandson.

Ivanka Trump shared photographs of the gathering Thursday, offering a glimpse into the family occasion.

“An unforgettable birthday dinner for Joseph, hosted by Grandpa at the White House. Thirteen is off to quite a start!” she wrote.

The photographs showed Joseph, dressed in a blue suit and tie, seated alongside his grandfather and mother at an elegantly arranged dinner table in the White House’s Red Room. Jared Kushner, Joseph’s father and a longtime adviser to President Trump, was also present.

Other photographs captured Joseph spending time with the president in the Oval Office, including a moment in which Trump appeared to be looking through a photo album featuring pictures of himself and his grandson. Additional images showed the family posing together inside the White House, Joseph standing outside the presidential residence, and the birthday boy visiting the area near the Washington Monument.

The celebration also included a birthday dessert, with Joseph photographed blowing out a candle.

The Kushners have long maintained a strong connection to Jewish tradition. Jared Kushner grew up in an Orthodox Jewish family in New Jersey, while Ivanka Trump converted to Orthodox Judaism before their marriage in 2009. The couple has raised their three children, Arabella Rose, Joseph Frederick, and Theodore James, in the Jewish faith.

Joseph’s older sister, Arabella, celebrated her Bas Mitzvah in June 2023. At the time, Ivanka publicly expressed her pride in her daughter’s commitment to Jewish values and charitable activities, including her volunteer work assisting families in need and children with special needs.

Joseph, who was born on October 14, 2013, was named in honor of two family ancestors. His first name honors Jared Kushner’s paternal grandfather, Joseph Kushner, a Holocaust survivor whose experiences helped shape the family’s identity and commitment to Jewish continuity.

The Kushner family’s Jewish roots are particularly prominent in New Jersey, where the Joseph Kushner Hebrew Academy bears the name of Jared’s grandfather. The school was established with the support of the Kushner family and has educated generations of Jewish children.

The White House gathering was relatively small, with the photographs showing President Trump, Ivanka, Jared, and Joseph together for the occasion. Joseph’s siblings were not pictured at the dinner.

{Matzav.com}

Elyakim Shtark, a new United Torah Judaism candidate representing the Belzer chassidus, has triggered a political uproar after comparing the plight of yeshiva bochurim who fear arrest when attempting to leave Israel because of their military draft status to the restrictions imposed on Jews during the Holocaust.

Shtark made the controversial remarks Thursday evening while discussing the difficulties confronting young chareidi men who have been classified by military authorities as draft evaders. Among those affected are bochurim seeking to travel abroad for shidduchim but concerned that they could be detained at Ben Gurion Airport because of outstanding military service orders.

The prospective Knesset member, who is expected to succeed longtime UTJ representative Yisrael Eichler on the party’s electoral slate, acknowledged that comparisons to the Holocaust are particularly sensitive. Nevertheless, he maintained that the present circumstances reminded him of accounts he had heard from his grandparents about Jews who were unable to cross national borders.

At the beginning of his remarks, Shtark addressed Eichler, who has frequently invoked the Holocaust in his own political statements.

“I’ve made a commitment not to bring up the Holocaust during my first few years, because you’ve already brought it up enough.”

Shtark then proceeded to draw precisely such a comparison, saying that he found it difficult to describe the situation facing chareidi young men in any other terms.

“I’m not one to make Holocaust comparisons, but I find myself unable to describe our situation any other way. Our situation is close to what it was during the Holocaust, when people couldn’t cross borders. It reminds me of the stories our grandparents told us,” he said.

The comments came against the backdrop of the continuing confrontation over the military draft, with yeshiva bochurim whose service status remains unresolved facing the possibility of detention when traveling through Israeli airports.

For those pursuing shidduchim overseas, the restrictions have created additional complications. Bochurim who fear being arrested while departing Israel may be unable to travel to meet prospective marriage partners, leaving families abroad to consider making the journey to Israel instead.

Despite the severity of his comparison, Shtark reportedly emphasized that he was not seeking to assign blame for the situation. He called instead for cooperation in addressing the difficulties facing the chareidi community.

“The solution will come only if we work together,” he said.

