Feed aggregator

Urban warfare expert John Spencer delivered a scathing assessment of the controversial documentary NAZA after watching the film in full, accusing it of spreading falsehoods and distortions about Israel’s conduct in Gaza and singling out its assertion that Israel killed more than 73,000 Palestinians as particularly egregious.

Spencer, who serves as Chair of Urban Warfare Studies at the Modern War Institute at West Point and has extensively studied Israel’s military operations in Gaza, said the documentary crosses a line even beyond the claims made by Hamas itself.

“Worse than Hamas propaganda,” Spencer wrote in a post on X after watching the documentary in its entirety. “Over three years, I’ve tried not to be surprised by ignorance, disinformation, and distortions relating to war, but this is at the top for many reasons.”

NAZA, directed by Israeli filmmakers Yuval Abraham and Rachel Szor, has become the focus of an escalating international controversy since its premiere at the Venice Film Festival last month. The approximately 80-minute film features testimony from 24 anonymous Israeli military and intelligence personnel and purports to expose the systems used by Israel to select and strike targets in Gaza.

The documentary was produced by The Guardian together with producer James Wilson, while Jonathan Glazer, the director of The Zone of Interest, served as an executive producer. Abraham and Szor previously worked on the Oscar-winning documentary No Other Land.

The film takes its name from what its creators describe as an Israeli military acronym referring to the anticipated number of civilians who could be killed in a strike. Its subjects were filmed largely at night on rooftops in Tel Aviv, with their identities concealed and their appearances and voices digitally altered.

NAZA won the Special Jury Prize at the Venice Film Festival after receiving a lengthy standing ovation and has since begun screening internationally, including at the New York Film Festival and the Hamptons International Film Festival. A wider theatrical rollout is underway, with the film expected eventually to be made available online.

The film has simultaneously drawn fierce condemnation in Israel. IDF Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Eyal Zamir has described it as being based on “blood libels, deliberate distortions of reality and grave, false accusations against IDF soldiers and commanders”. The IDF has disputed major allegations presented in the documentary and questioned the reliability and level of knowledge of some of its anonymous sources.

The filmmakers have rejected those criticisms, saying their work was based on interviews with more than 100 sources in addition to the 24 people who appear in the film. They have said their reporting included senior officers and personnel involved at different levels of the targeting process and was corroborated through documents and additional reporting.

Spencer said he intends to issue a much more extensive examination of the documentary and its claims. For now, however, he focused on a declaration displayed prominently during the film: “Israel has killed more than 73,000 Palestinians in Gaza.”

“Not even Hamas says this,” Spencer wrote.

His objection centers on the difference between a reported total number of deaths in Gaza and the claim that every one of those deaths was caused by Israel. Spencer argued that the documentary effectively takes the overall reported death toll and assigns responsibility for all of it to Israeli military action.

Spencer noted that Hamas itself has killed Palestinians in Gaza, including in efforts to suppress opponents and maintain its grip over the territory. Armed confrontations have also erupted between Hamas terrorists and anti-Hamas clans and other Palestinian groups, producing additional Palestinian casualties unrelated to Israeli strikes.

He also pointed to the thousands of rockets launched toward Israel by Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad that failed to reach their intended targets and instead landed inside Gaza. Spencer said that as many as 20% of the roughly 12,000 rockets fired toward Israel by the terrorist groups fell short inside the Gaza Strip.

Such failed launches have repeatedly endangered Gaza residents, he argued, making it impossible to simply attribute every Palestinian death during the war to Israeli military action.

Spencer additionally challenged the way casualty figures originating with Hamas-controlled authorities have been presented. He said more recent Hamas reporting has included natural deaths among the overall lists of people who died during the war period, another factor that he said undermines any blanket claim that the entire reported toll consists of Palestinians killed by Israel.

“To say every person that died in Gaza was killed by Israel is a vulgar lie,” he charged.

The casualty figure is particularly significant because the film presents itself as an investigative documentary and has received extensive international media attention and major film-industry recognition. Spencer argued that presenting a disputed aggregate death figure as a count of people specifically killed by Israel fundamentally changes its meaning.

