Feed aggregator

WH Press Secretary on the “One Big Beautiful Bill”: “This is one of the most fiscally conservative pieces of legislation that has ever made its way through Capitol Hill… It will cut taxes, putting more money back into the American people’s pockets.”

President Donald Trump’s big bill to cut taxes and reduce federal spending on some social safety net programs could have large implications for states, but for many it’s too late to do much about it this year. Tuesday marks the start of a new budget year in 46 states. Though some legislatures are still working, most already have adjourned and finalized their spending plans without knowing whether federal funding will be cut and, if so, by how much. “The ebb and flow of rumors and reality have created great uncertainty and some anxiety in state governments,” said David Adkins, executive director of The Council of State Governments. Several states have taken preemptive steps, setting aside money in reserves or tasking committees to monitor the impact of federal funding reductions. Others are tentatively planning to return in special sessions this year to account for potential funding cuts to joint federal-state programs such as Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP. Others will have to wait until their legislatures are back in session next year. What’s at stake for states? “If there are significant cuts, states wouldn’t be able to fully absorb those,” said Brian Sigritz, director of state fiscal studies at the National Association of State Budget Officers. Nationally, the Medicaid health care program for lower-income residents accounts for 30% of total state expenditures, according to the health policy research organization KFF. That makes it the costliest program in many states, ahead of even K-12 education. The bulk of Medicaid money comes from the federal government, meaning any changes in federal policy can create big ripples for states. Legislation pending in Congress would affect Medicaid in several ways. New work requirements are expected to reduce enrollment by millions of people, while other proposed changes also could reduce federal payments to states. Until now the federal government also has covered the full cost of SNAP benefits and half the administrative costs. Trump’s bill would shift more of those costs to states, leaving them to either divert money from other purposes or trim back their food assistance programs. The Medicaid and SNAP changes are just the latest in a series of Trump policies affecting state finances, including the rollback of grants for transportation and high-speed internet projects and attempts to withhold federal funds from sanctuary jurisdictions that limit cooperation with federal immigration authorities. Some legislatures are stocking up on savings A surge in federal aid and state tax revenue during the coronavirus pandemic led to booming budgets and historic cash surpluses in many states. As revenues slow and those surpluses get spent, some states now are trying to guard against federal funding reductions. New Mexico enacted a law this year creating a Medicaid trust fund gradually stocked with up to $2 billion that can be tapped to prop up the program if federal funding cuts would otherwise cause a reduction in coverage or benefits. Hawaii lawmakers, in crafting the state’s budget, left an extra $200 million in the general fund as a contingency against federal funding uncertainty. They plan to return for a special session. And Vermont’s budget sets aside up to $110 million in case federal funding is cut. That includes $50 million that can be spent while the Legislature is not in session and up to $60 million that could be appropriated in the future to address federal funding shortfalls. Though not necessarily tied to federal cuts, […]

BREAKING: President Trump to sign executive order today ending U.S. sanctions on Syria.

REPORTER: “What is the White House’s response to Sen. Tillis’ criticism articulated from the Senate floor yesterday…?” WH PRESS SECRETARY: “He is just wrong and the president and the vast majority of Republicans who are supportive of this legislation are right. This bill protects Medicaid…”