The remarks quickly drew sharp criticism from political figures, including Yisrael Beiteinu chairman Avigdor Lieberman, who framed the controversy as part of the broader dispute between Israelis who serve in the military and those who do not.

“It’s either us or the draft dodgers,” Lieberman wrote in response.

The Amcha Yisrael party, headed by former IDF officer Ofer Winter, issued an equally forceful condemnation, describing Shtark’s Holocaust comparison as “a disgrace to every Israeli and every Jew.”

The party argued that the remarks were particularly serious because Shtark is expected to serve in the Knesset, where he would hold a position of national responsibility.

In its response, Amcha Yisrael connected the controversy to the increasingly heated public debate over the chareidi draft and demonstrations opposing enforcement of military service requirements.

The party criticized what it described as the failure of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and senior government officials to speak out against extreme statements made during protests over the draft issue. It argued that Shtark’s comments likewise demanded an unequivocal public response.

Amcha Yisrael called on the chareidi community to distance itself from Shtark’s comparison and demanded that Netanyahu and his cabinet ministers condemn the remarks immediately.

The party also reiterated its opposition to a future coalition in which United Torah Judaism chairman Yitzchok Goldknopf would supply the decisive 61st Knesset vote needed to establish a governing majority.

Shtark’s entry into national politics comes amid broader changes within United Torah Judaism, particularly in the representation of the Belz chassidus. His anticipated succession to Eichler marks a significant development in the party’s internal arrangements ahead of the upcoming Knesset elections.

Born in Belgium, Shtark was educated in Belz institutions both in Israel and overseas. He has become known primarily for his work behind the scenes, developing relationships between the chassidus’s leadership, rabbonim, elected officials and government representatives.

The IDF on Friday released a handwritten document attributed to slain Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar revealing explicit instructions to terrorists preparing for the October 7 massacre, including orders to carry out brutal killings, set entire communities ablaze, and immediately circulate footage of the atrocities to terrorize Israelis.

The document was made public on the second anniversary of Sinwar’s elimination in Rafah, alongside a detailed account of the military operation that ended the life of one of the principal architects of the October 7, 2023, terrorist assault.

According to the IDF, Sinwar’s written instructions demonstrate that the violence and its public dissemination were deliberate elements of Hamas’s operational planning. The document called for particularly gruesome acts to be filmed and distributed as quickly as possible, with the aim of spreading fear throughout Israel.

“It must be emphasized to those responsible for the units that they must ensure these things are carried out deliberately. That means documenting and broadcasting the images as quickly as possible: stepping on soldiers’ heads, shooting at point-blank range, slaughtering people with knives, blowing up tanks, prisoners kneeling with their hands on their heads, and so on,” Sinwar wrote.

The Hamas leader also described the type of destruction he wanted terrorists to create and record, outlining plans to generate scenes of devastation that could be used in a psychological warfare campaign.

“We must plan in advance incidents that will produce terrifying images. Several burning car bombs that exploded inside a military outpost or building and caused tremendous destruction. Heartbreaking scenes. Enormous flames. Five or ten such images will strike fear into their hearts.”

Another passage specifically instructed Hamas operatives to prepare attacks in which entire residential areas would be set on fire, with the resulting destruction broadcast to the public.

“We must organize two or three operations aimed at burning entire neighborhoods, a kibbutz, and so on. They should spray the area with gasoline or diesel fuel from a special tanker, set the place on fire, and broadcast the images.”

The document also indicates that Sinwar contemplated an assault extending well beyond the initial infiltration from Gaza. He instructed his forces to be prepared for a broader offensive if Israel appeared to be collapsing or if additional terrorist organizations joined the fighting.

“There may be indications of the enemy’s collapse from the very beginning, and it is possible that the movements of our people inside, in Jerusalem and the West Bank, as well as Hezbollah’s intervention, will encourage this. Therefore, we must be prepared to expand the attack to the maximum extent possible.”

Sinwar, who became Hamas’s leader in Gaza in 2017, played a central role in preparing the October 7 massacre and subsequently directing the terrorist organization’s activities during the war. He was killed on October 16, 2024, in the Tel Sultan area of Rafah during an encounter with Israeli soldiers who initially did not realize they had located the Hamas chief.