The controversy over NAZA extends well beyond its casualty statistics. The documentary alleges that Israeli intelligence and military personnel relied heavily on artificial-intelligence-assisted targeting systems during the war and that permissible civilian-casualty thresholds were loosened dramatically following the October 7 massacre.

Among the film’s most explosive allegations is testimony claiming that a strike against a Hamas target was approved despite an expectation that as many as 500 civilians could be killed. The IDF has strongly rejected that characterization of its targeting procedures and has maintained that its operations are subject to legal review and rules intended to minimize civilian casualties while confronting terrorists embedded within heavily populated areas.

The IDF has also challenged the documentary’s reliance on anonymous witnesses, saying some of those presented as insiders lacked the comprehensive knowledge necessary to make authoritative claims about the military’s targeting policies and approval procedures.

The filmmakers, meanwhile, have defended the anonymity as necessary to protect their sources and insist that the testimony was subjected to extensive verification. They have said the film builds on several years of investigative reporting about Israeli operations in Gaza.

The political reaction in Israel has been equally intense. Culture and Sports Minister Miki Zohar accused Abraham and Szor of harming Israel and called for authorities to examine whether their Israeli citizenship could be revoked. Other Israeli political figures have denounced the film as a defamatory portrayal of IDF soldiers and commanders.

The film has also encountered protests at American screenings. Demonstrators carrying Israeli flags gathered outside its New York premiere at Lincoln Center, while a vehicle displaying messages accusing NAZA of being propaganda circulated outside the venue. Additional protests surrounded a screening at the Hamptons International Film Festival.

Spencer made clear that his criticism goes substantially beyond the disputed 73,000 figure and said he identified numerous other problems while watching the film.

“There are a lot of other lies, lies by omission, and lies of ignorance in NAZA, but this claim is unique,” he wrote, saying that it represents the use of “lies, damned lies, and statistics” to advance accusations that contradict both “the actual number put out by Hamas” and the reality on the ground.

Spencer said he plans to publish a comprehensive analysis detailing his objections to NAZA and its portrayal of the Gaza war.

{Matzav.com}

Israeli authorities had been given the names and nationalities of the passengers and crew aboard Flydubai Flight FZ1073 before it departed Dubai, including information identifying the Omani co-pilot who allegedly tried to seize control of the aircraft and crash it, according to officials familiar with the investigation.

The disclosure has intensified questions over the security failures surrounding the attempted terror attack, particularly because the accused co-pilot, Hamam al-Hammami, was an Omani citizen and had reportedly previously been barred from flying by Oman Air amid concerns over extremist views.

Regional officials said authorities in the United Arab Emirates transmitted the passenger and crew information to Israel before the plane took off for Tel Aviv. The information included the names and nationalities of those aboard, and Israeli authorities did not raise a red flag concerning any passenger or crew member.

The officials spoke anonymously because they were not authorized to publicly discuss the continuing investigation.

The information supplied before departure included the identities of the pilots, meaning that Israeli authorities had access to information showing that an Omani national was serving as a co-pilot on a flight bound for Ben Gurion Airport. Oman does not have diplomatic relations with Israel.

The revelation has prompted an increasingly public dispute within Israel over which government body was responsible for examining the information and determining whether anyone aboard the flight presented a security concern.

The Shin Bet has said responsibility for vetting passenger lists on foreign flights belongs to the Transportation Ministry. Transportation Minister Miri Regev has rejected attempts to place responsibility on her ministry, maintaining that aviation security is the responsibility of Israel’s security agencies and saying her ministry received neither a passenger list nor a security warning concerning the flight.

Further reporting has indicated that the flight information was transmitted into Israel’s National Passenger Profiling Center, a government system that receives identifying information about passengers and crew members aboard international flights. The Transportation Ministry is among the government bodies permitted to make use of information held by the system.

The controversy has deepened with reports that the Transportation Ministry had never activated its ability to query the database, despite being authorized to do so. Political commentator Amit Segal subsequently charged that the ministry had failed to authorize employees to access the system, had never submitted a query and had not paid its share of the database’s costs.

