Matzav

The SAT has undergone sweeping changes over the past four decades that have substantially reduced its emphasis on advanced vocabulary, lengthy reading passages, and the ability to interpret complex written material, according to a new study from Johns Hopkins University. The findings are raising questions about whether the college admissions examination has become less academically demanding even as concerns mount over declining reading proficiency among American students.

The research, conducted by the Johns Hopkins Institute for Education Policy and commissioned by Thomas Aquinas College, examined SAT reading materials from 1980, 1987, and 2026. Researchers identified major differences in the structure and content of the examination, including dramatically shorter passages, fewer vocabulary questions requiring independent knowledge, and a reduced emphasis on interpreting persuasive and argumentative writing.

The report documented “extensive modifications to the SAT reading section over the past four decades,” concluding that the changes “diminish the emphasis on the students’ ability to read and analyze difficult texts.”

One of the most striking findings involved the length of reading selections. Passages appearing on the 2026 practice examinations were less than one-third as long as those used in the earlier tests. At the same time, questions requiring students to demonstrate their knowledge of vocabulary without relying on surrounding text fell from approximately 60 per examination to just 10.

The researchers also discovered a major change in the types of reading comprehension skills being assessed. Earlier versions of the SAT frequently required students to evaluate arguments, understand persuasive techniques, and interpret references that depended on background knowledge. Today’s examination relies much more heavily on explanatory passages that provide students with contextual information to help them determine the meaning of unfamiliar language.

The changes have prompted criticism from educators who believe that college-bound students should be expected to handle challenging literary works and demonstrate a substantial command of the English language.

“The makers of the SAT seem to believe that the ability to tackle long and complex literary works isn’t an important skill for college students anymore,” John Goyette, Vice President of Thomas Aquinas College, said in a statement. “Sadly, given the state of modern higher education, they’re probably right.”

The findings add to a broader debate over changes to standardized testing and academic expectations. Earlier generations of students were required to study extensive vocabulary lists and prepare for stand-alone antonym questions that tested their knowledge of words without offering contextual assistance. Those questions have since disappeared from the examination.

Although the Johns Hopkins researchers did not determine that the modern SAT is conclusively easier overall, they emphasized the educational significance of the changes, explaining that “the shift is significant because reading, vocabulary, and comprehension are mutually reinforcing.”

Other recent studies have also examined whether the examination’s difficulty has changed over time. A 2026 University of Cincinnati study used ChatGPT to evaluate SAT mathematics questions from different years and estimated that their difficulty had declined by 0.21 standard deviations compared with 2012. A separate artificial intelligence-based analysis of examinations dating back to 2011 suggested that questions began becoming less difficult around 2017.

Researchers have been studying changes in SAT scores and test difficulty for decades. Analyses dating to the 1970s examined shifts in student performance beginning in the 1960s, while later comparisons of examinations administered in 2005 and 2010 found increases in scores on certain sections.

The College Board, which administers the SAT, challenged the suggestion that shorter passages or revised question formats necessarily mean that students are taking an easier examination. In a response to the New York Post, the organization emphasized that the Johns Hopkins researchers had not established an overall decline in difficulty and pointed to evidence that shorter passages can still require sophisticated reading skills.

The organization also defended the examination’s scoring patterns, stating that “if it were true that the SAT is easier than it once was, we’d see changes in score distributions and the proportion of students earning top scores—which we don’t.”

The latest report provides additional details about how substantially the examination has been redesigned. The older tests contained 85 verbal questions, compared with 66 on the current practice examination. The 1980 and 1987 versions each included 45 analogy and antonym questions, categories that have disappeared entirely from today’s SAT. Modern questions also offer four possible answers instead of the five choices used in earlier versions.

The average length of reading passages has fallen from 304 words in 1980 and 340 words in 1987 to approximately 97 words in the 2026 practice test. Instead of requiring students to read longer selections and answer multiple questions about them, the newer format typically presents a brief passage followed by a single question.

However, the researchers identified one finding that complicates claims that the examination has simply been made easier. Their analysis found that the average measured complexity of the newer passages was actually higher than that of the older material. The researchers therefore characterized the changes as a shift in the skills being assessed rather than definitive evidence that the SAT has become easier.

Thomas Aquinas College, which has relied on SAT scores for more than five decades to evaluate prospective students, commissioned the research because of concerns about whether the examination still measures the abilities required for its demanding curriculum. The college places particular emphasis on reading and discussing major works of literature, philosophy, and other academic disciplines.

Goyette said the institution wanted to understand whether SAT scores remain a reliable indicator of students’ readiness for that kind of education. The researchers recommended a future study in which the same students would answer questions from both older and newer examinations, allowing investigators to compare their difficulty more directly.

The debate comes as educators nationwide grapple with declining reading performance, changing study habits, and concerns about students’ ability to concentrate on lengthy written material. The increasing prominence of digital media and short-form online content has intensified questions about whether schools and colleges are adapting their expectations to students’ abilities or adequately preparing students to meet more demanding academic standards.

{Matzav.com}

A surprising political scenario is emerging in Israel following last week’s inconclusive Knesset elections: the chareidi parties could find themselves outside the next government while still securing passage of legislation protecting yeshiva bochurim from military draft sanctions.

The possibility was raised Monday night by Mishpacha editor Aryeh Erlich during an interview with Avi Mimran on Kol Chai Radio, as political leaders explore potential coalition arrangements amid the continuing deadlock.

Erlich suggested that one of the most practical outcomes for the chareidi community could be a national unity government involving Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and Gadi Eisenkot, with Shas and United Torah Judaism remaining in the opposition but negotiating an agreement to resolve the longstanding military draft crisis.

Such an arrangement, he argued, could allow the chareidi parties to achieve their central legislative objective without assuming responsibility for the government’s broader policies or becoming embroiled in the political controversies that would accompany coalition membership.

The discussion comes as opposition leaders reconsider their political options following election results that left neither major bloc with an obvious path to a parliamentary majority.

Erlich pointed to the position taken by Yisrael Beiteinu chairman Avigdor Lieberman, who has ruled out joining a government headed by Netanyahu while also rejecting reliance on Arab parties.

According to Erlich’s calculations, those restrictions leave the opposition with a narrow potential route to power: cooperation with the chareidi factions.

“The entire change bloc has 48 seats,” Erlich explained. “Add the 13 seats of United Torah Judaism and Shas, and you reach exactly 61 seats — a theoretical coalition of the change bloc and the chareidim without the Arab parties.”

The arithmetic places the chareidi parties in a potentially influential position despite the difficult election results for Shas, which emerged with six seats compared with UTJ’s seven.

However, Erlich acknowledged that joining forces with parties traditionally associated with the anti-Netanyahu camp would present serious difficulties for chareidi voters and their political representatives.

He noted that many religious and traditional Israelis have stood alongside the chareidi community during years of political conflict, making any arrangement that effectively sidelines the broader right-wing bloc an emotionally painful prospect.

At the same time, Erlich argued that loyalty to the religious electorate should not automatically translate into unconditional political support for Netanyahu, particularly given the government’s inability to resolve the draft crisis.

He cited the recent arrest of a chareidi chosson during his sheva brachos celebrations as an especially painful example of the consequences of the unresolved situation.

According to Erlich, the incident intensified frustration over years of political assurances that failed to produce effective protections for yeshiva students.

He also warned that any draft legislation advanced by a government including the chareidi parties would inevitably attract fierce criticism, both from within the chareidi community and from opponents of exemptions for yeshiva students.

Against that background, Erlich suggested that remaining outside the government might provide a more effective route toward securing an acceptable agreement.

Under his proposed scenario, Netanyahu and Eisenkot would establish a unity coalition without Shas and UTJ, while the chareidi parties would negotiate support for legislation addressing the status of full-time Torah learners and removing the financial and legal penalties currently affecting them.

Erlich described such an outcome as both realistic and preferable to some of the other arrangements under discussion.

He also drew attention to what he characterized as a remarkable change in the language used by Israeli political commentators when discussing the draft issue.

During the election campaign, critics frequently referred to proposed legislation protecting yeshiva students as a “draft evasion law,” a term intended to portray the measure as an attempt to excuse widespread noncompliance with military service requirements.

Now, Erlich observed, as opposition politicians explore the possibility of cooperation with the chareidi parties, that terminology has begun to disappear from political discussions.

Instead, he said, commentators have returned to using the more neutral description of a military draft law.

Erlich viewed the shift as evidence that the political atmosphere surrounding the issue was changing as parties confronted the practical difficulties of assembling a governing majority.

Nevertheless, he cautioned that the various coalition possibilities remain theoretical, with significant political and ideological obstacles standing in the way of any agreement.

In his assessment, the two most plausible outcomes at this stage are a national unity government formed without the chareidi parties or another round of elections if political leaders cannot overcome their differences.

{Matzav.com}

Bnei Brak has the highest rate of obesity among adult men in Israel, according to a comprehensive national health report released Tuesday, which also reveals rising childhood obesity, a growing diabetes epidemic, and increased purchases of antidepressant medications across the country.

The 2025 National Program for Quality Indicators in Community Healthcare report, published by Israel’s National Institute for Health Policy Research, presents a mixed picture of the nation’s health. While smoking rates have continued to decline, obesity and diabetes are becoming increasingly widespread, with significant differences between cities, population groups, and socioeconomic backgrounds.

The report draws on information collected from Israel’s four health maintenance organizations and examines dozens of indicators relating to medical treatment, preventive care, and lifestyle habits. It covers nearly the entire civilian population, excluding soldiers, prisoners, and individuals who were not continuously insured through a health fund for the full year.

One of the most striking findings concerns obesity among adult men. In Bnei Brak, 30.7% of men ages 20 to 64 were classified as obese, the highest rate recorded in the country. Beit Shemesh followed closely at 29.5%, while Tel Aviv registered the lowest rate, at just 15.6%.

Nationwide, 62.8% of men and 57.6% of women between the ages of 20 and 64 were classified as either overweight or obese. Looking specifically at obesity, the rate stood at 24.6% among men and 27.9% among women.

Among women, the highest obesity rates were recorded in the western Negev, at 33.6%, and the eastern Negev, at 32.9%. Tel Aviv and Herzliya recorded considerably lower figures, at 17.3% and 18.1%, respectively.

The findings concerning children were particularly alarming. Among seven-year-olds, the obesity rate increased for the second consecutive year, reaching 8.6%, compared with 8.4% in 2024. That represents the highest figure recorded since national monitoring began in 2014.