In its anniversary statement, the IDF said Sinwar’s death substantially weakened Hamas’s leadership structure and ability to coordinate military operations.

“The elimination of Sinwar in October 2024 marked a turning point in the conduct of the Hamas terrorist organization in the Gaza Strip,” the IDF said in a statement.

“In the short term, his absence was felt in the organization’s decision-making processes and coordination capabilities. Subsequently, changes became apparent in the military wing’s operational patterns, alongside leadership gaps, an erosion of command capabilities, and difficulties maintaining organizational cohesion.”

The newly publicized anniversary material also provides a detailed reconstruction of the battle in which Sinwar was killed, showing how an encounter with three armed terrorists developed into the elimination of Hamas’s most wanted leader.

On October 16, 2024, soldiers from the 828th Brigade were operating in Rafah’s Tel Sultan neighborhood when an IDF observation unit detected three suspicious figures in a heavily damaged area roughly 300 meters from a major military engineering operation.

The troops began searching the vicinity, and a battalion commander subsequently identified the terrorists and opened fire. One of the men was wounded in the arm. The soldiers did not know at the time that the injured terrorist was Sinwar.

Israeli forces brought tanks into position around the area and employed drones to locate the gunmen as the confrontation continued. During the fighting, a soldier serving with Battalion 450 sustained serious injuries and was evacuated for medical treatment while under fire.

Sinwar and his two companions attempted to escape after the initial exchange, eventually splitting up and entering separate buildings. The Hamas leader, already wounded, sought shelter inside a nearby structure.

A company of paratroopers entered the building to search for the terrorist. As the soldiers moved through the structure, a platoon commander discovered a pool of blood, indicating that an injured gunman was nearby. Two grenades were then thrown toward the Israeli troops, one of which exploded.

The soldiers responded with heavy fire directed at the building, including tank shells, machine guns and small arms. A drone subsequently entered the damaged structure and located what appeared to be a body.

Because of the continuing operational danger, the troops waited until the following morning to complete their search. When they entered the building on October 17, they discovered Sinwar’s body and established his identity.

The IDF subsequently released footage captured by a drone during the confrontation, showing the wounded Hamas leader inside the damaged building shortly before his death. The video showed Sinwar attempting to strike the approaching drone with an object as Israeli forces closed in.

The encounter brought an end to a prolonged Israeli pursuit of Sinwar, who had spent much of the war evading capture as Israeli forces dismantled Hamas positions throughout Gaza.

The latest anniversary disclosures also include previously unseen footage and recordings of communications between Israeli soldiers during the operation, providing additional details about the sequence of events that led to Sinwar’s elimination.

The handwritten operational instructions were not entirely unknown before Friday’s anniversary announcement. Material attributed to Sinwar had already been published in October 2025, and subsequent research identified the document as having been written in August 2022, more than a year before the October 7 massacre.

Those earlier findings described a broader invasion plan involving successive waves of Hamas terrorists, predetermined objectives, and preparations to exploit any breakdown in Israel’s defenses. The instructions also envisioned additional forces advancing deeper into Israeli territory if the initial assault succeeded.

A separate handwritten planning document attributed to Sinwar outlined ambitions to seize numerous Israeli communities, military installations and strategic junctions, demonstrating the scale of the offensive Hamas leadership had contemplated.

The IDF’s anniversary presentation places those preparations alongside the circumstances of Sinwar’s death and the military’s assessment that his elimination damaged Hamas’s leadership, coordination and operational effectiveness.

President Donald Trump declared Thursday that he has no intention of using nuclear weapons against Iran or sending American ground forces into the country, even as speculation intensifies that the United States could launch another major military operation against the Iranian regime.

In an interview with Newsmax, Trump addressed reports that the Pentagon was considering deploying the GBU-43/B Massive Ordnance Air Blast bomb, commonly known as the “Mother of All Bombs,” against Iranian targets. Although he stopped short of confirming whether the weapon was under consideration, he emphasized that the powerful conventional bomb should not be confused with a nuclear weapon.