The Israel Tax Authority has also confirmed that identifying information concerning the Flydubai passengers and crew was received before the flight departed. The information provided by airlines can include names, nationalities and travel-document details.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has said Israel has longstanding arrangements with foreign airlines under which pilots who are citizens of countries without diplomatic relations with Israel are not supposed to operate flights into the country.

That has raised another fundamental question: how Flydubai assigned al-Hammami, an Omani national, to an Israel-bound flight in the first place — and why his nationality did not trigger intervention either in the UAE or Israel before departure.

The security questions have become still more serious following reports that al-Hammami had previously been removed from flying duties by Oman Air because of concerns about his extremist views. Investigators are examining how that information was handled and whether it was ever communicated outside Oman.

Aviation-security specialists have cautioned that international pilot vetting is complicated by significant differences among countries in the information they collect and the intelligence or personnel records they are legally permitted to share. A pilot can therefore possess the necessary licenses while potentially troubling information remains confined to another country’s internal systems.

The attempted attack occurred aboard Flight FZ1073 from Dubai to Tel Aviv, when al-Hammami allegedly attacked Captain Smit Machchhar with an emergency crash ax stored in the cockpit and attempted to take control of the Boeing 737.

The aircraft plunged thousands of feet before the wounded captain managed to open the cockpit door, enabling passengers and crew members to enter and overpower the co-pilot. Reserve Flydubai pilots who were aboard the aircraft then helped bring the jet safely down in Tabuk, Saudi Arabia.

The UAE has characterized what happened aboard the flight as a terrorist attack. Investigators are examining al-Hammami’s background, communications and travel history as they try to establish whether he acted independently or had assistance or direction from another person or organization.

New information emerging from the investigation indicates that al-Hammami may have been contemplating such an attack even before joining Flydubai. Israeli officials say he intended to crash the aircraft into Ben Gurion Airport and had previously considered carrying out an attack on another Israel-bound flight before abandoning that plan.

The investigation has so far not established that Iran, a terrorist organization or another foreign government directed the alleged plot, although investigators continue examining whether al-Hammami had contacts with outside actors.

The episode has exposed problems extending beyond the background of one pilot. Israeli officials are now examining the entire process by which foreign-airline passenger and crew information is received, distributed and checked, including which agency bears ultimate responsibility for acting on information contained in the lists.

Questions are also being raised over timing. Crew information can sometimes arrive shortly before an aircraft closes its doors, or even after departure, potentially leaving Israeli authorities little time to identify a problem and intervene before an Israel-bound flight is already airborne.

Netanyahu has ordered a comprehensive examination of security arrangements for foreign civilian aviation entering Israel. National Security Council head Shmuel Ben-Ezra has been instructed to appoint an examiner to review “all security aspects regarding foreign civil aviation to Israel.”

The inquiry is expected to examine the responsibilities of the Transportation Ministry and Israel’s security agencies, the operation of the National Passenger Profiling Center, information-sharing with foreign governments and airlines, and how a pilot from a country without diplomatic relations with Israel could have been cleared for an Israel-bound flight despite Israeli authorities already possessing his name and nationality before takeoff.

{Matzav.com}

President Donald Trump declared Monday night that the United States is defeating Iran and predicted that the months-long war will soon come to an end, reiterating that Washington will not permit Tehran to obtain a nuclear weapon and promising that energy prices will fall sharply once the conflict is resolved.

Speaking at a campaign rally in Grand Island, Nebraska, as Republicans intensify their push ahead of the November 3 midterm elections, Trump portrayed Iran as increasingly weakened and said the United States was preventing what he described as a potentially catastrophic nuclear threat.

“We’re saving the world from what could be one of the worst tragedies ever. They won’t have – that’s decided – they will not have a nuclear weapon. They understand that,” Trump said.

Trump says his war with Iran is saving the world. pic.twitter.com/dq4pv0sXwt

— Clash Report (@clashreport) October 5, 2026

Trump then predicted that an end to the fighting would quickly relieve the pressure the Iran conflict has placed on global energy markets and American consumers.

“The war will end very quickly, and prices are going to come down very sharply. You might say, ‘Please, please, sir, it’s going down too fast!’ You watch what’s going to happen in a very short period of time,” he added.