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) is under fire for her carefully crafted “Bronx girl” image, even after new revelation of her comfortable suburban upbringing. After a Yorktown High School yearbook photo went viral, Ocasio-Cortez took to X on Friday to defend herself, insisting her background is still rooted in struggle. “My mom cleaned houses and I helped,” she posted, claiming she exchanged chores for tutoring help and that splitting time between the Bronx and the suburbs shaped her views on inequality. But critics say the congresswoman is twisting her personal story to fit a political brand that never matched the facts. “She’s embarrassing herself doing everything possible to avoid admitting she grew up in the suburbs instead of the Bronx,” said state Assemblyman Matt Slater (R-Yorktown) on Sunday. “She’s gone from visiting extended family to commuting, and now she’s trying to land somewhere ‘in between.’ It’s clearly desperate attempts to protect the lie.” Ocasio-Cortez, who was born in the Bronx but left at age five for the leafy comfort of Yorktown Heights, graduated from Yorktown High School in 2007. Yet she regularly refers to herself as a “Bronx girl,” selling an image that helped propel her 2018 primary upset over then-Rep. Joe Crowley. Last week, the self-styled progressive firebrand reignited the branding machine, sparring with President Trump after she called for his impeachment over Iranian airstrikes. When Trump called her “one of the dumbest people in Congress,” Ocasio-Cortez tried to flex Bronx pride with a bizarre jab: “I’m a Bronx girl. You should know we can eat Queens boys for breakfast.” The line fell flat. While Ocasio-Cortez portrays herself as a scrappy outsider, her carefully polished biography leaves out years of suburban privilege. Yorktown Heights, where she spent her formative years, is one of Westchester County’s more comfortable communities, with above-average schools and median home values north of $700,000. Still, Ocasio-Cortez refuses to let reality puncture her narrative, doubling down on the notion that growing up “between” the Bronx and Yorktown gives her a unique claim to hardship. (YWN World Headquarters – NYC)

President Donald Trump issued a stern warning Sunday that New York City could risk losing access to federal funds if voters elect Democratic socialist Zohran Mamdani as mayor — labeling the candidate a “pure communist.”

“He’s a communist,” Trump told Fox News’ Sunday Morning Futures. “I think it’s very bad for New York.

“I don’t know that he’s going to get in. It’s inconceivable.

“But let’s say this: If he does get in, I’m going to be president, and he’s going to have to do the right thing or they’re not getting any money.”

Mamdani recently secured a victory in the Democratic primary, defeating former Governor Andrew Cuomo. Despite the result, sitting Democrat Mayor Eric Adams is expected to run for reelection as an independent, and Cuomo may still enter the race independently as well.

Trump clarified that his caution regarding federal funding wasn’t limited to Mamdani alone, but extended to anyone vying for City Hall.

“I can tell you this — whoever is mayor of New York is going to have to behave themselves or the federal government is going down very tough on them financially,” Trump told host Maria Bartiromo.

Earlier in the week, Trump took to Truth Social to blast what he described as a dangerous shift among Democrats toward extreme economic policies.

“It’s finally happened, the Democrats have crossed the line,” Trump wrote Wednesday afternoon on Truth Social. “Zohran Mamdani, a 100% communist lunatic, has just won the Dem Primary, and is on his way to becoming mayor.

“We’ve had radical lefties before, but this is getting a little ridiculous.

“He looks terrible, his voice is grating, he’s not very smart, he’s got AOC+3, dummies all, backing him, and even our great Palestinian Senator, Cryin’ Chuck Schumer, is groveling over him.

“Yes, this is a big moment in the history of our country!”

{Matzav.com}

WH PRESS SECRETARY: “We are truly coming off a historic week of President Trump racking up win after win on behalf of the American people.” Obliterated Iran’s nuclear capabilities— and brokered a ceasefire between Israel and Iran. Traveled to the Netherlands and got our NATO allies to commit 5% of their GDPs to military spending.

WH Press Secretary previews The Presidents upcoming trip to “Alligator Alcatraz”: “The facility will have up to 5,000 beds to house, process, and deport criminal illegal aliens. This is an efficient and low cost way to help carry out the largest mass deportation campaign in American history.”

Finance Minister and member of the Security Cabinet Bezalel Smotrich opened the Religious Zionist Party’s weekly gathering with a dramatic declaration, describing the current period as a defining moment in Israel’s history.

“In 12 days, we eliminated the Iranian nuclear program. In a few weeks, [we eliminated] Nasrallah and Hezbollah’s 200 thousand missiles. In a week, the entire Syrian military. The region is undergoing a strategic upheaval in our favor,” Smotrich stressed.