Trump what he's thinking about dropping on Iran: "This is an extremely large bomb. It's like a tiny nuclear bomb." pic.twitter.com/k2iSZyYzG2

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) October 16, 2026

“The mother of all bombs is not nuclear. It’s not nuclear at all. This is just an extremely large bomb. It’s like a tiny nuclear bomb. But the mother of all bombs is one big bomb, but it’s not nuclear.”

Trump also explicitly rejected the possibility of employing America’s nuclear arsenal against Tehran.

“No, I wouldn’t use nuclear [against Iran]. We don’t have to. We’re the greatest nuclear power in the world.”

The president separately indicated that he was not planning to deploy American ground troops to Iran, signaling that any additional military action would be conducted without a ground invasion under his current plans.

NEWSMAX: Do you trust Netanyahu?

TRUMP: I don't trust anybody pic.twitter.com/WeKHfNUj4l

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) October 16, 2026

The remarks came amid reports that American military planners were examining the possibility of using the MOAB, one of the largest conventional bombs in the US arsenal, in a future operation against Iranian targets. The weapon is designed to produce an enormous blast without relying on a nuclear reaction, although Trump did not disclose whether he had authorized preparations for its use.

The administration’s intentions have remained the subject of considerable speculation following Trump’s announcement last week that additional American strikes against Iran would be suspended until after November 3, the date of the upcoming congressional elections.

In a Truth Social statement last Thursday, Trump indicated that military operations would remain on hold until after Election Day. By Monday, however, he was telling reporters that the electoral calendar would not dictate his decisions regarding Iran, leaving open the possibility of renewed action before voters go to the polls.

Trump intensified his warnings during a campaign appearance in Alaska on Tuesday evening, suggesting that the Iranian regime could soon face another major American attack.

“Oh, wait till you see what we do to Iran. We’re going to do a number. Wait till you see,” he told the crowd.

The president continued with another warning, indicating that his patience with Tehran had largely run out.

“They’re just waiting. They’re waiting. Wait till you see what we do to Iran, because we’ve sort of had it. You know, we’ve had it,” Trump continued.

Trump also repeated his insistence that Iran would never be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons, pointing to the destruction inflicted on Iranian nuclear facilities during previous military operations.

“But, you know, it doesn’t matter. The big thing is they were not going to have a nuclear weapon, and they won’t. That’s buried under thousands of tons of rock.”

The possibility of renewed strikes has attracted particular attention because of reports that American military officials have prepared plans involving the MOAB. According to reporting by CNN and CBS News, potential targets include Iranian military installations, energy infrastructure and nuclear-related facilities, although the White House has not announced any decision to carry out such an operation.

The GBU-43/B weighs approximately 21,600 pounds and was developed to destroy large concentrations of enemy personnel, equipment and exposed installations through an exceptionally powerful conventional explosion. The United States first employed the weapon in combat in Afghanistan in 2017, during Trump’s first administration, against an ISIS tunnel complex.

Military analysts have questioned whether the MOAB would be effective against Iran’s most deeply buried nuclear facilities, which are protected by substantial layers of rock and reinforced construction. Unlike specialized bunker-busting weapons, the MOAB is designed primarily to produce a devastating blast across a broad area.

Separate reporting has indicated that Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu recently discussed the possibility of additional military action against Iran. Netanyahu has publicly stated that he is not seeking a preemptive attack before Israel’s October 27 election, while warning that Israel would respond forcefully to any renewed Iranian aggression.

The Newsmax interview also touched on the upcoming Israeli election and Trump’s longstanding political relationship with Netanyahu.

Asked whether he intended to become involved in Netanyahu’s campaign for another term as prime minister, Trump indicated that Israeli officials would welcome his participation.

“Well, they’d like me to be. Yeah, they’d like me to be. Look, I’ve had a very good relationship with him. We’ve had good success together.”

The president nevertheless declined to commit himself to an endorsement, despite previously raising the possibility of publicly backing a candidate in the Israeli election.

“I haven’t thought about it. Maybe I’ll do something. We may endorse somebody in these elections,” Trump said.

When questioned about whether he personally trusted Netanyahu, Trump offered a sweeping assessment of his approach to political relationships.