The president’s comments came amid a renewed diplomatic effort to end the conflict, even as Washington continues increasing military pressure on Tehran and moving additional forces into the Middle East.

The USS Theodore Roosevelt Carrier Strike Group and the USS Makin Island Amphibious Ready Group are being deployed to the region, a move expected to add roughly 9,000 American personnel to the U.S. military presence there. The buildup gives Trump additional options if the latest negotiations fail and large-scale American strikes resume.

The administration has simultaneously tightened economic pressure on Iran. New U.S. measures have sharply reduced international flights serving Tehran, while sanctions and American military operations have continued targeting Iran’s ability to move oil and other goods through the region.

Trump has repeatedly argued in recent days that Iran is approaching the point at which it will have little choice but to accept Washington’s terms.

Last Thursday, during an appearance at a Peterbilt Motors facility in Denton, Texas, Trump said Iran was “ready to fold up” and suggested that the war could be concluded around the time of the midterm elections — or even sooner.

“We have a war going on with a country that will never have a nuclear weapon and is ready to fold up. We’ll win very easily right now. I believe right after the election we’ll win, but maybe before the election.”

Trump has maintained that Iran was extremely close to developing a nuclear weapon when the war began at the end of February, repeatedly saying Tehran was only weeks away from reaching that point.

Iran had been “three to four weeks away, maybe sooner” from obtaining a nuclear weapon, Trump said, adding, “And if they have a nuclear weapon, the whole game is over..”

The president has presented preventing a nuclear-armed Iran as a central justification for continuing the military campaign, arguing that the threat must be permanently eliminated before Washington agrees to end hostilities.

Trump has also warned Iranian leaders that the alternative to reaching an acceptable agreement could be devastating.

The conflict would end “one way or the other…either they’ll do something very proper and smart or they won’t be around very long, which is, you know, frankly, I hate to see that, but they won’t be around very long.”

The latest comments follow a period of intense diplomacy involving Washington, Tehran and regional intermediaries attempting to establish terms for another ceasefire.

Trump recently rejected an Iranian proposal that he said did not go far enough, particularly regarding the Strait of Hormuz, the strategically vital waterway through which a significant share of the world’s oil and liquefied natural gas supplies normally pass.

Iran has sought relief from U.S. military and economic pressure and an end to restrictions affecting the Strait, while the Trump administration has demanded terms ensuring freedom of navigation and preventing Tehran from rebuilding capabilities Washington says have already been severely damaged during the war.

Trump said last week that Iran’s proposal offered to reopen only portions of the Strait of Hormuz, which he considered inadequate. U.S. officials have continued communicating with Tehran through mediators as both sides explore whether an agreement is possible.

The diplomatic effort has been accompanied by increasingly confrontational rhetoric from Tehran.

Mohsen Rezaei, secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council and a longtime senior figure in the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, responded to Trump’s claims that Iran was nearing defeat by attacking the president personally.

Rezaei described Trump as “the worst president in American history” and said the president’s rhetoric had “outrun his own fantasies.”

“You can win every day in your own imagination. But reality is shaped by Iran – by its people, its soldiers, and its missiles,” wrote Rezaei.

Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian has also rejected the notion that Tehran is preparing to surrender, saying Iran remains willing to engage in negotiations but will not accept demands that it views as capitulation.

Iranian officials have argued that the country has survived months of American and Israeli military pressure and remains capable of continuing the conflict. Iranian military officials have also claimed advances in their missile capabilities during the war, including the ability to strike moving targets at long range.

The Trump administration, by contrast, says the campaign has inflicted severe damage on Iran’s military infrastructure, including its navy, air force, missile forces and defense-industrial base.

{Matzav.com}

A sweeping redesign of the standard U.S. passport set to debut in 2028 appears to feature an image of President Donald Trump inside the document, raising questions over whether Trump’s likeness will become a standard feature in passports issued to millions of Americans rather than an optional element of the limited-edition commemorative passport currently available.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio unveiled the new passport, dubbed “Flight of the Eagle,” during the Sept. 29 launch of America.gov, the Trump administration’s new portal designed to streamline access to federal government services.