Turning to critics of the ongoing war effort, Smotrich condemned those urging compromise with Hamas. “We are in the midst of a campaign against a crushed terror organization. It has one bargaining chip – our brothers in captivity. In the face of this bargaining chip, there are those who call for concessions, agreements, and a ceasefire.”

He issued a sharp warning about the dangers of giving in. “If we surrender now, the message to the world will be clear: the way to bring Israel to its knees is the abduction of Jews. There will not be a bigger danger. Every Jewish child will become a target. That’s how you miss a historic victory, and that’s what it looks like when you’re weak in the face of enemies who only understand strength.”

Smotrich emphasized that the operation in Gaza must end decisively, without compromise. “This is not just a military campaign, it’s conscious decisiveness. This war must end only in victory, without agreements, without mediators. Only decisiveness. The destruction of Hamas and the return of the hostages from a position of strength.”

He rejected any future prisoner swaps or negotiations with terrorist groups. “No more dialogue with murderers, no more deals with the devil, no more releasing murderous terrorists. It’s time to continue the momentum of victory over the Iranians to an intense war that will destroy the enemy in Gaza and remove the threat for decades in the future.”

Smotrich concluded with a message meant to rally the nation: “We will not surrender. Not now, not in the face of weakness. Not in the face of brutality. We will win and restore security to Gaza, the Galilee, the home front, and the entire Jewish world.”

{Matzav.com}

For reporters, it’s hardly unusual to call sources on the phone to learn details or get quotes that will enliven their stories. Sometimes people will talk, sometimes they won’t. But the president of the United States? In an almost unfathomable level of access, reporters who call President Donald Trump on his personal cell phone often get an answer — and an interview — from the leader of the free world on the spot. There’s evidence that this is happening more frequently. Paradoxically, it’s the same president who popularized the term “fake news” and has battled against the press for years on multiple fronts. Just this week, Trump’s lawyers threatened to sue CNN and The New York Times over their reporting on an initial government assessment of damage caused by bombing Iran’s nuclear facilities. On the day of the June 21 bombing, Trump gave phone interviews to Jonathan Karl of ABC News, Kristen Welker at NBC News, Reuters’ Steve Holland, Axios’ Barak Ravid and both Bret Baier and Sean Hannity of Fox News Channel, according to an independent database of the president’s media appearances. The next day, Trump spoke with Josh Dawsey of the Wall Street Journal — for all of 38 seconds, Dawsey noted — enabling the reporter to include a fresh presidential quote in the newspaper’s story about the bombing. “I find it utterly remarkable,” said Ari Fleischer, former press secretary to President George W. Bush. “It’s classic Trump. It defies tradition.” Who’s calling? This spring, when he was denied an interview with Trump for an Atlantic magazine cover story, Michael Scherer dialed Trump’s number on a Saturday morning. “Who’s calling?” Trump answered. When the reporter identified himself, Trump berated him for past stories he’d written. But he didn’t hang up. Scherer explained the story he was doing. Trump answered his questions, and was gracious about it, he said. “The president likes speaking,” he said. “He wants to share his story. I think he feels that the more he shares his story, the better off he is. He just has a totally different approach to the press than any president I’ve covered.” In a subsequent story, Scherer and colleague Ashley Parker explored how the telephone is like a lifeline to the president. Many other people besides reporters know the number. Trump has kept using it even after being told around Election Day of the likelihood that Chinese spies had the ability to listen in on his conversations, The Atlantic reported. Dealing with the press — and by extension, the American public — is a significant part of a president’s job. But the interactions are generally much more formal and structured. That was the case with Trump in his first term, too; Scherer said the times he talked with Trump then, it was mediated by the White House communications office. That wasn’t the case when they talked this spring, nor when Scherer called Trump’s phone for an interview the day of the military parade in Washington. “There have been multiple times that people who work for the president have made clear that they weren’t happy he was talking to me,” Scherer said. “But they don’t get to make the decisions. It’s his decision.” The president’s most frequent callers Asked about the calls, White House communications director Steven Cheung said Trump “is the most transparent president in history, […]

The Knesset Finance Committee gave the green light on Monday to Amendment No. 9 to the Customs and Exemptions Tariff Order, initiating a plan to systematically eliminate the current tax exemption on imported tobacco. The phase-out will unfold over several years, with the exemption completely canceled by June 2028.