“I don’t trust anybody, honestly,” he replied. “I don’t trust anybody. In the world of politics, I don’t trust anybody.”

Despite that remark, Trump praised the cooperation between the United States and Israel during their military campaign against Iran, crediting the partnership with inflicting severe damage on the regime’s military infrastructure and leadership.

“We had a very successful partnership, you know, in terms of a military partnership,” Trump said.

Trump also asserted that he enjoys extraordinary popularity among Israelis, suggesting that his support in the Jewish state extends far beyond his relationship with Netanyahu.

“The people of Israel, they say if I ran for prime minister, I’d get 99% of them,” he remarked.

By Rabbi Pinchos Lipschutz

As we learn this week about Noach and the Mabul, we encounter a description of the world that is devastating and unsettling. The pesukim (Bereishis 6:11-12) tell us, “Vatishocheis ha’aretz lifnei ha’Elokim vatimolei ha’aretz chomos — The world had become corrupt before Hashem, and the earth was filled with thievery.” The Torah continues, “Vayar Hashem es ha’aretz vehinei nishchosah — Hashem saw the earth, and behold, it had become corrupt.”

Acharonim note a striking feature of these pesukim. The Torah describes a world consumed by corruption, a society steeped in theft, violence, immorality, and the abandonment of basic decency. Yet, when the Torah speaks of seeing the corruption, it singles out that Hashem is the One who observed what was happening: “Vayar Hashem.” Hashem saw what had become of His world. The implication is that the people inhabiting that world did not see what was unfolding around them. Either they were so deeply implicated in the wrongdoing that they could no longer see it clearly or they had become so accustomed to their surroundings that nothing about the prevailing behavior seemed unusual.

How could an entire civilization descend to such a level without recognizing what was happening? How could people live amid rampant theft and violence, surrounded by moral decay, and carry on as though everything were perfectly normal?

Perhaps the answer is that corruption rarely announces itself as corruption. It advances gradually, one compromise at a time, until yesterday’s outrage becomes today’s accepted practice. What once would have shocked the conscience becomes commonplace. What once demanded protest becomes a subject of indifference. Eventually, people no longer ask whether their behavior is right or wrong. They ask only whether it is customary, whether others are doing it, and whether they can get away with it.

Not only were the people of Noach’s generation committing terrible sins, but their society had lost the ability to recognize those sins for what they were. The corruption had become so pervasive that the distinction between right and wrong had blurred, until the abnormal had become normal and the indefensible had become accepted.

When an individual sins, there may still be a conscience that troubles him, a voice that reminds him that he has crossed a line. But when an entire society embraces the wrongdoing, that voice becomes easier to silence. People reassure one another that there is nothing wrong with what they are doing. They point to their neighbors, their friends, and the accepted practices of their time. The oldest excuse in the book is that “everyone is doing it,” and if everyone is doing it, then it can’t possibly be wrong.

Yet, the fact that an entire world accepts something does not make it right. A society can reach a consensus and still be profoundly mistaken. An entire generation can lose its moral bearings while remaining convinced that it is right.

We see this in the way nations condemn Israel and promote the modern-day blood libel that the Jewish state is guilty of genocide. We see it in the world’s most prestigious award being given to a Jew-hater who promotes the genocide charge. We see it in the antisemitic marches in European capitals, in the legislation Western nations enact against Israel, and in the growing hostility toward Israel and the Jewish people within the American Democratic Party.

And this lesson must give us pause closer to home as well. At a time when more Jews are devoting their lives to Torah, and when chesed and tzedokah are being performed on a scale that may be unprecedented in our long history, we must also confront the troubling reality that certain forms of contemptible conduct within our own community are becoming increasingly accepted. The extraordinary growth of Torah and chesed does not absolve us of the responsibility to recognize what is wrong among us.

The Torah’s description of the Mabul teaches us that this is not merely a historical curiosity. It is one of the great dangers facing human society in every age. When the standards of right and wrong are determined by what people do rather than by what they should do, the very idea of a moral standard begins to disappear. Instead of asking whether our behavior meets the demands of truth and justice, we judge truth and justice by whether they accommodate our behavior.