During Rubio’s presentation, images of the redesigned passport showed artwork featuring Trump on the inside front cover. Unlike the limited-edition “Patriot Passport” issued this year for America’s 250th anniversary, the 2028 redesign is intended to replace the regular U.S. passport.

That distinction has drawn particular attention because Americans currently must specifically request the Trump-themed commemorative passport. If the image shown in the 2028 preview remains in the final design, applicants apparently would not have the same choice.

David Alwadish, founder and CEO of passport and visa service ItsEasy.com, said the Trump image on the passport previewed by Rubio “appears to be non-negotiable.”

The State Department, however, has stopped short of explicitly confirming that Trump’s portrait will be included in every standard passport beginning in 2028.

Asked about the matter, a State Department spokesperson instead pointed to the separate commemorative passport, saying, “President Trump’s image is featured on the so-called Patriot Passport commemorating America’s 250th anniversary, available while supplies last.”

That answer left unresolved whether the Trump artwork displayed during Rubio’s presentation represents the final version of the standard 2028 passport or could still be changed before production begins.

Alwadish predicted that even if Trump’s image is included when the passport launches, its long-term presence could depend on which party controls the government after Trump leaves office.

“My gut feeling is that the party in power in the next presidential term will determine whether this new Trump photo is short-lived or limited edition, as it will almost certainly be mandated for change by the next controlling party,” Alwadish said.

For Americans who specifically do not want a passport containing Trump’s image, Alwadish said there may be limited time to obtain the current design before the new books enter circulation.

Anyone in that category “probably has a narrow window to apply,” Alwadish said. “We won’t know if [the government will] mandate that every passport issued as of a specific date must have the new design, regardless of leftover inventory.”

The proposed Trump image is only one element of what will be the most significant visual overhaul of the American passport in years.

The “Flight of the Eagle” passport will retain the familiar blue exterior but substantially change its appearance. “United States of America” will be moved to the top of the cover, while the Great Seal of the United States will become larger and, as Rubio put it, “more gold.”

Inside, the pages will tell a visual story of American history, beginning with the American Revolution and continuing through westward expansion, the transcontinental railroad, the Wright brothers’ pioneering work in aviation, the flag raising at Iwo Jima and American space exploration, including the Artemis program.

A bald eagle will appear in slightly different positions on successive pages. When someone rapidly flips through the passport, the images will create a flipbook-style animation in which the eagle appears to fly across the pages.

“I can see Americans sitting at airports all over the world, like, ‘Why do people keep flipping through the page?’” Rubio said while demonstrating the feature. “It’s either this or some Game Boy for your kids to keep them entertained. They can flip the eagle around.”

The passport will also move to a single 38-page format. The State Department currently offers a standard 26-page passport and a larger 50-page version frequently requested by people who travel extensively.

The government announced earlier this year that the two sizes would be replaced by the single 38-page book when the next redesign is introduced. The department says standardizing the passport size should improve manufacturing efficiency and reduce waste, although frequent international travelers may have to renew their passports more often after the 50-page option disappears.

The new passport will also arrive differently. Instead of being mailed in the relatively plain envelopes traditionally used to deliver passports, the redesigned document will be shipped in a thin white presentation-style box featuring a gold government seal.

The 2028 passport should not be confused with the “Patriot Passport” already being issued in connection with the United States’ 250th anniversary.

That commemorative passport unquestionably features Trump. Its inside front cover displays a portrait of President Trump together with text from the Declaration of Independence, an American flag and Trump’s signature. The inside back cover features an illustration of the signing of the Declaration of Independence.

The State Department originally planned a much smaller release of the commemorative passport, but expanded availability following strong demand. Up to 250,000 of the special passports are now being made available through designated in-person appointments and events across the country.

Americans do not receive a Patriot Passport simply by submitting an ordinary application. Applicants seeking one must specifically pursue the commemorative edition through the State Department’s designated process. Those applying online, by mail or through an ordinary passport acceptance facility receive the regular passport design.

“No one gets that passport without specially requesting it, so there is no risk of getting that passport unexpectedly,” Alwadish said.