Previously, individuals could bring tobacco, cigarettes, and e-cigarette liquids into Israel from abroad without paying import tax. That benefit will now be progressively reduced until it is entirely removed.

The Israel Tax Authority projects that this policy shift will increase revenue significantly, with an estimated NIS 50 million expected in 2027, NIS 70 million the following year, and roughly NIS 100 million annually once the new tax structure is fully in effect.

The decision follows the release of the Ministry of Health’s most recent annual report on smoking, which shows that 20% of Israeli adults smoke — a figure 30% higher than the worldwide average. The report also highlights poor cessation outcomes, with Israel’s quit rate trailing 50% behind the OECD average.

In a related study, the Ministry of Health reported that over half of adolescents who experiment with tobacco begin with e-cigarettes. Use of flavored tobacco products among youth is especially prevalent: 88% have tried flavored shisha, 82% flavored e-cigarettes, and 45% have smoked flavored cigarettes or used flavored rolling tobacco.

In the chareidi community, the numbers are troubling. A new survey showed that 54% of students in ultra-Orthodox high schools and 80% of teens in dropout programs between the ages of 12 and 17 have used some type of smoking product.

Although current law mandates that local governments enforce public smoking bans, oversight remains weak. While 82 municipalities reported enforcement actions in 2024 under the smoking prevention law, over 65% failed to submit the legally required reports, and even those that did showed uneven follow-through.

{Matzav.com Israel}

Two Jewish students have launched a blistering lawsuit against the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, accusing the prestigious university — and a tenured professor — of enabling a climate of antisemitic harassment so severe it forced one student to abandon his PhD. Filed by the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law, the 71-page complaint outlines how linguistics professor Michel DeGraff allegedly waged a public campaign of intimidation and defamation against the students, while MIT administrators stood by in silence. One plaintiff, IDF veteran and postdoctoral student Lior Alon, claims DeGraff doxxed him twice — publicly posting his name and photograph on social media and tagging Al Jazeera — after describing Alon as part of “Zionist propaganda.” DeGraff further singled out Alon in a Le Monde article, accusing him of working to erase “anti-Zionist Jewish students.” Alon says he was later harassed by strangers in public, including at his child’s daycare. Alon emailed MIT President Sally Kornbluth pleading for help, warning that the doxxing had left him and his family fearing for their safety. Kornbluth never responded, the lawsuit states. “Not only did President Kornbluth’s silence and MIT’s inaction cause harm to Alon, but MIT’s failure to act also emboldened Prof. DeGraff, and his harassment of Jews escalated as a result,” the suit claims. DeGraff, a tenured faculty member, later launched a seminar titled “Language and Linguistics, from the River to the Sea in Palestine,” and circulated posts referring to Jewish “mind infection.” The second plaintiff, PhD student William Sussman, says he raised concerns about the hateful rhetoric, only to be subjected to even more abuse. According to the lawsuit, DeGraff sent department-wide emails — copying in MIT’s president — describing Sussman as a living example of a “Jewish mind infection.” On the same day, flyers using Hamas-inspired color schemes and directly targeting Sussman were slipped under dorm doors. Unable to endure the threats and bigotry, Sussman ultimately left MIT before completing his PhD. When Sussman filed a formal complaint, MIT’s investigations manager responded that the school would not pursue a discrimination case. The official concluded that DeGraff’s references to “mind infection” were not about Sussman being Jewish, but rather about his supposed views on Israeli propaganda. Sussman was told there would be no appeal. The Brandeis Center said MIT’s failure to protect Jewish students amounted to a wholesale betrayal of its legal and moral responsibilities. “Jews and Israelis on campus were prevented from fully engaging in their studies, their research, and the full spectrum of campus life,” the organization argued in a statement. “They have been forced out of their programs, off campus, and even out of the university entirely.” Sussman, whose academic dreams were shattered, described Kornbluth’s leadership as part of a broader failure that echoes last year’s congressional hearings, where Kornbluth infamously testified that calls to eliminate the Jewish people could be antisemitic “depending on context.” Unlike her counterparts at Harvard and the University of Pennsylvania, who resigned, Kornbluth kept her position. “That tells you everything you need to know,” Sussman said. (YWN World Headquarters – NYC)