The tragedy of Noach’s generation was that its people apparently no longer saw the tragedy.

There is a remarkable lesson in the Torah’s identification of the particular sin that filled the earth, namely chomos, thievery. Chazal teach that the people of that generation had become so accustomed to stealing that they devised ways of taking from one another in amounts so small that the victims could not obtain legal redress. Each individual act might have appeared insignificant, but when everyone participated, the cumulative result was the destruction of society.

This is what happens when people stop respecting the rights of others. The first theft may be accompanied by discomfort, the second by a little less hesitation, and eventually a person can reach a point where he no longer finds anything wrong with taking what belongs to someone else. He finds excuses, identifies loopholes, and persuades himself that what he is doing is acceptable. Others do the same, and soon the entire society operates by standards that would once have been unthinkable.

The members of the generation of the Mabul did not necessarily need to become spectacular villains, each committing some extraordinary act of wickedness. They needed only to create a world in which everyone felt entitled to take a little, excuse a little, and disregard the other person a little. When those small acts became the accepted way of life, the society became corrupt.

The lesson reaches far beyond theft. Whenever people become accustomed to dishonesty, cruelty, exploitation, or the humiliation of others, they gradually lose their sensitivity to the damage they cause. The question is no longer whether another person has been wronged, but whether the wrongdoing is common enough to be excused. The more widespread a practice becomes, the less likely people are to challenge it, and the less likely they are to recognize the harm it inflicts.

This is how a society can deteriorate without experiencing a moment of collective alarm. There is no single morning when everyone awakens and announces that right and wrong no longer matter. Instead, the standards erode little by little, until people look around and see nothing unusual in what has become of them.

And that is the lesson of Noach.

The Torah tells us, “Noach ish tzaddik tomim hayah bedorosav es ha’Elokim hishalech Noach — Noach was a righteous and wholehearted man in his generations; Noach walked with Hashem.”

Noach lived in the same world as everyone else. He breathed the same air, encountered the same people, and witnessed the same conduct that had become ordinary in his surroundings. He was spared the influence of his society because, while the others accepted the standards of their generation, Noach measured his conduct by the will of Hashem. If Noach knew that Hashem considered that conduct wrong, Noach’s guide was Hashem, not public opinion, not what everyone did, what everyone bought, or where everyone went. He kept himself accountable to a higher standard.

Noach measured the world against the will of Hashem rather than measuring the will of Hashem against the world.

That distinction is fundamental.

It is relatively easy to recognize wrongdoing when everyone around us condemns it. When a society agrees that an act is shameful, a person can maintain his integrity without having to question the assumptions of his friends or challenge the practices of his community. The real test arrives when the prevailing culture has accepted something that the Torah rejects, when a person must choose between the approval of those around him and his responsibility to Hashem.

That is when a person discovers whether his standards are rooted in Torah or merely borrowed from his surroundings.

Hashem instructed Noach to build the teivah over an extended period so that he could carry on discussions with the people of his day and seek to influence them to mend their ways. Though Noach’s efforts proved fruitless, he himself wasn’t swayed by the degradation of the society around him and remained committed to acting according to the will of Hashem. Though he was constantly mocked, he continued building the teivah as Hashem had commanded him.

That is the responsibility of a Jew in every generation. We cannot control the moral climate of the world, and we cannot always persuade others to recognize what is wrong. But we are responsible for ensuring that the standards by which we live our lives do not become casualties of the society around us.

We live in a world in which the language of morality is constantly invoked, but the meaning of morality is increasingly contested. Conduct that was once regarded as shameful can be celebrated, while those who object are dismissed as backward, intolerant, or out of touch.

Just because something is popular, widely promoted, and accepted by influential people does not mean that it is right. Popularity is not proof of truth, and acceptance is not evidence of righteousness.

The world can applaud something that is wrong, just as an entire generation can become accustomed to behavior that destroys the fabric of society. If we allow the prevailing culture to determine our standards, we risk losing the ability to distinguish between what is right and what is merely fashionable.