The State Department says the commemorative passport contains the same advanced security technology as an ordinary U.S. passport and functions as a normal international travel document.

The Trump portrait itself has already generated political controversy. Democratic senators wrote to Rubio earlier this year objecting to placing the image of a sitting president inside a U.S. passport, arguing that passport artwork traditionally celebrates American history, national landmarks and institutions rather than contemporary political leaders.

The lawmakers pointed to earlier commemorative passports, including a bicentennial passport featuring the Liberty Bell and a special green passport issued in 1993 honoring Benjamin Franklin and the 200th anniversary of U.S. consular service.

The passport overhaul is occurring alongside a potentially much more consequential change for Americans seeking their first passport: the State Department plans to move most of the application process online.

Rubio said the administration’s goal is for the vast majority of Americans to be able to apply for a passport or passport card through America.gov by the end of 2027. Online passport renewal is already available, but first-time applicants traditionally have been required to appear in person with their documents.

“That is where the maze starts,” Rubio said. “You have to know which form to print, you have to schedule an appointment, then you have to go wait in line.”

Under the planned system, applicants would sign in electronically, submit the necessary information, upload their own passport photograph, make payment online and follow the application’s progress through real-time status updates.

“You probably can’t use those filters to make you look 50 years younger, but you can take a picture of yourself on the phone in the comfort of your own home, or you can upload one directly from your own device,” Rubio said.

Applicants would even be able to preview how their photograph will look inside the finished passport and retake it before submitting the application.

The State Department says existing passports will remain valid until their normal expiration dates, meaning Americans will not have to replace an unexpired passport simply because the “Flight of the Eagle” design begins rolling out in 2028.

For now, one important question remains unanswered. The State Department has clearly confirmed Trump’s portrait in the optional 250th-anniversary Patriot Passport, while the presentation of the standard 2028 passport also showed his likeness. But officials have not yet explicitly confirmed that the Trump image displayed in Rubio’s preview will appear in every standard passport once the new design goes into production.

{Matzav.com}

More than 122,000 cases of Gatorade distributed across 37 states, including New York and New Jersey, are being recalled because certain bottles contain artificial food dyes that were not disclosed on their labels, according to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

The sweeping recall covers 122,021 cases of 28-ounce bottles of four varieties: Gatorade Lemon Lime, Gatorade Lemon Lime Zero, Gatorade Orange and Gatorade Orange Zero.

According to the FDA, the affected beverages contain Yellow No. 5 and/or Yellow No. 6, but the presence of those color additives was omitted from the product labeling. Both dyes are permitted for use in foods and beverages but are required to be declared on product labels.

PepsiCo, the parent company of Gatorade, voluntarily launched the recall on Sept. 25. The FDA formally classified the action on Oct. 2 as a Class II recall, and the recall remains ongoing.

Under the FDA’s classification system, a Class II recall applies when use of or exposure to a product could result in temporary or medically reversible health consequences, while the probability of serious adverse health effects is considered remote.

The principal concern involves consumers who are sensitive to the undeclared dyes. Yellow No. 5, also known as tartrazine, and Yellow No. 6 can cause allergic-type reactions in a small number of people, with sensitivities more commonly reported among individuals who also react to aspirin.

Possible reactions can include skin rashes and asthma-like symptoms, although such responses are considered uncommon among the general population. The recall stems from the failure to list the dyes on the labels rather than evidence that the beverages are broadly unsafe for consumers.

The affected Gatorade was shipped to Alaska, Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Iowa, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Mississippi, North Carolina, North Dakota, Nebraska, New Jersey, New Mexico, Nevada, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Washington and Wisconsin.

Consumers in the New York metropolitan area are therefore among those being urged to check their bottles, with both New York and New Jersey included in the distribution area. Pennsylvania is also among the states affected.

The recalled products can be identified by specific lot and date codes printed on the bottles. The affected dates range from April through June 2027.

Among the recalled codes are 072226 DT with a date of APR 18 27; 072426 TL with APR 20 27; 072726 TL with APR 23 27; 072926 TL and 073026 TL with APR 25 27; 073126 TL with APR 27 27; 080126 DL with APR 28 27; 081026 TL with MAY 07 27; 082026 DL with MAY 17 27; 082526 KM with MAY 22 27; 090426 KM with JUN 01 27; 083126 DT and 091026 DL with JUN 07 27; and 091126 DL with JUN 08 27.