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries is pressing Zohran Mamdani, the self-proclaimed socialist and presumed Democratic nominee for New York City mayor, to explain his stance on the controversial slogan “Globalize the intifada.”

Mamdani, who has been a vocal critic of Israel, sparked backlash earlier this month when he told The Bulwark that “Globalize the intifada” is a phrase that encapsulates a “desperate desire for equality and equal rights in standing up for Palestinian human rights.”

Jeffries, one of the top Democrats in Congress, is now demanding that Mamdani clarify why he refuses to disavow a slogan many view as inciting violence against Jews.

“Globalizing the intifada, by way of example, is not an acceptable phrasing,” Jeffries (D-NY) said Sunday on ABC’s This Week. He reminded viewers that “intifada” literally means uprising.

Jeffries went on to emphasize that Mamdani owes voters a clear explanation.

“He’s going to have to clarify his position on that as he moves forward,” said the Brooklyn lawmaker.

Jeffries also pointed out that Mamdani needs to convince Jewish constituents that he is serious about tackling antisemitism in the city.

“With respect to the Jewish communities that I represent, I think our nominee is going to have to convince folks that he is prepared to aggressively address the rise in antisemitism in the city of New York, which has been an unacceptable development.”

When questioned by The Bulwark on June 17 about whether the slogan made him uncomfortable, Mamdani would not criticize it.

And during a follow-up interview on NBC’s Meet the Press, Mamdani again refused to denounce the phrase — even as many have warned it carries threatening and violent implications.

“That’s not language that I use. The language that I use and the language that I will continue to use to lead this city is that which speaks clearly to my intent, which is an intent grounded in a belief in universal human rights,” Mamdani told host Kristen Welker.

“I don’t believe that the role of the mayor is to police speech in the manner.”

Welker pressed Mamdani three separate times to address the phrase directly.

If Mamdani secures the office, he will become New York City’s first Muslim and first millennial mayor. His surprise primary win, in which he edged out former Governor Andrew Cuomo, shook up the Democratic establishment.

He is widely expected to clinch the Democratic nomination officially when the results are certified next month.

Jeffries, who has yet to throw his support behind Mamdani, underscored the importance of any mayor taking antisemitism seriously.

“Any mayor, whether you’re a Democratic mayor, a Republican mayor, an independent mayor, has got to commit to the safety and well-being of all of the people of the city of New York,” Jeffries said.

“And when there are moments of crisis and a rise in anti-Jewish hate, that’s a threshold, of course, that needs to be crossed.”

Jeffries also defended his current decision to withhold an endorsement of Mamdani.

“I have not,” Jeffries said when asked if he had endorsed the candidate. “We had a conversation on Wednesday morning where I congratulated him on the campaign that he ran, a campaign that clearly was relentlessly focused on the high cost of living in New York City.”

He noted that he and Mamdani have not previously had much interaction.

“We don’t really know each other well. Our districts don’t overlap. I have never had a substantive conversation with him,” Jeffries explained. “That’s the next step in terms of this process, to be able to sit down.”

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), who holds the distinction of being the most senior elected Jewish official in the United States, has also held off on endorsing Mamdani.

Several Democrats, including Representatives Tom Suozzi and Laura Gillen, have voiced strong opposition to many of Mamdani’s far-left stances.

{Matzav.com}

GoFundMe CEO Tim Cadogan had some complications while fundraising on his own website last fall. Several friends wanted to help Cadogan reach his $28,000 goal as he crowdfunded for a Los Angeles area wilderness rescue team. But they tried to donate through a lesser-known wealth management tool called a donor-advised fund, or a DAF, a no-frills investing vehicle for money earmarked as eventual charitable gifts. After cutting checks and waiting three weeks, Cadogan said, the money finally arrived. “It was just a bit of a thing,” he added. “If they were using a Giving Fund, it would take ten seconds.” Giving Funds are GoFundMe’s latest in a flurry of product rollouts with the purported goal of moving stagnant U.S. charitable contributions beyond the 2% GDP mark where totals have long hovered. But the for-profit company’s DAF, announced Monday, enters a crowded market of more than a thousand providers — products often with older, wealthier clienteles that are often criticized for warehousing gifts. To transform the way that everyday users plan their donations, Cadogan will have to widen the appeal of DAFs beyond the likes of the technology entrepreneur’s circles. And he wants to change public perceptions of his company as just a crowdfunding site. “We’re also hopeful that more people will start using GoFundMe for a broader set of things in their lives: not just that one fundraiser they’re supporting, not just that one nonprofit. But they’re coming in and they’re managing their giving portfolio with us and through us,” Cadogan said. “That connects directly to our mission, which is we want to help people help each other.” A DAF boom — but for whom? Donor-advised funds grew popular over the last decade among ultra-high net worth individuals as a tax-efficient instrument for grantmaking without the hassle of a more sophisticated charitable foundation. Donors can immediately write the contribution off on their taxes but face no deadline for giving the money to a nonprofit. The idea: account holders could invest money they wanted to ultimately donate, let the funds grow tax-free while they sit and give themselves time to identify the recipients best aligned with their giving goals. There’s since been a rush to court average givers. Legacy financial services firms such as Fidelity Charitable lowered the minimums to open accounts. Fintech startups such as Daffy contrast their flat fees with the hidden expenses they allege their competitors charge. All that traction brought IRS proposals last year to impose penalties on those who abuse DAFs and Congress has considered legislation that would require some deadlines for disbursements. GoFundMe’s Giving Funds will have no minimum balances, zero management fees and donations starting at $5. Users can load their DAF through their bank accounts or direct deposits for free. Credit card payments will be covered through the end of the year and then face the company’s standard transaction fee of 2.2% plus 30 cents. Contributions can then be invested in a choice of exchange traded funds from managers including Vanguard, Blackrock and State Street Global Advisors. Cadogan pitches Giving Funds as a way to be more intentional about giving — something he said user feedback suggests more people want. As he sees it, widespread adoption hasn’t occurred because DAFs have been framed as “wealth management products.” “This is a giving product,” Cadogan said. “It’s something […]

CNN is now promoting an app that helps criminal aliens dodge ICE in real time.

IDF armored and combat engineering units destroyed a two-kilometer Hamas tunnel concealed under a school in southern Gaza, continuing efforts to dismantle the group’s terrorist infrastructure.

A Trump administration probe has found that Harvard failed to protect Jewish students and at times was a “willful participant” in antisemitic harassment since the Oct. 7 massacre. A federal task force has warned the school it could lose all federal funding – worth billions of dollars – if it doesn’t act immediately.

The IDF’s 188th Brigade combat team, in collaboration with Yahalom forces, demolished another underground Hamas tunnel.

HASSETT: “The bottom is line is that we’re not taking away anybody’s Medicaid. We’re definitely not taking away anybody’s Medicare. What we’re doing is we’re going after waste, fraud, and abuse… We’re, in the end, going to balance this budget.”

INSANE: Chareidi extremists torch construction equipment at a site being developed in Yehud that they claim has Kevarim under it.