This danger is not confined to the larger society. It exists within our world as well. A person can become accustomed to speaking improperly, treating another person unfairly, wasting precious time, or making compromises in his hanhogah until what once troubled him no longer registers. He may continue to regard himself as an honest person, a responsible person, and a ben Torah, even as he gradually adjusts his standards to accommodate his behavior.

The danger is not only that we may do something wrong. It is that we may reach a point where we no longer recognize it as wrong.

A person who knows that he has stumbled can seek to correct himself. A person who has convinced himself that there is nothing to correct has closed the door to improvement.

That is why the Torah’s description of Noach’s generation should give us pause. It teaches us to consider not only what we are doing, but how we judge what we are doing. Are our standards determined by the Torah, or do we slowly, and perhaps unknowingly, adjust our understanding of Torah to accommodate the standards around us? Are we troubled when we see something wrong, or have we become so accustomed to it that we no longer notice or care? Do we examine our conduct honestly, or do we find comfort in the knowledge that others behave the same way?

Noach’s generation became so immersed in its conduct that its people lost the ability to recognize where their choices were leading. The world was filled with chomos, and yet the corruption had become ordinary. What should have been a cause for alarm had become the background of everyday life.

Noach teaches us that we must preserve the ability to see clearly, even when those around us have lost it.

There is a reason that the Torah tells us that Noach walked with Hashem. A person who leads his life by what everyone else does gets swept away in the tide of hedonism, self-indulgence, and a way of life incongruous with Torah values.

Noach reminds us that when the entire world goes astray, righteousness may look strange and may feel lonely. When everyone goes somewhere and you don’t, it may appear as if you are the one missing out, but, in fact, you are like Noach in the teivah, living life the way it was meant to be lived.

Over the Yomim Noraim and Sukkos, we invested much effort in reaching higher levels of ruchniyus, striving to improve ourselves, strengthen our connection with Hashem, and carry the inspiration of those exalted days into the year ahead. The task of those days was to work to elevate ourselves above the distractions of the world and draw closer to the person we know we can become.

As we return to regular life, what we gained over Tishrei is vulnerable to the murky floodwaters of a society in which the lines between right and wrong are increasingly blurred and our generational values can gradually be eroded.

As we learn this week’s parsha and return to school and yeshiva, we must take the lesson of Parshas Noach to heart and work to go against the flow rather than get swept away by the challenges to our mesorah and Torah way of life.

We can choose the standards by which we live, the influences to which we expose ourselves, and the values we transmit to our children. By remaining loyal to Torah and its values and doing what we can to bring goodness and ruchniyus into the world around us, we build our personal teivah, a place of refuge in which our families can remain anchored even as the waters rise around us.

We may not be able to keep the world from sinking, but we can ensure that we do not allow ourselves to sink with it. We can act as our grandfather Noach did, attempt to influence those around us, seek to make the world a better place, and help prepare the world for the coming of Moshiach Tzidkeinu bekarov.

President Donald Trump has formally asserted executive privilege in a federal court dispute over his leadership of the Kennedy Center, seeking to prevent the disclosure of internal communications concerning his management of the Washington performing arts institution, including controversial plans to rename the facility and shut it down for extensive renovations.

The administration’s latest legal maneuver comes as Rep. Joyce Beatty, an Ohio Democrat who serves on the Kennedy Center’s board by virtue of her congressional position, challenges the president’s authority to make major decisions affecting the institution. At the heart of the case is whether Trump can claim the confidentiality protections afforded to presidential communications while acting as chairman of the Kennedy Center’s nonprofit governing board.

In documents submitted to the court Wednesday night, Joshua Hoyt, a deputy assistant and deputy counsel to the president, stated that he was acting at “the direction of the President” in invoking executive privilege over records and correspondence requested by Beatty. The filing was reported Thursday by NBC News.

Trump assumed control of the Kennedy Center’s board last year after appointing new members, who subsequently selected him to serve as chairman. His leadership has generated legal challenges over proposed changes to the institution, including efforts to place his name on the building and a sweeping renovation project that would keep the center closed for two years.

The president publicly announced the planned shutdown in February through a social media post. He subsequently indicated that the renovation initiative would not move forward without receiving “recognition” for his involvement.