The recall comes as PepsiCo has already been moving to remove certain synthetic colors from several Gatorade products. The company previously committed to eliminating certain artificial colors from its Fruit Punch, Lemon Lime and Orange Gatorade Thirst Quencher and Gatorade Zero products beginning in fall 2026 as part of a broader industry shift toward alternative color ingredients.

The timing means the recall coincides with PepsiCo’s ongoing reformulation efforts, although the FDA enforcement action specifically concerns the failure to declare dyes contained in the affected products, rather than the broader debate over the continued use of artificial coloring in foods and beverages.

The recall is listed by the FDA under recall number H-0009-2027.

As of Monday, the FDA had not announced reports of widespread serious illnesses associated with the recalled beverages. The agency also had not issued a separate public press release for the action, with information instead appearing in its enforcement reporting system.

Consumers who have 28-ounce bottles of the four affected Gatorade varieties are being advised to inspect the lot and date information carefully to determine whether their drinks are included in the recall.

{Matzav.com}

A newly released Justice Department report says more than a dozen DOJ and FBI officials raised serious objections to the Biden administration’s 2021 response to angry parents at school-board meetings, warning internally that the initiative appeared political, threatened First Amendment rights and lacked a clear federal law-enforcement basis.

The report, released Monday by the Justice Department’s Weaponization Working Group, revisits Attorney General Merrick Garland’s Oct. 4, 2021 memorandum directing the FBI and U.S. Attorneys to coordinate with federal, state and local authorities in responding to threats against school-board members, teachers and other education officials.

The documents released with the report include hundreds of pages of internal communications and show that concerns about the initiative were being voiced inside the government even before Garland’s memo became public.

Attorney General Todd Blanche, announcing the findings Monday, said the newly released material confirms longstanding concerns about the government’s handling of the controversy.

“Five years ago, Attorney General Merrick Garland issued an infamous memorandum at the urging of the National School Boards Association and White House officials, directing the FBI and United States Attorneys to consider looking for a federal hook to prosecute parents exercising their right to free speech,” Blanche wrote Monday.

“Along with the report, we’ve released hundreds of exhibits and emails that make official and verify what many Americans had guessed: the Garland DOJ worked hand in hand with WH officials and the National School Boards Association to chill free speech and parental rights while they threatened to prosecute parents and label them domestic terrorists,” Blanche added.

The controversy dates to the fall of 2021, when school-board meetings around the country had become increasingly contentious amid disputes over COVID-era restrictions, mask and vaccine policies, school closures, race-related curricula and gender issues.

On Sept. 29, 2021, the National School Boards Association sent President Joe Biden a letter requesting federal assistance and warning that some conduct directed at school officials “could be equivalent to a form of domestic terrorism and hate crimes.”

Five days later, Garland issued his memorandum citing an “increase in harassment, intimidation and threats of violence against school board members, teachers and workers in our nation’s public schools.”

The new DOJ report says the memo emerged despite internal concerns about whether the federal government had evidence demonstrating a nationwide problem requiring such an intervention.

One of the most striking exchanges occurred before Garland’s memo was publicly released. A deputy assistant attorney general objected to proposals involving the DOJ’s Public Integrity Section and the possibility of connecting the school-board initiative to the department’s election-threat work.

The official wrote that the approach appeared so politically motivated that Garland “might as well rename the damn thing the Anti-MAGA Task Force.”

The chief of the Justice Department’s Public Integrity Section responded by calling the proposal “stupid.”

Other officials questioned whether the conduct under discussion belonged within federal jurisdiction at all. The DOJ report quotes internal descriptions of aspects of the proposal as “ridiculous,” “challenging from a First Amendment perspective,” “potentially dangerous ground,” “horrible,” “confusing,” “very messy and political” and involving “nothing remotely federal.”

One official warned that the initiative could appear to be “a partisan exercise aimed at those who do not support the Administration,” while another expressed concern that it could “tarnish reputation as an apolitical law enforcer.”

An FBI counterterrorism official also raised concern about the possibility that the “domestic terrorist” label could be broadly associated with people who “oppose school board actions,” while an attorney in the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division noted that much of the conduct at issue could fall within constitutionally protected speech.

Several Justice Department officials argued that genuine threats or violence against local school officials would ordinarily be matters for state and local law enforcement unless there was a specific federal offense or jurisdictional basis for FBI involvement.

Resistance continued after Garland issued the memo.

On Oct. 5, 2021, one day after its release, an FBI attorney complained that the Justice Department had issued the accompanying announcement without properly coordinating with the bureau.

A deputy assistant director of the FBI’s Criminal Investigative Division wrote that “we were all caught off guard by this announcement,” adding that it had been “unilaterally pushed by DOJ.”

As the Justice Department moved toward creating a task force, officials continued to question the need for the effort.

A deputy assistant attorney general in the DOJ’s National Security Division said he didn’t “see the need for a task force like this” and observed that the department doesn’t “start a narrowly focused task force every time some group believes they are the subject of threat.”

Later that month, the Department of Homeland Security circulated material connecting threats against education officials with increased opposition to masks, vaccines and critical race theory.

An FBI counterterrorism official characterized that material as a “politically charged paper” and expressed opposition to FBI participation in the effort.

The newly released Justice Department report says the FBI ultimately opened 25 Guardian assessments stemming from the Garland memorandum. Guardian assessments are preliminary investigative inquiries used by the FBI to evaluate information about possible terrorism or national-security threats.

One case cited by the DOJ involved a mother who, according to information supplied by an FBI whistleblower, became the subject of an assessment in part because she “is a gun owner” and belonged to a “right-wing mom’s group.”

The report says most of the assessments were eventually closed or discontinued.

The National School Boards Association subsequently apologized for the language in its September 2021 letter to Biden, acknowledging that there was “no justification for some of the language included in the letter.”

Garland repeatedly defended his original memorandum while serving as attorney general, arguing that federal authorities had a responsibility to respond to genuine threats of violence against public officials.

“The obligation of the Justice Department is to protect the American people against violence and threats of violence and that particularly includes public officials,” he said of the memo.

Supporters of Garland’s response have also pointed out that some school-board members and education officials did receive genuine online and written threats during the period, arguing that the existence of constitutionally protected protests did not eliminate the government’s obligation to investigate credible threats or acts of violence.

The dispute, therefore, has long centered on whether Garland’s directive was appropriately targeted at actual threats and violence or whether the federal response swept ordinary political protest and protected parental speech into a counterterrorism-oriented law-enforcement effort.

The new report was produced under the Trump administration’s broader review of alleged political weaponization within the federal government. President Trump signed an executive order on Jan. 20, 2025, directing the government to identify and correct instances in which federal law enforcement or intelligence powers had been used improperly for political purposes.

The Justice Department says the newly released internal communications demonstrate that concerns about the Garland memo were not confined to Republicans or outside critics, but were being raised at the time by career personnel inside both the DOJ and FBI.

The department is now taking several steps in response to its findings. Parents and others who became subjects or targets of FBI Guardian assessments stemming from the Garland memo will be offered an opportunity to review those records.

The DOJ also plans to place disclaimers on Guardian assessments associated with the initiative, warning that the Garland memorandum raised constitutional concerns and that assessments resulting from it should therefore be viewed with caution.

Officials additionally intend to review the files of people investigated under the policy to determine whether their constitutional rights were violated. Where such violations are established, the department says it will issue formal apologies and establish safeguards intended to prevent similar conduct in the future.

The Justice Department is also partnering with the National Association of School Resource Officers through a $1.5 million grant to provide training concerning parental rights, while additional federal resources are being directed toward educating school employees about parents’ First Amendment rights and their role in directing their children’s education.

In a separate action Monday, the Justice and Education departments sent a joint letter to attorneys general in all 50 states emphasizing parents’ rights under federal education and privacy laws, another component of the Trump administration’s effort to reverse what it describes as the previous administration’s approach to parental involvement in schools.

{Matzav.com}