Ashkelon had the highest childhood obesity rate in this age group, at 13.1%, followed by the western Galilee at 12.2%. Bnei Brak, however, recorded one of the lowest rates in the country, at just 4.4%, while the rate in Yehuda and Shomron stood at 5.1%.

The figures also revealed substantial differences between population groups. Among Arab children, 10.8% of seven-year-olds were obese, compared with 5.8% among chareidi children.

Among teenagers ages 14 and 15, the overall obesity rate declined slightly but remained elevated at 12.6%. The western Galilee and Ashkelon recorded the highest rates among boys, while Herzliya and Modiin had the lowest.

Among teenage girls, Ashkelon again topped the list, with an obesity rate of 16.1%, followed by Be’er Sheva at 15%. Herzliya recorded 7.9%, and Modiin stood at 8.4%.

The disparity was especially pronounced among Arab teenagers, where approximately 19% were classified as obese, compared with 12% across the general teenage population.

Diabetes was another major concern identified in the report. The number of Israeli adults living with the disease rose to approximately 677,000 in 2025, an increase of roughly 36,000 patients in a single year.

The prevalence of diabetes among adults ages 18 and older climbed to 11%, compared with 10.6% the previous year, marking the fourth consecutive annual increase.

The disease was significantly more common among lower-income Israelis. Among men ages 45 and older in the lowest socioeconomic category, 27.8% had diabetes, compared with 19.1% among men in the highest socioeconomic category.

Geographically, the Nazareth region recorded the highest diabetes prevalence, at 14.7%, while the Tel Aviv area had a considerably lower rate of 8.7%.

There was, however, encouraging news concerning diabetes management. Approximately 79% of patients ages 18 to 84 achieved the report’s measure of blood sugar control in 2025, the highest rate recorded since monitoring began.

At the same time, fewer diabetic patients underwent important preventive examinations intended to identify complications. The percentage receiving foot examinations declined from 66.2% to 63.7%, while the rate of eye examinations dropped from 73.7% to 71.4%.

Smoking rates offered another positive development. The percentage of Israelis ages 16 to 74 who smoke fell to 19.1%, down from 19.4% in 2024 and 21.1% in 2023.

Men continued to smoke at substantially higher rates than women, with 27.2% of men identified as smokers compared with 11.9% of women.

Bat Yam emerged as Israel’s smoking capital, with 33.5% of men and 22.6% of women reporting that they smoke. Among men, the western Galilee and Hadera followed at 32.2%.

Bnei Brak and Modiin were among the areas with the lowest male smoking rates. Among women, Bnei Brak had the lowest rate in the country, at just 2.1%, followed by Beit Shemesh at 6.4%.

The report also identified a continuing rise in purchases of antidepressant medications. In 2025, the rate reached 703 purchases per 1,000 residents, compared with 685 the previous year, an increase of approximately 2.6%.

Since 2022, antidepressant purchases have increased by approximately 14% nationwide, with a particularly sharp rise of 29% in Arab communities.

Women purchased antidepressants more frequently than men, with 833 purchases per 1,000 residents compared with 555 among men. Tel Aviv recorded the highest regional rate, at 835 purchases per 1,000 residents, followed closely by the western Negev at 834. The Nazareth region had the lowest figure, at 482.

Purchases of sleeping medications and sedatives declined slightly. The Haifa region recorded the highest rate, at 763 purchases per 1,000 residents, more than double the 357 recorded in the Golan Heights.

The researchers cautioned that prescription purchase figures do not necessarily represent the number of people experiencing depression or other mental health conditions, since individuals may purchase multiple prescriptions during a year.

For the first time, the national report also examined dental examination rates among children, revealing substantial gaps in preventive dental care.

Only 50.9% of six-year-olds and 45.3% of 12-year-olds underwent dental examinations during 2025.

Socioeconomic differences were especially pronounced. Among six-year-olds from low- and middle-income backgrounds, 43.9% received dental examinations, compared with 57.7% of children from higher-income families.

Among 12-year-olds, the corresponding figures were 38.3% and 52.1%.

The lowest dental examination rates were recorded in Arab communities, where only 36% of six-year-olds and 27.2% of 12-year-olds received examinations.

{Matzav.com}

A heated confrontation erupted Monday night on Israel’s Channel 12 News when prominent chareidi journalist Yishai Cohen accused opposition politicians and television commentators of blatant hypocrisy for suddenly entertaining political agreements with the chareidi parties after spending years attacking the community over the military draft issue.

Cohen, a political commentator for Kikar HaShabbat, challenged fellow panelists over reports that opposition figures, including Avigdor Lieberman, were quietly exploring arrangements with the chareidi parties in an effort to assemble a governing coalition following last week’s Knesset elections.

The controversy comes amid a political deadlock in which the opposition bloc is struggling to secure the 61 Knesset seats necessary to form a government without the support of either the chareidi parties or Arab factions.

During the discussion, Cohen expressed astonishment that politicians who had repeatedly condemned yeshiva bochurim for not serving in the military were now reportedly prepared to offer significant concessions on precisely that issue in exchange for political cooperation.

“I am asking you in all seriousness — aren’t you shocked?” Cohen demanded of the other panelists.

“For three years, and even longer, we have heard Lieberman attacking and inciting against the chareidi community, from his remarks about taking them in wheelbarrows to the garbage dump to all his other harsh statements. Politicians sat around this table night after night, shouting ‘draft dodgers,’ claiming that the chareidim discriminate between one person’s blood and another’s, and swearing that they would never agree to concessions. And now, on the eve of the elections, those same politicians have suddenly changed their positions.”

Cohen was referring to the increasingly heated political and public campaign surrounding the draft of yeshiva students, which has dominated Israeli politics and placed enormous pressure on the chareidi parties.

Over the past several years, opposition politicians have repeatedly demanded tougher enforcement against yeshiva students who do not enlist, including criminal penalties, arrests, and the withdrawal of financial benefits from those who fail to comply with military service requirements.

However, according to reports discussed during the Channel 12 broadcast, some of those same political figures are now exploring arrangements that would substantially ease those measures if the chareidi parties agree to support an alternative government.

Panelists acknowledged that discreet discussions have been taking place behind the scenes between opposition representatives and chareidi political figures, with contacts reportedly occurring intermittently as parties assess their options following the election results.

Among the proposals reportedly being discussed are an immediate suspension of arrests targeting yeshiva bochurim classified as draft evaders, the restoration of financial benefits previously withdrawn from eligible families and institutions, and the removal of certain criminal and legal sanctions connected to military enlistment.

The reported proposals have not been announced as a formal coalition agreement, and it remains unclear whether the discussions will lead to an actual political arrangement.

Nevertheless, Cohen argued that the willingness to consider such concessions exposed the political motivations behind years of attacks on the chareidi community.

“Your entire theory about the chareidim is simply collapsing,” Cohen declared.

“The same politicians and the same commentators who sat here every evening and smeared the chareidi community are now going into closed rooms and offering exactly what they previously ruled out completely.”

His comments highlighted the sharp contrast between the opposition’s public positions during the election campaign and the compromises that may now be under consideration as political leaders search for a path to forming a government.

Lieberman, in particular, has long been one of the most outspoken critics of the chareidi parties and has repeatedly advocated strict measures against yeshiva students who do not enlist. The possibility that he or other opposition figures could now participate in negotiations involving concessions on the draft issue has drawn considerable attention in chareidi political circles.

The discussion also reflected broader frustration within the chareidi community over what many perceive as a willingness among Israeli politicians to abandon previously declared principles when coalition arithmetic makes cooperation politically advantageous.

For Cohen, the central issue was not simply whether the opposition could reach an agreement with the chareidi parties, but how politicians who had portrayed the draft issue as an uncompromising matter of national equality could now consider reversing their positions to secure parliamentary support.

The reported contacts remain preliminary, and no agreement has been reached. However, the emerging negotiations have already raised questions about whether the opposition’s longstanding demands for strict military draft enforcement will remain intact as the struggle to form Israel’s next government continues.

{Matzav.com}

New analysis of Israel’s election results indicates that Shas suffered significant losses among its traditional chareidi voters, with some shifting their support to United Torah Judaism and others backing Itamar Ben Gvir’s Otzma Yehudit party. The findings help explain why UTJ emerged with seven Knesset seats while Shas fell to six, reversing the usual balance between the two chareidi parties.

Attorney Avraham Justman, a member of Israel’s Central Elections Committee, discussed the voting patterns during an interview Monday night with Avi Mimran on Kol Chai Radio’s main news program. He described the decline in Shas support as particularly striking because it occurred not only among traditional and religious voters but also within established chareidi communities that have historically provided the party with reliable electoral backing.

According to Justman, UTJ’s improved performance was primarily the result of natural population growth within its voting base, supplemented by voters who had previously supported Shas. He said the movement between the parties was evident in several major chareidi population centers.

Among the cities where Shas experienced declining support were Yerushalayim, Bnei Brak, Modiin Illit, Beitar Illit, and Elad. Justman said the figures suggested that some voters had transferred their allegiance to UTJ, while others supported Otzma Yehudit, headed by National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir.

A smaller number of former Shas voters apparently cast ballots for minor parties that failed to cross the electoral threshold, further reducing the number of votes available to the established chareidi factions.

Justman characterized the setback as unusually severe, saying Shas had suffered a blow unlike those it had experienced in previous election campaigns. He emphasized that the decline among chareidi voters was especially significant because the party has traditionally relied on strong support from those communities.

The results have raised questions about the ability of Shas to retain its traditional electoral coalition, which includes both Sephardic chareidi voters and religiously traditional Israelis who do not necessarily identify with the chareidi community.

Justman also examined the impact of several smaller parties that competed for chareidi votes, including Tzeva Shachor, Noam, and the party associated with Motti Leitner. Although these lists attracted some support, he assessed their overall effect on the final distribution of Knesset seats as relatively limited.

He also challenged the suggestion that the right-wing bloc would automatically have secured 61 seats if all ballots cast for parties that failed to cross the electoral threshold had instead gone to established right-wing factions. According to Justman, the electoral calculations were more complicated and did not necessarily support that conclusion.

Another issue addressed during the interview was the voting behavior of Gerer chassidim, whose participation had been closely watched because of internal tensions and questions surrounding the community’s mobilization for UTJ.

Justman said the available figures indicated that Gerer voters had turned out in numbers generally consistent with previous elections, rather than producing either a significant decline or an extraordinary surge in participation.

“Gur apparently came out to vote in the numbers they usually bring,” Justman said.

He explained that Gerer participation did not appear to have caused substantial damage to UTJ’s overall result. At the same time, there was no indication of an unusually large mobilization that might have helped the party capture an additional seat.

With voter turnout reaching high levels nationally, Justman said the possibility of UTJ securing an eighth mandate had become increasingly remote. The higher overall vote total meant that parties needed more votes to obtain each Knesset seat.

The discussion also turned to voting patterns in Arab communities, where Justman raised questions about exceptionally high turnout figures reported in certain localities.

He argued that turnout approaching the entire eligible voting population in some communities warranted closer examination, noting the practical difficulty of bringing nearly every registered voter to the polls.

“There are very difficult questions about the Arab sector. There are questions that arise, and there are new discoveries that I am not yet certain about,” Justman said.

However, Justman did not present evidence of election fraud or cite investigative findings establishing that illegal voting had occurred. He indicated that he was continuing to examine the figures before reaching conclusions.

The analysis comes as Israel’s political parties continue reviewing the election results, with particular attention focused on the changing loyalties of chareidi voters and the implications for future elections. For Shas, the loss of support in its traditional strongholds presents a significant challenge, while UTJ’s seven-seat showing demonstrates its ability to maintain and modestly expand its electoral base despite internal tensions.

{Matzav.com}

A one-year-old boy is hospitalized in serious condition after being stung by a highly venomous yellow scorpion inside his family’s home in the community of Meitzad, near Yerushalayim, overnight Monday into Tuesday. The child, identified as Elazar ben Hodiya, was rushed to Hadassah Ein Kerem Medical Center after developing severe breathing difficulties and a reduced level of consciousness.

Emergency medical personnel were dispatched to the home after the toddler suffered a dangerous reaction to the sting. Upon arriving, responders found him semi-conscious, struggling to breathe and displaying signs of a potentially life-threatening reaction.

United Hatzalah volunteer medic Eitan Saar, who was among the first responders, administered an emergency injection of adrenaline to stabilize the child.

Saar said that family members informed rescue personnel that the boy had been stung by a scorpion and subsequently developed a severe reaction that placed his life in immediate danger. Following the administration of adrenaline and additional emergency treatment, the child was transported to Hadassah Ein Kerem.

According to Saar, the toddler was in moderate and stable condition at the time of evacuation, although subsequent reports described his condition as serious.

Tzevet Hatzalah volunteers Yoni Pindrus and Chaim Silber, who also responded to the emergency, said they were directed into the family’s home, where they discovered the young child suffering from respiratory distress and reduced consciousness.

Working alongside Magen David Adom paramedics and other emergency personnel, the volunteers administered an EpiPen injection and provided oxygen before transferring the toddler to an intensive care ambulance for urgent transport to the hospital.

Yellow scorpions, which are found in various regions of Israel, are considered particularly dangerous because of their potent venom. Young children face an elevated risk of serious complications because of their smaller body size and the venom’s potentially severe effects on the nervous and cardiovascular systems.

In serious cases, a scorpion sting can lead to breathing difficulties, abnormal heart rhythms, neurological complications, and other life-threatening symptoms requiring immediate medical intervention.

Emergency medical officials stress that anyone stung by a potentially venomous scorpion should seek urgent medical attention, particularly when the victim is a young child.

The family is asking Klal Yisroel to recite Tehillim and daven for the complete recovery of their young son, Elazar ben Hodiya, who remains hospitalized at Hadassah Ein Kerem.

Please say Tehillim for Elazar ben Hodiya.

{Matzav.com}

Hillary Clinton delivered a blistering attack on President Donald Trump Monday night, accusing him of becoming increasingly consumed with his own image and personal ambitions while losing sight of his responsibilities to the American public.

Appearing on CNN’s “Anderson Cooper 360,” the former secretary of state and 2016 Democratic presidential nominee argued that Trump has changed considerably since their election contest a decade ago. She claimed that the president is now operating without the restraints that once existed within his political circle.

During the interview, host Anderson Cooper asked Clinton to compare the Trump she faced in the 2016 presidential debates with the president today, pointing specifically to his recent appearance near Washington’s Reflecting Pool and his proposals for architectural changes in the nation’s capital.

“How do you think he is as a candidate, when you see the guy you debated then and you see the person now, and with the press conference he gave today outside the reflecting pool and the plans and the decorations and the crafting projects, how how different is he?” Cooper asked.

Clinton responded by arguing that Trump had once possessed a more deliberate political strategy and had advisers capable of challenging his decisions, a dynamic she believes has largely disappeared.

“Look, I think that he’s lost the plot. You know, back in 2016, ten years ago, think about that, he had a theory of the case. He knew how he wanted to present himself. He had people around him who at least had some ability to rein him in or to say no to him. He’s totally unfettered and unhinged now. And for him to go to the reflecting pool, one of the great failures of his efforts to redo Washington and stand there as though it was a huge success, and go on and on about all of his, you know, projects ripping up Washington, destroying the East Wing, building an arch that will interfere with air traffic control, navigation in and out of Washington. I mean, you can’t make this up. He is so focused on himself.”

Her remarks followed Trump’s appearance earlier Monday at the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool, where he highlighted renovations to the historic Washington landmark. The president devoted much of his nearly hour-long address to improvements involving the pool’s drainage system, surface, and appearance, while also discussing other construction projects his administration has undertaken throughout the capital.

The Reflecting Pool renovation has attracted controversy after encountering delays, algae problems, and peeling surface coatings. The project ultimately cost more than $16 million, according to Reuters, considerably exceeding the administration’s original estimate. Trump defended the work and praised the improvements during Monday’s event.

Trump has also promoted plans for a new White House ballroom, an imposing triumphal arch near Arlington National Cemetery, and renovations to other prominent Washington landmarks. He has characterized the projects as long-overdue improvements that will enhance the appearance of the nation’s capital, while critics have questioned their costs, priorities, and impact on historic sites.

During his Reflecting Pool remarks, Trump jokingly suggested that the landmark might eventually bear his name before immediately clarifying that he was not serious. The president has repeatedly defended his interest in construction and restoration projects, maintaining that they are an important part of improving Washington.

Clinton, however, argued that the president’s emphasis on such undertakings reflected what she considers an increasingly self-centered approach to governing.

“He wants to build tributes to himself, in the image of himself. I mean, he’s truly lost the plot of being president for the American people.”

The criticism came on the eve of Tuesday’s midterm elections, as Republicans sought to maintain control of Congress amid voter concerns about the economy, rising living costs, and the conflict with Iran. Trump spent recent weeks campaigning for Republican candidates across the country before returning to Washington for Monday’s appearance at the Reflecting Pool.

{Matzav.com}

It is with great sadness that Matzav.com reports the petirah of Rav Yaakov Bochbot-Lev zt”l, a distinguished talmid chochom, longtime dayan and av beis din in Tel Aviv, and one of the earliest talmidim of Rav Ovadia Yosef zt”l.

Rav Lev was born in Morocco in 1943 and displayed a remarkable dedication to Torah from his youth. As a young man, he learned in Yeshivas Chevron, where he developed the foundations of his Torah scholarship under the guidance of the roshei yeshiva.

Among his foremost rabbeim was Rav Yechezkel Sarna zt”l, the legendary rosh yeshiva of Chevron, whose influence remained with him throughout his life.

Rav Lev subsequently became one of the earliest talmidim of Rav Ovadia Yosef zt”l, learning in the kollel headed by the future Sephardic posek hador. He developed a close relationship with Rav Ovadia and maintained his connection to his rabbeim over the years.

A particularly memorable moment in his life occurred at his wedding, which was attended by both Rav Yechezkel Sarna and Rav Ovadia Yosef. A photograph from the simcha, showing the two gedolei Torah together, remains a treasured record of the occasion.

Rav Lev went on to serve for many years as a dayan on the Tel Aviv–Yafo Rabbinical Court, eventually holding the position of av beis din. In that capacity, he was entrusted with adjudicating complex halachic matters and applying his extensive Torah knowledge to the responsibilities of the rabbinical judiciary.

His years on the beis din were characterized by dedication to the careful examination of halachic questions and the responsibility of rendering judgments in accordance with Torah law.

Alongside his demanding judicial responsibilities, Rav Lev remained deeply committed to harbotzas haTorah. He devoted considerable time to teaching and guiding younger talmidei chachomim, sharing his knowledge and encouraging others in their Torah growth.

Following his retirement from the rabbinical court, Rav Lev continued his lifelong avodas hakodesh as rosh kollel of Kollel Ohel Tamar in Bnei Brak, where he remained immersed in Torah learning and the development of the next generation of Torah scholars.

Those who knew him described an extraordinary masmid whose commitment to learning began in his earliest years and never diminished. His broad bekius was accompanied by a genuine simchas haTorah, and he approached his learning with enthusiasm and dedication.

Despite his stature in Torah and his distinguished position in the world of dayanus, Rav Lev was known for his humility and unassuming manner. He greeted others with warmth and a pleasant countenance, and his deliberate, heartfelt tefillos reflected the seriousness with which he approached his avodas Hashem.

Rav Lev merited to establish a distinguished family of talmidei chachomim and marbitzei Torah who continue his legacy.

Among his sons are Rav Boruch Tzvi Lev, rosh yeshiva of Yeshivas Yesodos HaTorah; Rav Yehuda Lev, a prominent avreich at Kollel Beis Hillel; and Rav Moshe Lev.

Rav Lev also endured profound personal sorrow with the petirah of his son, Rav Chaim Lev zt”l, a son-in-law of Rav Meir Amsalem, who passed away approximately fifteen years ago following a serious illness.

The levayah took place Monday evening at the Nachalas Moshe shul at 36 Harav Meltzer Street in Bnei Brak. The procession continued to the Ponevezh Cemetery, where Rav Lev was laid to rest.

Yehi zichro boruch.

{Matzav.com}

Growing antisemitism in Britain is prompting increasing numbers of Jewish doctors, dentists, and other healthcare professionals to consider relocating to Israel, with some saying they no longer feel safe openly identifying as Jews in the United Kingdom. The concerns were evident at a recent gathering in London, where approximately 150 British medical professionals explored opportunities to continue their careers in Israel.

The event, known as MedEx UK, was held last week as part of an international initiative designed to help medical professionals make aliyah. The program provides assistance with professional licensing, employment opportunities, financial grants, and the bureaucratic requirements involved in transferring medical qualifications to Israel.

For many participants, the decision to relocate reflects a combination of longstanding aspirations to live in Eretz Yisroel and mounting unease about the atmosphere facing British Jews, particularly since the October 7, 2023, Hamas attacks.

Among those attending was 59-year-old dentist Shlomo Franks of Edgware, who previously lived in Israel for five years approximately three decades ago. Speaking to the British Jewish Chronicle, Franks explained that he had always intended to return but had been waiting for the appropriate time.

Franks said that his two youngest children, one of whom is studying medicine and hopes to serve in the IDF as a psychologist, are expected to complete their university studies next year. The family intends to relocate together, and he plans to continue practicing dentistry in Israel.

Although his desire to make aliyah predates the current wave of antisemitism, Franks acknowledged that the deteriorating situation in Britain has provided an additional reason to move. Even if conditions in the United Kingdom were entirely favorable, he said, he would still want to live in Israel.

A 23-year-old medical student from Hackney, who requested anonymity, described a more immediate concern. She said she has become uncomfortable revealing her Jewish identity to others and does not want to spend her professional life in an environment where she feels compelled to conceal who she is.

She also expressed frustration with working conditions in Britain’s healthcare system, citing inadequate compensation and a lack of professional respect. In contrast, she believes Israel offers medical professionals a wider variety of opportunities to develop their skills and contribute meaningfully.

The student is particularly interested in rural medicine and hopes to practice in an underserved community, possibly on a small kibbutz or in another rural area. She described Israel’s medical environment as more innovative and welcoming than the one she expects to encounter in Britain.

Another prospective immigrant, a family physician who also asked not to be identified, said she had grown up in a strongly Zionist household and had long envisioned eventually living in Israel. However, the events of October 7 and the subsequent rise in antisemitism accelerated what had previously been a distant plan.

She compared the gradual normalization of antisemitic behavior in Britain to a frog sitting in water that slowly grows hotter. People become accustomed to increasingly troubling circumstances, she explained, until an incident forces them to recognize how much their surroundings have changed.

The physician said friends already practicing medicine in Israel have described a substantially different professional atmosphere, one in which they feel their work makes an immediate and meaningful contribution to patients’ lives.

A fourth woman interviewed at the event described a similar transformation in her thinking. She had previously resisted moving to Israel because she was determined to build her medical career in Britain. As conditions changed, however, she reconsidered and eventually became the person encouraging her family to make aliyah.

She said she looks forward to practicing medicine in a country where colleagues naturally understand Jewish holidays, family obligations, and the rhythms of Jewish life. In Britain, she explained, Jewish medical professionals frequently find themselves having to explain religious practices and personal commitments that are readily understood in Israel.

The gathering also attracted participants from outside Britain. Esther Price, a 53-year-old psychiatrist from Budapest, traveled to London specifically to attend the event and investigate employment opportunities in Israel.

Price said her decision was motivated primarily by a desire to live in the Jewish homeland rather than by professional considerations. She hopes to work in community psychiatry in the Haifa area but emphasized that living in Israel is more important to her than securing a particular position.

Daniel Lipcher, 51, who oversees medical staffing at Terem and immigrated to Israel from Essex more than 20 years ago, was among the professionals offering guidance to prospective immigrants.

Lipcher said that although he originally moved for Zionist reasons, developments in Britain have reinforced his satisfaction with that decision. He recalled traveling on the London Underground while openly wearing a yarmulke without feeling threatened, something he believes would be considerably more frightening today.

He expressed particular concern about Jewish employees in Britain’s healthcare system who may encounter hostility from colleagues because of their Jewish identity or their connection to Israel.

At the same time, Lipcher said he regretted that personal security concerns were pushing some Jews toward aliyah. He expressed hope that those considering relocation would also recognize the many positive aspects of living and working in Israel.

Another important source of assistance comes from medical researcher Mikey Liebert and his wife, Rebecca, a family physician. The couple moved to Israel from Manchester in 2021 and subsequently established a WhatsApp support network for English-speaking medical professionals navigating the aliyah process.

What began as a small group created after Rebecca encountered difficulties finding professional guidance has developed into a community of more than 700 healthcare workers. Members assist one another with employment searches, licensing procedures, paperwork, and the practical challenges of establishing medical careers in Israel.

The growing interest among British medical professionals comes as Israel seeks to address a significant shortage of physicians. Population growth and the approaching retirement of many doctors, particularly those who immigrated from the former Soviet Union during the 1990s, have increased pressure on the country’s healthcare system.

Israel currently has approximately 3.5 practicing physicians per 1,000 residents, compared with an average of 3.9 across OECD countries. The shortage has prompted Israeli authorities and organizations involved in medical aliyah to intensify efforts to recruit qualified physicians from overseas.

Programs such as MedEx are intended to make that transition easier by helping foreign-trained doctors understand Israeli licensing requirements, identify suitable positions, and obtain financial and professional support before and after their arrival.

For British Jewish medical professionals increasingly concerned about their future in the United Kingdom, those initiatives are providing a practical pathway toward building new lives and careers in Israel.

Sen. Ted Cruz has launched a blistering attack on Michigan Democratic Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed, accusing him of tolerating antisemitism and refusing to distance himself from a controversial political advertisement that connects Americans’ rising grocery bills to U.S. military assistance for Israel. The dispute has intensified in the final hours before Tuesday’s election, with President Donald Trump also attacking El-Sayed over what he describes as hostility toward Jews and white Americans.

The controversy has become a major issue in Michigan’s closely watched Senate contest between El-Sayed and Republican Mike Rogers, particularly after Democratic Congresswoman Haley Stevens, who lost the party’s Senate primary to El-Sayed, broke with her own party and endorsed Rogers.

Speaking Monday on his “Verdict with Ted Cruz” podcast alongside co-host Ben Ferguson, Cruz condemned an advertisement associated with progressive commentator Cenk Uygur that depicts a couple struggling to afford groceries while drawing attention to American military aid to Israel.

“He ran this ad that was one of the most vicious Jew-hating ads I’ve ever seen,” Cruz said.

The Texas senator argued that the commercial promotes an antisemitic narrative by suggesting that American families are struggling financially because the United States provides assistance to Israel.

“You literally have a husband and wife saying, ‘We can’t afford bananas,'” Cruz said. “I mean, it’s a hateful ad.”

Cruz also pointed to Uygur’s family connection to political streamer Hasan Piker, his nephew, who has faced repeated accusations of making antisemitic statements. The association has become a source of controversy surrounding El-Sayed’s candidacy, with critics demanding that he explicitly reject the rhetoric of individuals supporting his campaign.

President Trump escalated his criticism early Tuesday morning, issuing a sharply worded statement on Truth Social attacking El-Sayed and urging Michigan voters to support Rogers.

“Abdul El-Sayed Hates Jews and Hates Blacks. Don’t feel bad, he also Hates Whites. Only fools would vote for him in the Michigan race for the U.S. Senate! He will, 100%, do you in! VOTE FOR MIKE ROGERS. President DJT,” Trump wrote.

The president had previously criticized El-Sayed’s positions on Israel and warned Jewish voters against supporting him. At an October 25 campaign rally, Trump declared, “Any Jewish person that supports this guy should be ashamed of themselves.”

Cruz’s objections extend beyond the advertisement. He accused El-Sayed of maintaining ideological connections to the Muslim Brotherhood, an Islamist organization, and argued that those alleged associations should raise serious concerns about the candidate’s suitability for federal office.

“I laid out the evidence systematically, objectively the evidence, demonstrating that Abdul El-Sayed has been a vocal, passionate, and public supporter of the Muslim Brotherhood for decades,” Cruz said.

El-Sayed has denied belonging to the Muslim Brotherhood or intending to join it, and his campaign has characterized the allegations as anti-Muslim smears. He has also distanced himself from the controversial advertisement, which was produced by an outside political organization rather than his campaign, saying he disagreed with its contents.

Cruz nevertheless maintained that his criticism concerned political ideology and national security rather than El-Sayed’s religion.

“I agree, and I will defend his right to pray till my dying breath. I’m not talking about his praying. I’m talking about an ideology,” he said.

The senator also accused major television networks of failing to examine his allegations adequately. He singled out CBS News’ Margaret Brennan and NBC News’ Kristen Welker, contending that their programs had portrayed his criticism as religious prejudice without sufficiently addressing the evidence he claimed to possess.

“Apparently the networks don’t cover facts. They’re not in the news business,” Cruz said.

The dispute took an extraordinary political turn Sunday when Stevens, who narrowly lost the Democratic Senate primary to El-Sayed, announced that she would support Rogers instead. Her decision came after a bitter disagreement over the Israel-related advertisement and El-Sayed’s association with Hasan Piker.

“I don’t belong in Abdul’s campaign. I do not stand with Hasan Piker,” Stevens said in a video explaining her decision.

Stevens subsequently appeared alongside Rogers at a Detroit church service, where she confirmed that she intended to vote for the Republican Senate nominee while continuing to support Democrats in other races.

Cruz hailed her decision as an unusual act of political independence.

“It was a demonstration of courage. It was a demonstration of principle. It was putting country first before party,” he said.

The senator said the disagreement had intensified after Stevens’ fiancé, Jason Turkish, publicly announced his support for Rogers. Stevens initially remained behind El-Sayed but later demanded that he repudiate the advertisement. According to Cruz, the dispute culminated in Stevens being told not to attend a planned Democratic unity event.

Stevens’ decision drew strong criticism from Democratic leaders, including Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Schumer described the endorsement as a “despicable betrayal,” while Pelosi called it a “horrific endorsement” of Rogers.

“Schumer and Pelosi care only about power. Nothing else matters,” Cruz responded on social media.

Republicans are hoping Stevens’ endorsement will influence moderate Democrats, Jewish voters, and independents who remain undecided about the Senate race. Trump praised her decision as an act of political bravery and suggested that she might eventually join the Republican Party.

“I think this could ensure that Mike Rogers wins,” Cruz said.

El-Sayed’s campaign, meanwhile, has sought to turn the controversy into a fundraising and organizing opportunity. His campaign reported raising $2.4 million following Stevens’ endorsement, while supporters argued that the dispute demonstrated his independence from the Democratic establishment.

Cruz remained adamant that Stevens deserved recognition for crossing party lines despite the political consequences.

“What she did, I admire,” Cruz said. “It was brave. It was courageous. It was at a cost. And it made a difference.”

{Matzav.com}

The United States will oversee a new round of negotiations between Russia and Ukraine in Abu Dhabi on November 10 and 11, President Donald Trump’s special envoy Steve Witkoff announced Monday, as Washington intensifies its diplomatic efforts to bring an end to the war that has devastated Ukraine.

The discussions, scheduled to take place in the United Arab Emirates, will involve representatives from both countries and focus on security arrangements following a potential peace agreement, measures to reduce hostilities, humanitarian concerns, and possible steps toward a broader settlement.

“The United States will mediate working-level negotiations between Ukraine and Russia on November 10–11 in Abu Dhabi, advancing President Trump’s mission to end the war,” Witkoff wrote on the social platform X. “Discussions will focus on post-war security arrangements, de-escalation, humanitarian efforts, and next steps toward peace.”

Ahead of the Abu Dhabi meetings, American negotiators are expected to travel to Brussels this week for consultations with representatives of France, Germany, Britain, and NATO. Those discussions will address the security commitments Ukraine might receive under a future agreement, the broader European security framework, and financial arrangements for rebuilding Ukraine after the fighting ends.

Witkoff said the administration hopes to capitalize on diplomatic contacts already conducted in several European cities and Russia.

“We look forward to building on the progress made in Kyiv, Oslo, and St. Petersburg toward a comprehensive, durable peace agreement that delivers lasting security for generations to come,” Witkoff concluded.

The announcement represents another effort by the Trump administration to bring Moscow and Kyiv closer to a negotiated settlement, although major differences remain over territory, security guarantees, and the conditions under which hostilities could end.

According to a senior American official, Witkoff and Jared Kushner are expected to lead the US delegation in Abu Dhabi. Russian President Vladimir Putin reportedly agreed to participate in another round of trilateral discussions after meeting Witkoff in St. Petersburg approximately two weeks ago.

The upcoming negotiations would mark the resumption of direct American-mediated peace talks that were interrupted in February, before the outbreak of the US-Israel conflict with Iran. Washington is seeking progress before winter brings additional hardship to Ukrainian civilians and further strains the country’s energy infrastructure.

Despite the renewed diplomatic activity, Russia and Ukraine remain sharply divided over the conditions of a settlement, particularly territorial control and the guarantees Kyiv would receive against future Russian aggression. Trump has recently increased pressure on Ukraine to reach an agreement, while Moscow has shown little willingness to accept an immediate comprehensive ceasefire.

The diplomatic announcement came amid continued Russian attacks on Ukraine. On Monday, Russian strikes struck a humanitarian aid distribution center and nearby shelter in Komyshuvakha, in the Zaporizhzhia region, killing at least 26 people, according to Ukrainian authorities. Approximately 20 others were reported missing, with rescue operations complicated by additional Russian drone activity.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky warned that Russia was preparing another major wave of attacks against Ukrainian infrastructure, potentially timed to coincide with international attention surrounding Tuesday’s American midterm elections.

Zelensky said Ukraine had “intel that Russia is preparing a new massive attack on our country,” with Russian forces focusing on “energy and logistics.”

“The assumption is basically that tomorrow the world will be watching the American midterms, and what is happening here in Ukraine, along with our difficulties with air defense and Patriot missiles, will be overlooked,” the Ukrainian president continued.

The violence followed the expiration Sunday of a rare six-day humanitarian ceasefire in the Russian-occupied town of Oleshky, in southern Ukraine. The limited agreement, facilitated through efforts involving First Lady Melania Trump, had allowed humanitarian personnel to deliver assistance and conduct evacuation operations.

Both Moscow and Kyiv acknowledged the importance of the humanitarian mission, although Ukrainian military officials accused Russian forces of exploiting the temporary pause to reinforce their positions and replenish supplies. Russian authorities disputed Ukrainian criticism and described the operation as successful.

The White House hopes the limited cooperation demonstrated during the humanitarian mission can help create momentum for the broader negotiations in Abu Dhabi. However, no comprehensive ceasefire has been announced, and fighting continues across multiple areas of Ukraine as preparations for the talks move forward.

{Matzav.com}

President Donald Trump announced Tuesday morning that the United States will stop providing Israel with approximately $4 billion in annual financial assistance by the end of 2026, revealing that he and Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu reached an agreement months ago to terminate the longstanding arrangement.

Speaking during an interview with Fox & Friends on Election Day, Trump said the decision was made jointly with Netanyahu and insisted that Israel no longer requires the billions of dollars Washington has traditionally provided, primarily for military purposes.

“Now, as far as paying Israel, Bibi Netanyahu and I have made a deal that we give Israel $4 billion a year, and we made a deal months ago that we’re stopping,” Trump said.

“We’ve already agreed that by the end of this year we won’t be paying Israel. Now we’ll help Israel if they need it.”

The announcement represents a potentially historic change in American policy toward Israel, which has received billions of dollars in annual U.S. military assistance for decades. The president emphasized, however, that ending direct financial support would not mean abandoning Israel or preventing it from purchasing American weapons.

Trump said Israel has developed the economic and military strength to finance its own defense requirements and suggested that the relationship between the two countries should increasingly be based on Israel purchasing American military equipment rather than receiving it through annual assistance packages.

The president also linked the decision to American domestic politics, arguing that Democrats and left-wing politicians have repeatedly used U.S. financial assistance to Israel as a political issue against Republicans. He specifically pointed to Michigan Democratic Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed, whose opposition to American military assistance for Israel has become a prominent issue in his campaign against Republican Mike Rogers.

According to Trump, eliminating the annual payments would remove a major source of political criticism while allowing Washington to maintain its close military and strategic relationship with Israel.

The announcement raises immediate questions about the future of an existing U.S.-Israel military assistance agreement signed in 2016 during the Obama administration. That 10-year memorandum of understanding provides Israel with $38 billion in military assistance between fiscal years 2019 and 2028, including approximately $3.3 billion annually in foreign military financing and another $500 million for missile defense cooperation.

Under that arrangement, Israel is scheduled to continue receiving American assistance through 2028, two years beyond the deadline Trump announced Tuesday. It remains unclear whether the administration intends to seek congressional approval to terminate the existing funding arrangements, renegotiate the agreement, or implement a different mechanism for ending the payments.

Netanyahu’s office had not immediately issued a public response confirming the details of the agreement described by Trump.

Nevertheless, Netanyahu has previously expressed support for gradually ending Israel’s dependence on American military assistance. In a May interview with CBS News, the Israeli prime minister said he wanted Israel to become financially independent of U.S. military aid within the coming decade.

That position was reinforced in June, when Netanyahu expressed support for a Republican congressional initiative that would replace direct American military assistance with a framework under which Israel would purchase American weapons using its own funds.

The proposal, advanced by Republican Representatives Marlin Stutzman of Indiana and Abraham Hamadeh of Arizona, envisioned a new U.S.-Israel defense relationship emphasizing joint military development, weapons production and technological cooperation rather than traditional foreign assistance.

At the time, Netanyahu indicated that such an arrangement reflected the direction he wanted the relationship to take.

Trump’s announcement Tuesday, however, suggests a far more accelerated timetable than Netanyahu previously outlined, potentially ending annual American payments within weeks rather than gradually phasing them out over several years.

The development comes at a particularly sensitive moment for Israel, which continues to face serious security threats from Iran and its regional proxies. American military assistance has long been a central component of Israel’s defense procurement, helping finance advanced aircraft, precision-guided weapons, missile defense systems and other critical equipment.

A transition away from direct American funding could require substantial changes to Israel’s defense budget and long-term procurement planning, although the extent of those changes will depend on the final terms of any agreement.

The announcement also comes as the Trump administration confronts growing political divisions over American support for Israel, with criticism of military assistance increasingly emerging from both progressive Democrats and some conservative Republicans.

For now, Trump has made clear that he intends to end the annual payments while preserving the broader strategic alliance.

Whether the arrangement can be implemented by December 31, and how it will affect the existing congressional funding commitments, remains to be determined.

{Matzav.com}

In an extraordinary fundraising achievement, supporters of Mosdos Pnei Menachem, under the leadership of Rav Shaul Alter, pledged an astounding $72,275,000 in a single evening toward the construction of a major new Torah center in Yerushalayim.

The commitments were announced at a Motzoei Shabbos melava malka in Tampa, Florida, marking one of the most remarkable fundraising events in the recent history of the Torah community.

The gathering, held at the conclusion of the third annual Chavrusa Convention, brought together approximately 150 prominent philanthropists and supporters of the mosdos from across the Torah world. Participants spent Shabbos in the presence of Rav Shaul Alter and his brother, Rav Doniel Chaim Alter, participating in Torah learning, discussions, and gatherings devoted to the future development of the rapidly expanding Pnei Menachem institutions.

The highlight of the weekend came at the concluding dinner, when Rav Nachman Wideslavsky, executive director of Mosdos Pnei Menachem, announced that the pledges had reached $72,275,000. The extraordinary sum represented a major advance toward the establishment of the planned Pnei Menachem World Torah Center, an ambitious complex intended to become the central headquarters of the kehillah in Yerushalayim.

The new complex is planned for Rechov Torah MiTzion in central Yerushalayim, on the site formerly occupied by the headquarters of the Israel Broadcasting Authority. The property’s transformation into a major Torah institution carries particular significance for the kehillah, which envisions the location becoming a center of Torah learning, chassidus, and communal life.

Architect R’ Aharon Ostreicher has designed the proposed development, which will include an expansive beis medrash, a large hall for tischen and other gatherings, numerous shtieblach, mikvaos, and facilities to accommodate the growing needs of the Pnei Menachem community.

Additional sections of the complex are expected to provide dedicated accommodations for talmidei chachamim and mechabrei sefarim, along with a Torah heritage center, simchah halls, and other facilities serving the mosdos and their members. The project is intended to accommodate thousands of Yidden from Eretz Yisroel and overseas who participate in the kehillah’s activities and seek opportunities to learn and gather in the presence of the rosh yeshiva.

The dinner was chaired by Rav Yisrael Stern of London, who helped oversee an evening of major dedications and financial commitments. Among the most significant contributions were the dedications of 26 pillars of the future beis medrash, each sponsored for $1 million. Additional major dedications helped bring the total pledges above $72 million.

The commitments are expected to be fulfilled in stages as the construction project advances, providing the mosdos with substantial financial backing for the development of the new center.

During the gathering, Rav Shaul Alter addressed the supporters and spoke about the spiritual significance of establishing a major makom Torah at a location previously associated with Israeli broadcasting.

“From the very place where kefirah was once disseminated, the pure voice of Torah will now emanate,” the rosh yeshiva declared.

He expressed the hope that the new center would embody the words of the posuk, “Ki miTzion teitzei Torah, udvar Hashem miYerushalayim,” with Torah radiating outward from Yerushalayim to communities throughout the world.

In recognition of their participation in the historic undertaking, Rav Shaul presented the benefactors with symbolic golden pillars, representing their partnership in establishing the future home of the mosdos.

The ambitious building initiative comes amid the continued expansion of Mosdos Pnei Menachem, which was established in 2020 and has since developed an extensive network of Torah and communal institutions under Rav Shaul’s leadership.

The network includes yeshivos gedolos, yeshivos ketanos, Talmud Torahs, kollelim, shuls, and organizations devoted to chessed and communal assistance. Its institutions operate in Yerushalayim, Bnei Brak, Beit Shemesh, Ashdod, Haifa, New York, and London, serving a growing community of talmidim, avreichim, and families.

The mosdos emphasize intensive Torah learning, particularly iyun and hasmadah, together with the teachings and derech of the Gerer Rebbes. The proposed world center is intended to provide a permanent central home for these activities and accommodate the network’s continued growth.

Rav Shaul traveled to Florida last Tuesday, immediately following Israel’s elections, to participate in the convention. Before departing Eretz Yisroel, he had asked members of his kehillah to daven for the success of his mission, reflecting the importance he attached to securing the future of the mosdos.

The total cost of the proposed Torah center is estimated at between $180 million and $240 million, making it one of the most ambitious construction undertakings of its kind. Although the pledges announced in Tampa represent a substantial portion of the anticipated budget, additional fundraising will be necessary before the entire project can be completed.

Organizers are now preparing for the next stages of development, with the financial commitments obtained at the convention expected to play a central role in advancing the construction plans.

The $72,275,000 announced at the Motzoei Shabbos dinner represents pledged contributions rather than funds already collected, with payments scheduled to be made as the project progresses.

{Matzav.com}

Americans headed to the polls Tuesday in high-stakes midterm elections that will determine control of Congress, decide governorships across the country, and deliver a major political verdict on President Donald Trump’s second term. Among the most closely watched contests is the race for New York governor, where Democrat Kathy Hochul is fighting to retain her position against Republican Bruce Blakeman, the Nassau County executive seeking to become the state’s first Republican governor in more than two decades.

The elections come at a particularly consequential moment for Washington, with Republicans defending narrow congressional majorities and Democrats hoping to capitalize on voter concerns over the economy, rising living costs, immigration, and the war with Iran. All 435 House seats, 35 Senate seats, and 36 governorships are being contested, along with numerous state legislative and local offices.

In New York, the Hochul-Blakeman contest has attracted considerable attention, particularly in the New York City suburbs and among voters frustrated by taxes, crime, affordability, and the state’s political direction.

Blakeman, who has served as Nassau County executive since 2022, has campaigned on promises to reduce taxes and utility costs, strengthen law enforcement, and challenge policies enacted under Hochul’s administration. He has also sought to appeal to voters dissatisfied with the state’s handling of public safety, immigration, and government spending.

Hochul, who became governor in 2021 and won a full term in 2022, has emphasized her administration’s economic policies, childcare initiatives, and opposition to the Trump administration. She has portrayed the election as a choice between continuing Democratic leadership in Albany and bringing Republican policies to New York.

Recent polling has consistently shown Hochul ahead, although Blakeman has maintained that voter dissatisfaction could produce an upset. A Siena poll released October 28 showed Hochul leading 54% to 40%, while a Marist survey placed her ahead 53% to 42%. A Quinnipiac poll also gave Hochul a double-digit advantage.

Despite those numbers, Republicans are hoping for a stronger-than-expected turnout on Long Island, in upstate communities, and among voters concerned about affordability and public safety.

The contest has particular significance for the frum communities of Brooklyn, Queens, the Five Towns, and other parts of New York, where issues involving education, public safety, religious accommodations, and relations with state government remain important concerns.

Hochul’s running mate is former New York City Council Speaker Adrienne Adams, while Blakeman is running alongside Todd Hood, an upstate sheriff.

New Yorkers are also voting in statewide races for attorney general and comptroller. Democratic Attorney General Letitia James is seeking another term against Republican Saritha Komatireddy, a former federal prosecutor. Democratic Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli faces Republican Joseph Hernandez, a businessman with a background in biotechnology and finance.

All 213 seats in the New York State Legislature are also on the ballot, with Republicans hoping to make gains in the Assembly and Senate even as Democrats remain the dominant party in Albany.

Several New York congressional races could also prove decisive in determining control of the House of Representatives. In the 17th Congressional District, which includes Rockland County and portions of the Hudson Valley, Republican Congressman Mike Lawler is defending his seat against Democrat Cait Conley. The contest is receiving national attention because of the district’s competitive political makeup and its sizable Orthodox Jewish population.

In the 3rd Congressional District, covering parts of Nassau County and Queens, Democratic Congressman Tom Suozzi faces Republican Michael LiPetri in a rematch of their close 2024 contest. Suozzi narrowly defeated LiPetri two years ago, and Republicans are hoping to reclaim the seat.

Another important Long Island contest is unfolding in the 4th Congressional District, where Democratic Congresswoman Laura Gillen faces Republican Jeanine Driscoll. Meanwhile, Democratic Congressman Josh Riley is defending his 19th District seat against Republican Peter Oberacker in another closely watched contest.

In Brooklyn and Staten Island, Republican Congresswoman Nicole Malliotakis is seeking reelection against Democrat Mike DeCillis. Democratic House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, whose district includes portions of Brooklyn, is also on the ballot as he seeks another term and hopes to become House speaker if Democrats capture the majority.

Elsewhere in the country, gubernatorial elections are generating enormous interest. Competitive races in Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Wisconsin, Nevada, Ohio, Iowa, Kansas, and Alaska could reshape state governments and influence national politics well beyond Election Day.

In Michigan and Wisconsin, the governorships are particularly important because both states are presidential battlegrounds. The results could influence future debates over election administration, abortion policy, taxation, and state spending.

In Georgia, Republicans and Democrats are battling for control of the governor’s mansion in a state that has become increasingly competitive in national elections. Ohio, meanwhile, is choosing a successor to Republican Governor Mike DeWine, who is term-limited.

Florida voters are also selecting a new governor to succeed Ron DeSantis, who cannot seek another consecutive term. The outcome will determine who leads one of the country’s largest Republican-controlled states as it continues to experience rapid population growth and debates over property insurance, housing costs, and education.

The battle for the U.S. Senate is another central feature of Tuesday’s elections. Republicans entered Election Day controlling 53 seats, while Democrats and the two independents who caucus with them hold 47. Democrats need a net gain of four seats to secure a majority, making competitive contests in Maine, Michigan, Ohio, North Carolina, Alaska, Iowa, Kansas, and Texas especially significant.

In Maine, Republican Senator Susan Collins is defending her seat against Democrat Troy Jackson. In Ohio, former Democratic Senator Sherrod Brown is attempting a political comeback against Republican Senator Jon Husted. Texas features a closely watched contest between Republican Ken Paxton and Democrat James Talarico, while Michigan’s open Senate seat is being contested by Republican Mike Rogers and Democrat Abdul El-Sayed.

The House elections are particularly consequential because Democrats need a net gain of only three seats to secure control of the chamber. A Democratic victory would give the party the ability to block Republican legislation, initiate investigations into the Trump administration, and exercise greater influence over federal spending.

Republicans, meanwhile, are seeking to preserve their congressional majorities to allow Trump to continue pursuing his domestic and foreign policy priorities during the final two years of his presidency.

The elections are taking place against a backdrop of economic uncertainty and voter dissatisfaction. Inflation, housing affordability, immigration, public safety, and the conflict with Iran have featured prominently in campaigns across the country.

Democrats have sought to portray the elections as a referendum on Trump’s leadership, while Republicans have emphasized their record on immigration enforcement, conservative policies, and national security.

Millions of Americans cast ballots before Election Day through early voting and absentee voting. In New York alone, nearly two million voters had already participated before polling stations opened Tuesday morning.

Polls opened at 6 a.m. in New York and New Jersey, with voting scheduled to continue until 9 p.m. in New York and 8 p.m. in New Jersey. Election officials cautioned that closely contested races may not be resolved immediately, particularly in states where large numbers of absentee and mail-in ballots must still be processed.

With the future of Congress, dozens of governorships, and numerous state legislatures at stake, Tuesday’s results could substantially alter the American political landscape and determine the direction of the country for the remainder of Trump’s presidency.

{Matzav.com}

A woman who previously worked for Michigan Democratic Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed is among 12 defendants facing federal charges in connection with an alleged campaign of threats, vandalism, and intimidation targeting Jewish residents and University of Michigan officials. The expanding criminal case has drawn renewed attention to El-Sayed’s campaign just before Tuesday’s midterm elections.

Mariam Odeh, 24, of Dearborn, Michigan, was employed by El-Sayed’s Senate campaign earlier this year before being charged in June. Her name appears in a 63-page superseding federal indictment that now includes a dozen defendants following the addition of four individuals announced by the US Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Michigan.

Federal prosecutors accuse members of the alleged conspiracy of participating in a coordinated effort to frighten Jewish families and university officials through threatening messages, property destruction, and attacks on private residences.

US Attorney Jerome Gorgon condemned the alleged conduct and drew a connection between the accusations and the long history of antisemitic violence.

“From Pharaoh to Hitler to Hamas, those who terrorize Jews have been the bad guys,” Gorgon said. “As Americans, our job is to fight the bad guys.”

According to the indictment, Odeh served as president of Students Allied for Freedom and Equality, an anti-Israel student organization at the University of Michigan. She faces one federal count of “conspiracy to transmit threats in interstate and foreign commerce,” an offense carrying a maximum prison sentence of five years if convicted.

The indictment describes an alleged pattern of intimidation that included threatening graffiti, shattered windows, and glass containers filled with foul-smelling chemicals thrown into residential properties. Prosecutors contend that the incidents were intended to frighten the targeted individuals and their families.

Investigators also allege that participants left red handprints and inverted red triangles at targeted homes. Federal authorities identify the inverted triangle as a symbol used by Hamas to designate targets. Images of the vandalized properties were allegedly circulated online alongside threatening language, including “you cannot hide.”

The investigation has also placed El-Sayed’s campaign under scrutiny because of Odeh’s previous employment. Federal campaign finance disclosures show that she received two payments earlier this year, totaling $747. The campaign paid her $154 on March 3 and another $593 on March 13.

Campaign spokeswoman Roxie Richner said Odeh had worked as an hourly employee for approximately two weeks and that her association with the campaign ended on April 15. However, a pretrial services officer previously told a judge that Odeh had reported “full-time employment for approximately four months.”

El-Sayed has previously questioned whether the prosecution was motivated by the defendants’ political activities rather than their alleged conduct. Speaking at a campaign event in June, he suggested that the decision to bring charges reflected selective enforcement.

“It’s a lot more about what you’re advocating for that gets you indicted or not indicted, rather than what you did,” El-Sayed said.

The Justice Department’s latest announcement, issued Friday, identified the four additional defendants as Henry David MacKeen-Shapiro, 23; Aaron Hunter Vonbargen, 25; Joseph Mark Fisher, 23; and Srishti Tarana Sharma, 23. MacKeen-Shapiro and Vonbargen were arrested, while Fisher and Sharma remained at large at the time of the announcement.

According to federal authorities, the alleged conspiracy developed after Hamas’ October 7, 2023, terrorist attacks on Israel. Investigators say participants attempted to pressure the University of Michigan and businesses believed to have connections to Israel into ending those relationships through threats and acts of intimidation.

The alleged targets included the Jewish Federation of Detroit, two University of Michigan regents, other university administrators, a campus police lieutenant, a student, and two businesses. Prosecutors say the defendants used encrypted messaging applications, social media, and online research tools to identify targets, coordinate activities, and publicize their actions.

The indictment also describes alleged efforts to interfere with witnesses and prevent investigators from obtaining evidence. Authorities say some participants attempted to conceal their involvement while continuing to coordinate activities against individuals and institutions associated with Israel.

FBI Detroit Special Agent in Charge Jennifer Runyan warned that those responsible for threatening families would face prosecution.

“Those who believe they can threaten families, hide behind a group, and avoid accountability should think again. Justice will find you,” Runyan said.

The expanding prosecution comes as El-Sayed faces Republican Mike Rogers in Michigan’s closely watched Senate race. El-Sayed has already encountered criticism over his positions concerning Israel and his associations with controversial anti-Israel activists, issues that have complicated his efforts to win support among Jewish voters.

The Detroit News endorsed Rogers, citing concerns about El-Sayed’s limited governing experience and questions surrounding the removal of numerous older videos and social media posts. During their final debate, Rogers challenged El-Sayed over his foreign policy positions, asking whether he stood with America “or these terrorist groups overseas.”

Odeh has not been convicted, and the allegations against her and the other defendants remain subject to federal court proceedings. Prosecutors have not accused El-Sayed himself of participating in the alleged conspiracy.

{Matzav.com}

A 50-50 split in the US Senate following Tuesday’s midterm elections could plunge Washington into an unusual battle over control of the chamber, with neither political party guaranteed the powers traditionally held by the majority. Although Vice President JD Vance would retain the authority to break tied votes, Senate rules provide no automatic mechanism for determining which party would control committees, manage legislative business, or hold the majority leader’s position.

The possibility of an evenly divided Senate has raised questions about whether Republicans and Democrats could negotiate a power-sharing arrangement similar to those adopted following the 2000 and 2020 elections. Such an agreement would require cooperation between the parties at a time of deep political divisions.

Unlike a tied vote on legislation, which can be resolved by the vice president, an evenly divided Senate presents a broader institutional problem. The chamber’s 44 standing rules do not establish a procedure for awarding majority status when each party controls 50 seats. Nor does the Constitution automatically grant that designation to the party occupying the White House.

Under Senate procedures, legislation or nominations receiving an equal number of votes ordinarily fail unless the vice president intervenes to break the tie. But deciding which party chairs committees, sets the legislative agenda, and exercises other leadership privileges requires a separate political arrangement.

The Senate has encountered such circumstances before, including periods of deadlock in 1881 and 1954. The most relevant modern examples followed the presidential elections of 2000 and 2020, when closely divided results forced senators to negotiate how the chamber would operate.

Following the 2000 election, the Senate remained evenly divided after Democrat Maria Cantwell narrowly defeated Republican incumbent Slade Gorton in Washington state. The outcome was not finalized until December, leaving both parties facing the prospect of a chamber with 50 senators on each side.

Republican leader Trent Lott of Mississippi and Democratic leader Tom Daschle of South Dakota eventually negotiated an agreement establishing how the Senate would function. With Republican Dick Cheney becoming vice president, Republicans would hold the majority leader’s position, but Democrats received substantial procedural protections.

Under the arrangement, committees included equal numbers of Republicans and Democrats, while both parties received a role in managing legislative business. The agreement also established procedures for handling matters that became deadlocked in committee.

The full Senate approved the arrangement unanimously, reflecting a shared recognition that neither party could effectively conduct business without some accommodation.

Republicans wanted to prevent Democrats from obstructing President George W. Bush’s legislative priorities, while Democrats sought to preserve influence that would otherwise have been lost under conventional majority-party rules.

A similar problem emerged following the 2020 election, when Democrats won both Georgia Senate runoff contests on January 5, 2021. The victories of Jon Ossoff and Raphael Warnock produced another 50-50 Senate, with Vice President Kamala Harris providing Democrats the deciding vote on matters requiring a simple majority.

Negotiations over the chamber’s operating rules followed, with Republican leader Mitch McConnell pressing Democratic leader Chuck Schumer to adopt the framework used two decades earlier. The Senate ultimately approved a power-sharing agreement providing equal committee representation and procedures for resolving committee deadlocks.

A new 50-50 division in 2027 would present President Trump and Vice President Vance with a difficult political calculation. Republicans would possess the advantage of Vance’s tie-breaking authority, but the question of how much influence Democrats should receive over committee operations and Senate business could become a major source of conflict.

Vance’s constitutional position as president of the Senate would allow him to preside over proceedings and cast deciding votes when senators are equally divided. It would not, however, permit him to participate in Senate debates or exercise the legislative powers reserved for elected senators.

The president pro tempore, a position traditionally held by a senior member of the majority party, could also become a point of contention. Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa currently holds that office, while Democratic Sen. Patty Murray of Washington is the senior Democrat who could be considered for the position if her party gained control.

The position carries additional significance because the president pro tempore stands third in the presidential line of succession, following the vice president and the speaker of the House.

A failure to reach an organizational agreement could leave committee assignments, leadership responsibilities, and the handling of legislation subject to prolonged disputes. Such uncertainty could also increase the burden on Vance, who might be called upon to preside more frequently while balancing his responsibilities in the Trump administration and any potential presidential ambitions for 2028.

The Senate’s procedures could further complicate negotiations. A proposed power-sharing resolution may face procedural obstacles, including the possibility of filibusters requiring 60 votes to overcome. Even if the agreement ultimately needs only a simple majority for approval, getting it to a final vote could require bipartisan cooperation.

Election results themselves may also take time to settle. Alaska’s Senate contest is among the races that could delay a final determination of party control, particularly if ranked-choice voting procedures or disputes over ballots prolong the counting process. Other closely contested states could likewise leave Washington waiting days or weeks for a definitive outcome.

A 50-50 Senate would not necessarily prevent Republicans from advancing every element of President Trump’s agenda. Vance could provide the decisive vote on nominations and certain measures requiring only a simple majority. However, most major legislation would still face the Senate’s 60-vote threshold for ending debate, leaving bipartisan support necessary for many proposals.

The ultimate arrangement would depend on negotiations among Senate leaders and the willingness of both parties to accept compromises. The historical agreements of 2001 and 2021 provide possible models, but neither would automatically govern the next Congress.

With the midterm elections approaching and control of the Senate potentially resting on a handful of competitive races, an evenly divided chamber could leave Republicans and Democrats arguing over the rules of power before the new Congress even begins its legislative work.

{Matzav.com}

House Democrats are demanding that Rep. Haley Stevens be expelled from their congressional caucus after the Michigan Democrat endorsed Republican Senate candidate Mike Rogers over her own party’s nominee, Abdul El-Sayed, just two days before the midterm elections. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries has indicated that party leaders will address the controversy when lawmakers return to Washington after Election Day.

Stevens, who narrowly lost the Democratic Senate primary to El-Sayed, stunned fellow Democrats Sunday by appearing alongside Rogers at a Detroit church and announcing her support for the Republican candidate. The endorsement immediately triggered calls for disciplinary action, including demands that she be stripped of her committee assignments.

Jeffries sharply criticized Stevens but stopped short of announcing an immediate punishment, leaving the decision about her remaining time in the Democratic caucus until after the elections.

“Haley Stevens made a terrible decision, blindsided everyone and isolated herself from the House Democratic caucus. We will have a discussion about appropriate next steps upon our return,” Jeffries told POLITICO.

A senior Democratic aide told Fox News Digital that Rep. Pete Aguilar of California, who chairs the House Democratic Caucus, would likely follow Jeffries’ lead in determining how to respond. Neither leader’s office provided additional comment.

Stevens, a four-term congresswoman whose House tenure ends in January, has maintained a strained relationship with El-Sayed since losing their Senate primary contest. Although she initially signaled support for the Democratic nominee, she repeatedly raised objections to his positions concerning Israel and his approach to Jewish and Black voters.

The dispute intensified over the weekend after Stevens indicated that she intended to attend a church event with El-Sayed and Rep. Jim Clyburn of South Carolina as part of an effort to encourage Black voter participation. El-Sayed’s campaign subsequently made clear that it did not want her appearing at its events.

Stevens instead attended a different church service with Rogers and his wife, where she publicly threw her support behind the Republican. The move caught Democratic officials off guard, particularly after Stevens had reportedly assured colleagues that she would not endorse Rogers.

Rep. Debbie Dingell of Michigan said Stevens had told her “multiple times” during the weekend that she would not support the Republican candidate.

“I don’t know what changed between late Saturday and Sunday morning,” Dingell said during a CNN interview Monday.

The fallout extended beyond Capitol Hill. Michigan Democratic Party Chairman Curtis Hertel announced that Stevens would no longer be welcome in the state party following her decision to support Rogers.

Hertel wrote that Stevens “is not a current member of the Michigan Democratic Party, nor will she be in the future” after she backed Rogers.

Within the House Democratic Caucus, progressive lawmakers responded with particularly harsh criticism, accusing Stevens of abandoning her party at a critical moment in the election campaign.

Rep. Delia Ramirez of Illinois demanded Stevens’ removal, portraying the endorsement as a betrayal of Democratic voters and principles.

“Deplorable and embarrassing. Capitulating to fascism, Islamophobia, racism and the policies hurting everyday Americans makes you unfit to serve with the Democratic caucus,” Ramirez wrote on X. “Shame on Haley Stevens. She must be removed from the caucus.”

Rep. Pramila Jayapal of Washington joined the criticism, declaring that Stevens “has no place in our party,” according to POLITICO.

The controversy has also drawn attention to El-Sayed’s associations with progressive political commentator Hasan Piker and a political advertisement from an outside group that linked American support for Israel to rising household expenses. Stevens had pressed El-Sayed to condemn the advertisement more forcefully, describing its message as antisemitic. El-Sayed distanced himself from the advertisement, which his campaign did not produce, while accusing Stevens of attempting to reopen their primary battle.

The Democratic backlash has reached Stevens’ own congressional office. Multiple staff members resigned following her announcement, including longtime chief of staff Justin German, who said he was “shocked and heartbroken” by the endorsement. Stevens’ communications director, Logan Basch, also departed, with an automatic email response confirming that he was “no longer with the Office of Congresswoman Haley Stevens” as of November 1.

Stevens has defended her decision as a matter of personal conviction rather than a broader rejection of the Democratic Party. During a contentious CNN interview with Anderson Cooper, she maintained that she still wanted Democrats to win control of the Senate, even as she supported Rogers in Michigan.

“I absolutely do. I’m just casting this vote in my own way,” Stevens said. When Cooper questioned her decision to announce that vote publicly, she responded, “I’m just one person.”

The endorsement has received enthusiastic support from Republicans, including President Donald Trump, who praised Stevens for crossing party lines. Rogers, meanwhile, said he was honored by her support and portrayed their joint appearance as a statement against hatred and political division.

The dispute has created an unexpected complication in one of the country’s most closely watched Senate contests. Rogers and El-Sayed are competing for the seat being vacated by retiring Democratic Sen. Gary Peters, with control of the Senate potentially depending on the outcome.

The fight over Stevens’ future in the House caucus has also exposed disagreements among Democrats about how quickly to respond. Some lawmakers want her expelled immediately, while others have argued that the party should wait until after the election, particularly because Stevens is already preparing to leave Congress at the end of her term.

Organizations aligned with the Democratic Party have joined the campaign for disciplinary action. The progressive group IfNotNow was among those urging Jeffries to remove Stevens from the caucus and take away her committee assignments.

“As national organizations representing Jewish, Muslim, and Democratic voters opposed to Donald Trump’s war on Iran, which is responsible for the rising costs of gas and groceries and an affordability crisis that is taking a heavy toll on working families at a time when the future of our democracy is at stake,” the organization said in a statement shared with Fox News Digital. “We call on House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries to expel Congresswoman Stevens from the Democratic Caucus and strip her of her committee assignments.”

Removing Stevens from the Democratic caucus would prevent her from participating in its regular meetings and internal party deliberations. Any effort to revoke her committee positions would require additional procedural steps under the relevant House rules.

For now, Jeffries has left the matter unresolved until lawmakers return to Washington, while Stevens’ endorsement continues to reverberate through Michigan’s final hours of campaigning.

{Matzav.com}

[Video below.] President Donald Trump warned Monday night that American forces could attack Iran’s Pickaxe Mountain nuclear installation within an hour if he authorized the operation, delivering a fresh warning to Tehran while expressing optimism that Iranian leaders are eager to negotiate an agreement with Washington.

Speaking with Sean Hannity on Fox News, Trump said the United States remains firmly committed to ensuring that Iran never acquires nuclear weapons, regardless of whether that objective is achieved through diplomacy or additional military action.

“We cannot let Iran, an evil nation, who has killed many of our people, Soleimani is an example, no longer with us, but killed many of our people, we cannot let them have a nuclear weapon, and we won’t,” Trump stated.

Trump on Iran War: What we have done is amazing. pic.twitter.com/KZ1JkQyvyy

— Acyn (@Acyn) November 3, 2026

The president indicated that the American military retains the capability to strike additional Iranian nuclear targets with little advance notice, specifically identifying the heavily fortified Pickaxe Mountain site as a potential target.

“We bombed out all of their potential nuclear power. Now, we might have to go after Pickaxe [Mountain], but that’s not a big deal. We can do it in, literally, we can do that in one hour, okay, as soon as we want, at any time we want.”

Trump also rejected the characterization of the current American confrontation with Iran as a full-scale war, arguing that the prolonged absence of major combat operations and the devastating impact of American economic pressure have left Tehran in a weakened position.

“I mean, what’s a war? A war is fighting. Take a look at World War I, World War II, these were..when was the last time you saw us fighting with them? We go months and months. We talk. They’re in not a good negotiating position. Their economy is cratering because of us. They have 301 percent inflation. They don’t have money. They’re not paying their soldiers. They’re not paying their police. We’re not fighting a war.”

The president pointed to extensive damage inflicted on Iran’s military capabilities, including its naval forces, while maintaining that Tehran has strong incentives to reach an agreement before the confrontation escalates.

“This is a very soft war. We did have a big hit on them, and we hit them very hard, and that took out their navy, 159 ships are gone. But this isn’t like a war that’s going on. It could happen if they don’t make a deal, but they want to make a deal very badly, there’s a very good chance we make a deal,” he said.

The remarks came amid new disclosures about American military operations against Iranian targets. The Wall Street Journal reported that US forces struck Iran’s Qeshm Island on Monday, part of a series of limited attacks that had not previously been publicly acknowledged.

According to a senior US official cited by Axios, an American fighter jet destroyed an Iranian surface-to-air missile launcher after Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps personnel fired an anti-aircraft missile from the position. Washington characterized the response as a defensive operation.

American officials also disclosed that smaller strikes have been conducted over recent weeks, including operations intended to protect commercial shipping from Iranian threats in the Strait of Hormuz. The administration reportedly chose not to announce some of those missions to avoid creating the impression that a major new offensive was underway.

The Iranian Revolutionary Guard, meanwhile, claimed Monday that it had shot down two American drones south of Qeshm Island. The claim came as tensions continued around the strategically important waterway, through which substantial volumes of international oil shipments ordinarily pass.

The president had already raised the possibility of targeting Pickaxe Mountain over the weekend, telling reporters Saturday that one or two Iranian sites remained to be addressed. The installation has attracted Western intelligence attention because of concerns that nuclear material could be stored there.

On Monday, Trump also sought to dispel speculation that he was preparing to launch a major new military campaign immediately after Tuesday’s midterm elections.

“We had a war with Iran. We won,” Trump told reporters. “I don’t know if you even call it a war because we haven’t been doing any fighting for months.”

In a separate interview with Axios, Trump indicated that he was not rushing toward a decision on renewed large-scale strikes. Diplomatic efforts have continued through regional intermediaries, with Qatar reportedly working on proposals intended to restart negotiations between Washington and Tehran.

Vice President JD Vance has also expressed optimism about the possibility of reaching an agreement, although substantial differences remain over Iran’s nuclear activities and the future of the Strait of Hormuz.

Financial markets reacted to the diplomatic developments Monday, with oil prices falling sharply as traders reassessed the likelihood of another major escalation. Brent crude dropped more than 7%, while US benchmark oil also registered a steep decline.

Trump seized on the falling prices as evidence that investors increasingly expect an agreement rather than another round of major fighting.

“Oil Prices are DROPPING LIKE A ROCK, down almost $10 a Barrel, A RECORD, because people feel that there will not be a War with Iran. Iran wants a settlement, as soon as possible. It could happen!” Trump wrote on Truth Social.

{Matzav.com}

The US Supreme Court on Monday refused to grant an emergency request from President Donald Trump’s administration to isolate approximately 20,000 California mail-in ballots while federal authorities investigate whether the voters who submitted them are American citizens. The decision represents a setback for the administration’s election integrity efforts just one day before the midterm elections.

The justices declined to overturn lower court rulings that had prevented California election officials from separating ballots belonging to voters whose citizenship status was questioned by the Justice Department. The Supreme Court offered no explanation for its decision, and none of the justices issued a public dissent.

Federal officials had sought a temporary arrangement under which the disputed ballots would be kept apart from other votes until election administrators could establish whether the individuals involved were legally eligible to participate. The administration argued that such a measure would protect federal election requirements without permanently disqualifying legitimate voters.

California authorities resisted the proposal, maintaining that the federal government’s information contained inaccuracies and that implementing the requested procedures immediately before Election Day would create serious administrative complications.

The controversy arose from a Justice Department review that identified roughly 20,000 individuals on California’s voter rolls whose citizenship information raised questions. Federal officials argued that further examination was necessary to determine whether any noncitizens had improperly registered or participated in federal elections.

Under federal law, only US citizens may vote in federal contests. The Trump administration has made citizenship verification a central component of its election security agenda, arguing that election officials must take additional precautions to prevent unlawful ballots from influencing election results.

During earlier court proceedings, Justice Department attorney Kenneth Kao acknowledged concerns about the accuracy of the government’s information while explaining that federal authorities wanted California officials to assist in checking the registrations.

“That’s a fair statement,” Kao said when questioned about whether the records contained a substantial number of errors.

“That’s why we ask for the registrars’ aid in verifying these are all valid voters,” he added.

Bill Essayli, the federal prosecutor responsible for the Justice Department’s Los Angeles office, defended the investigation at a separate news conference, insisting that the administration had identified legitimate grounds for examining the registrations.

“This isn’t speculation. This isn’t a theory,” Essayli said, although he conceded that some records might be inaccurate.

California, which sends mail-in ballots to approximately 23 million registered voters, began its election process in early October. State officials argued that locating and isolating the ballots associated with the disputed registrations would be extremely difficult because large numbers of votes had already been received and processed.

The Justice Department filed its lawsuit in mid-October after California officials declined to act on the federal list. A federal district judge rejected the administration’s request, warning that a last-minute change to ballot procedures could disrupt the election and undermine confidence in the counting process.

A divided federal appeals court subsequently upheld the refusal to intervene. Two judges declined to grant the administration’s request, while a third, appointed by Trump, dissented and argued that California’s position risked encouraging the “violation of federal law.”

Additional questions have emerged about the reliability of the federal government’s list. Researchers examining the records reported that roughly 9,000 names, representing more than 40% of those identified, did not appear on California’s voter rolls. They also identified entries that appeared to correspond to American citizens, raising further concerns about the accuracy of the information used to challenge the registrations.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom welcomed the Supreme Court’s decision, writing that the justices had rejected the emergency application without requesting a response from the state. “Democracy won,” he declared.

In a separate legal proceeding Monday, US District Chief Judge James Boasberg in Washington concluded that certain Justice Department demands directed at California election authorities likely exceeded the federal executive branch’s constitutional powers.

“The Executive Branch has likely violated the Constitution’s Elections Clause, which commits authority over election rules to the states and Congress alone,” Boasberg wrote.

The Supreme Court’s action does not constitute a final ruling on the legality of the disputed registrations or establish that every individual on the government’s list is eligible to vote. Rather, it leaves existing election procedures intact while the underlying litigation continues.

With millions of Californians having already submitted their ballots, the decision allows state election administrators to proceed without the special segregation process sought by the Trump administration as voters cast their final ballots Tuesday.

{Matzav.com}

LISTEN:

​​For more info, email bitachon4life@gmail.com.