Beatty’s lawsuit maintains that Trump’s public declaration effectively predetermined the center’s closure, leaving the board to formally approve a decision that had already been made. Her attorneys have sought internal communications to determine how the decision was reached and whether the board exercised independent authority.

The White House has resisted those demands, arguing that discussions involving the president and individuals advising him on Kennedy Center matters fall within the scope of executive privilege.

In his declaration, Hoyt described the protected material as “information, documents, and communications shared between the President, his advisors (government and non-government), and Kennedy Center staff, pertaining to the management and operation” of the institution. He also asserted confidentiality protections for communications “to or from his advisors and/or Kennedy Center staff.”

Justice Department attorneys reinforced the administration’s position in a separate submission Wednesday, accusing Beatty of pursuing an unjustified “fishing expedition” through presidential records.

The department argued that her “pursuit of irrelevant evidence does not justify her extraordinary request” for further documentation.

Beatty’s legal representatives, Norm Eisen of Democracy Defenders Action and Nathaniel Zelinsky of Washington Litigation Group, responded by accusing the president of attempting to use his constitutional office to conceal decisions made in his separate role overseeing a nonprofit organization.

“Donald Trump appointed himself as chair of the non-profit board of the Kennedy Center, and is now trying to shield his management by improperly invoking executive privilege,” they said in a statement.

“The Supreme Court has stressed that the government should not invoke executive privilege lightly, but that is precisely what the Department of Justice is doing here. This kind of cover-up is a direct assault on the rule of law,” they said.

The administration had already signaled earlier in October that Trump intended to rely on executive privilege. Wednesday’s submission, however, marked the formal assertion of that protection in the ongoing litigation.

In an October 6 court filing, Beatty’s lawyers argued that the president’s participation in the Kennedy Center’s governance must be distinguished from his constitutional responsibilities as chief executive. They maintained that the institution, although established by Congress, operates independently of the executive branch “and does not exercise executive power.”

“Trustee and board chair are not roles that must be performed by the President of the United States and, indeed, never have been in the Center’s history before now,” the attorneys wrote.

Federal government lawyers rejected that distinction, maintaining that Trump’s oversight of the Kennedy Center “is undoubtedly in his official capacity,” particularly because federal law gives the president authority to appoint members of the institution’s governing board.

The disagreement raises a potentially significant legal question about the boundaries of presidential confidentiality protections when a sitting president simultaneously exercises authority over an organization outside the traditional federal executive structure.

U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper, who is presiding over the lawsuit, has yet to determine whether the disputed communications are protected from disclosure.

Earlier this month, Cooper authorized Beatty’s legal team to pursue information relating to a photograph of Trump aboard Air Force One reviewing a poster displaying the words “Kennedy Center DEMOLISH.” The image has become another point of contention as the parties dispute the administration’s plans for the facility.

The Kennedy Center itself has already suspended operations. Officials closed the venue on September 15, citing the need for emergency safety evaluations, and it has remained shuttered since then.

The dispute also follows earlier court intervention in Trump’s plans for the institution. In May, Judge Cooper blocked a previous closure decision and ordered the removal of Trump’s name from the building’s facade. The ruling did not prohibit necessary repairs or prevent the board from considering a new shutdown through an independent decision-making process.

The renovation project has been described as a roughly $257 million undertaking, with administration officials maintaining that major improvements are necessary to address the building’s condition. Trump and his allies have argued that closing the center would allow the work to proceed more efficiently and help restore the venue to a higher standard.

The legal controversy intensified in September when the Kennedy Center’s board voted to close the institution immediately, prompting further objections from Beatty and renewed scrutiny of whether the shutdown complied with the court’s earlier restrictions.

Another issue concerns the administration’s refusal to permit certain questions during depositions. Justice Department attorneys previously instructed Kennedy Center officials not to disclose communications involving Trump, citing presidential confidentiality protections even before the privilege was formally asserted.

Judge Cooper must now decide whether the administration’s claim is legally justified and whether Beatty can obtain the information she says is necessary to challenge the president’s decisions.

Meanwhile, the Kennedy Center remains closed, with its future operations and renovation plans still entangled in the federal court battle.

WATCH: