Thursday, April 16, 2026

Trump: Israel, Lebanon agreed to 10-day ceasefire starting at midnight - Goldie Katz, Amichai Stein

 

by Goldie Katz, Amichai Stein

IDF to maintain positions in southern Lebanon during truce, Israeli official tells 'Post' • Trump invites Netanyahu, Aoun for historic White House talks after separate phone calls

 

An armoured Israeli military vehicle operates inside Israel, near the Israel-Lebanon border, April 15, 2026.
An armoured Israeli military vehicle operates inside Israel, near the Israel-Lebanon border, April 15, 2026.
(photo credit: REUTERS/FLORION GOGA)

A 10-day ceasefire between Lebanon and Israel will begin at midnight Israel time, US President Donald Trump announced in a Truth Social Post on Thursday.

Trump stated that the ceasefire was reached after separate conversations with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Lebanese President Joseph Aoun.

He also invited Aoun and Netanyahu to the White House for the first direct talks between the leaders of Lebanon and Israel since 1983.

“Both sides want to see peace, and I believe that will happen, quickly!” Trump said.

US President Donald Trump posts on Truth Social on April 16, 2026.
US President Donald Trump posts on Truth Social on April 16, 2026. (credit: SCREENSHOT/TRUTH SOCIAL)

During the ceasefire, the IDF will continue to maintain its positions and areas in southern Lebanon where it is currently deployed, an Israeli official told The Jerusalem Post.

Israel’s security cabinet did not vote on the ceasefire during a meeting held shortly before Trump made the announcement.

According to Israeli media reports, cabinet ministers were not informed of the ceasefire during the meeting and only learned of it from the media after the meeting ended.

N12 News quoted Netanyahu as saying that Trump asked for the ceasefire, a request to which Netanyahu acquiesced.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu attends a ceremony marking Holocaust Remembrance Day at Yad Vashem in Jerusalem, April 14, 2026.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu attends a ceremony marking Holocaust Remembrance Day at Yad Vashem in Jerusalem, April 14, 2026. (credit: CHAIM GOLDBERG/FLASH90)

Lebanese PM welcomes ceasefire after Lebanon refused direct talks

Lebanese Prime Minister Nawaf Salam welcomed the ceasefire agreement in a post on X/Twitter, stating that the pause in fighting was Lebanon’s “primary goal in the Washington meeting on Tuesday.” 

“I congratulate all Lebanese on this achievement,” Salam shared, also thanking regional and international partners who helped achieve the ceasefire.

Earlier on Thursday, Aoun refused to speak directly to Netanyahu about a ceasefire after Trump indicated in an overnight post on Truth Social that the Israeli and Lebanese would be speaking.

Aoun instead held a call with Trump, who spoke to Netanyahu before the ceasefire was eventually announced.


Goldie Katz, Amichai Stein

Source: https://www.jpost.com/middle-east/article-893291

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

As Trump declares truce, Israel reached limit of its force against Hezbollah - analysis - Yonah Jeremy Bob

 

by Yonah Jeremy Bob

Top IDF commanders have repeatedly made it clear that they do not have the capacity to eliminate Hezbollah solely using military force.

 

Israeli soldiers are seen along the Israeli border with Lebanon amid the ongoing war, April 10, 2026.
Israeli soldiers are seen along the Israeli border with Lebanon amid the ongoing war, April 10, 2026.
(photo credit: AYAL MARGOLIN/FLASH90)

 

Many in Israel will be furious with US President Donald Trump and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu regarding the impending 10-day ceasefire with Hezbollah that Trump declared on Thursday.

But the fact is that Israel had already achieved in this round of war most of what it could militarily.

Israel destroyed 70%-80% of Hezbollah’s 150,000 rocket arsenal in the fall of 2024, leaving it with about 20%-30%, and it assassinated Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah.

During this war, it has knocked Hezbollah down to about 10% of what it had pre-2023.

Also, the IDF had taken over most of southern Lebanon in the fall of 2024. In February 2025, it withdrew to five outposts near the border.

An Israeli military helicopter flies near the Israeli border with Lebanon, on April 14, 2026.
An Israeli military helicopter flies near the Israeli border with Lebanon, on April 14, 2026. (credit: AYAL MARGOLIN/FLASH90)

The IDF has now retaken all of southern Lebanon, evacuated far more Shi’ites from there, and made it clear it will not rush to leave if Hezbollah keeps threatening Israel.

Israel also took serious hits from Hezbollah in the North, but much less when compared with the hits it took in the North and all over the country during the 2023-2024 conflict.

Hezbollah cannot be defeated by war alone

Top IDF commanders have repeatedly made it clear that they do not have the capacity to eliminate Hezbollah solely using military force.

This did not occur in Gaza after two years of war and destroying about 90% of the buildings against the much weaker Hamas.

So, it was not going to happen solely by military force with Hezbollah either.

What Israel can do is what it did after the November 2024 ceasefire: Hold Hezbollah’s feet to the fire with individual attacks when it tries to rearm and threaten Israel.

It can also hold onto southern Lebanon longer as a bargaining chip to get the Lebanese government to further disempower Hezbollah.

Hezbollah may also receive less funding to rebuild from Iran, which will face a much deeper financial crisis coming out of this war.

None of this means Israel’s problems with Hezbollah will disappear. But Israel did achieve some additional progress in this war, even if it is less than what many had hoped.

Now it is time for the diplomats to translate the military’s achievements into a more permanent and favorable postwar framework.


Yonah Jeremy Bob

Source: https://www.jpost.com/israel-news/defense-news/article-893296

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Lebanon: From 'Switzerland of the Middle East' to Iran's Puppet - Khaled Abu Toameh

 

by Khaled Abu Toameh

Wafiq Safa, a senior Hezbollah official, told The Associated Press that his organization will refuse to abide by any agreements that may result from the direct Lebanon-Israel talks

 

  • Hezbollah Secretary-General Naim Qassem dismissed the talks as "futile" and reaffirmed that his organization will not disarm.

  • Wafiq Safa, a senior Hezbollah official, told The Associated Press that his organization will refuse to abide by any agreements that may result from the direct Lebanon-Israel talks: "[A]s for the outcomes of this negotiation between Lebanon and the Israeli enemy, we are not interested in or concerned with them at all.... We are not bound by what they agree to."

  • These statements are not simply rhetoric. They are a proclamation that Hezbollah, not the Lebanese government, will determine whether Lebanon goes to war or pursues peace.

  • Lebanon has effectively become a protectorate of Iran. The consequences for the Lebanese people have been devastating.

Lebanon has effectively become a protectorate of Iran. The consequences for the Lebanese people have been devastating. Hezbollah has dragged Lebanon into two calamitous confrontations with Israel in just the last three years. Pictured: Hezbollah supporters hold an anti-government protest on April 11, 2026 in Beirut, Lebanon. (Photo by Chris McGrath/Getty Images)

This week, as the Lebanese government was preparing to participate in US-mediated talks with Israel in Washington, DC, Hezbollah, the Iran-backed terrorist organization, delivered its verdict: No negotiations, no compromise. Only war.

The talks, which took place on April 14, aim to ensure "long-term security of Israel's northern border" while supporting Lebanon's efforts to "reclaim full sovereignty over its territory."

In a televised speech, Hezbollah Secretary-General Naim Qassem dismissed the talks as "futile" and reaffirmed that his organization will not disarm. Referring to statements by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that Hezbollah's weapons must be dismantled and that Israel wants a real peace agreement with Lebanon, Qassem declared:

"We will not rest, stop or surrender. We will let the battlefield speak for itself. We will remain in the field until our last breath."

Qassem added:

"We reject negotiations with the usurping entity... We call for a historic and heroic stance by canceling this negotiating meeting."

Wafiq Safa, a senior Hezbollah official, told The Associated Press that his organization will refuse to abide by any agreements that may result from the direct Lebanon-Israel talks:

"[A]s for the outcomes of this negotiation between Lebanon and the Israeli enemy, we are not interested in or concerned with them at all.... We are not bound by what they agree to."

These statements are not simply rhetoric. They are a proclamation that Hezbollah, not the Lebanese government, will determine whether Lebanon goes to war or pursues peace.

Lebanon today bears little resemblance to the country it once was.

Before the 1975-1990 civil war, Lebanon was known as the "Switzerland of the Middle East." During the 1960s and 1970s, it enjoyed significant prosperity, strict banking secrecy laws, and a reputation as a safe, neutral financial hub for regional and international capital. Its banking sector was among the most sophisticated in the Arab world. It attracted foreign investment and established Beirut as one of the world's leading financial centers.

French journalist Julien Ricour-Brasseur wrote in Middle East Eye in 2021:

"Lebanese citizens unwilling to attempt the desperate crossing of the Mediterranean are flocking to public offices to obtain visas to any possible destination. They are looking to somewhere beyond the sea, where the glow of green is beckoning, the green light of hope - and the dollar....

"The story of Lebanon could open like this: Once upon a time, there was a nation known as the Switzerland of the Middle East. And frankly, the story ends there."

Lebanon was also distinguished by its sectarian diversity and religious pluralism, a place where multiple Muslim and Christian communities coexisted within a relatively open political system. Its geography, combining snow-capped mountains suitable for winter sports with a Mediterranean coastline, made it a major tourism destination. At its peak, Lebanon enjoyed one of the highest GDP per capita levels in the region and was regarded as a rare oasis of stability in a turbulent Middle East. This Lebanon, however, no longer exists.

Decades of civil war, corruption, and political paralysis have been a main driving force behind its decline. Yet Hezbollah's emergence as an armed state within the state, and its repeated wars with Israel on behalf of its patrons in Iran, are key factors that have contributed to Lebanon's collapse.

Lebanon is currently a failing state. In 2022, the United Nations wrote:

"The destructive actions of Lebanon's political and financial leaders are responsible for forcing most of the country's population into poverty, in violation of international human rights law, the UN Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights, Olivier De Schutter, said in a report published today...

"'Impunity, corruption, and structural inequality have been baked into a venal political and economic system designed to fail those at the bottom, but it doesn't have to be that way,' said De Schutter, an independent expert appointed by the UN Human Rights Council.

"'The political establishment knew about the looming cataclysm for years but did little to avert it. Well-connected individuals even moved their money out of the country...'

"'Central Bank policies, in particular, led to a downward spiral of the currency, the devastation of the economy, the wiping out of people's lifetime savings and to plunging the population into poverty.'"

Worse, Lebanon has effectively become a protectorate of Iran. The consequences for the Lebanese people have been devastating.

Hezbollah has dragged Lebanon into two calamitous confrontations with Israel in just the last three years.

The first took place after the October 7, 2023 Hamas-led invasion of southern Israel, when Hezbollah opened fire on Israel from Lebanon as a "support front" for its terrorist allies in the Gaza Strip.

The second war Hezbollah launched against Israel came after Israeli and American strikes against Iranian targets in June 2025. Hezbollah again initiated rocket and drone attacks on Israel in "solidarity" with the Iranian regime. Both rounds of fighting brought renewed destruction, displacement, and economic collapse on the Lebanese people.

The pattern is now clear: Hezbollah chooses death and destruction, and the Lebanese people pay the price.

Created, funded, and armed by the Iranian regime, Hezbollah continues to operate as Iran's most powerful proxy in the Middle East. Its leaders pledge allegiance not to Lebanon, but to mullahs in Iran. Its weapons are not under the control of the Lebanese state. Its decisions on war and peace are dictated by Iran's regional strategy rather than Lebanon's national interests.

While not formal peace negotiations, the meeting in Washington this week signaled a possible step toward more structured dialogue and normalization between Israel and Lebanon.

Peace between Lebanon and Israel would, above all, benefit the Lebanese people. It would stabilize Lebanon, open the door to economic recovery, attract investment, and begin reversing decades of state collapse. More significantly, it would restore to Lebanon what Hezbollah has taken away: the ability to act as a sovereign state pursuing its own national interests.

The Hezbollah leader's call to cancel the Washington talks reflects the terrorist organization's fear that diplomacy could succeed and that Lebanon might begin to break free from the grip of the Iranian regime. For the Lebanese people, peace with Israel could offer something more basic: a chance to reclaim their country from the cycle of war, death and destruction. Until that reality changes, Lebanon will remain trapped not only in conflict with Israel, but in a deeper crisis of sovereignty, identity, and survival.


Khaled Abu Toameh is an award-winning journalist based in Jerusalem.

Source: https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/22446/lebanon-puppet-hezbollah-iran

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Ukraine impeachment was continuation of failed Russia collusion plot to take down Trump, docs show - Jerry Dunleavy

 

by Jerry Dunleavy

Within days of Robert Mueller's underwhelming Russiagate testimony before Congress, the Ukraine saga which would lead to Trump's impeachment was being launched.

 

The Democrat-led Ukraine impeachment effort of 2019 was linked to and a continuation of the Russiagate saga and of the failed effort by special counsel Robert Mueller to unearth criminality by President Donald Trump, newly-declassified documents and testimony indicate.

Memos declassified by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard and released by Just the News on Sunday were written by investigators for intelligence community inspector general Michael Atkinson, who first handled the CIA analyst's complaint. Gabbard also declassified long-secret transcribed interviews from the watchdog, and these, combined with the memos, provide further evidence that the Ukraine impeachment saga was a continuation of the Russiagate saga which had flamed out.

The newly-released memos flagged the Ukraine whistle-blower for having a "potential for bias," elicited an apology from him for misleading the probe about his prior contact with staffers on the Democrat-led House Intelligence Committee, showed he criticized GOP congressmen, recounted that he asked to hide his complaint from Republicans on the intelligence committee, pointed to his close links to Joe Biden’s efforts in Ukraine, and more. Atkinson kept much of this from the House investigators.

An alleged witness whose name was redacted and who told investigators he had been assisting the alleged whistle-blower with making his disclosures admitted to having a connection to Peter Strzok, the FBI agent who was fired in 2019 for his misbehavior while helping lead the discredited Russia collusion probe.

This witness — identified only as “Witness 2” — disclosed that he had also worked on a controversial December 2016 Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) that claimed Vladimir Putin tried to help Trump beat Hillary Clinton in that year’s presidential race, a conclusion that the CIA now admits was based on faulty intelligence and a failure of spy tradecraft. 

Prior to being nominated by Trump to be the intelligence community watchdog, Atkinson himself was an Obama holdover in the first Trump administration and was a former top counselor to key Russiagate figure and DOJ official Mary McCord. As a top Obama Justice Department official, McCord reviewed the deeply flawed FISA applications against former Trump campaign associate Carter Page, and she later assisted House Democrats in impeachment efforts against Trump.

The self-admitted potential biases which the Ukraine impeachment whistle-blower relayed to investigators for the intelligence community watchdog during the first Trump Administration were redacted and concealed from House investigators in 2019, newly-declassified and released transcripts show.

These long-secret transcripts were from a mid-September 2019 unclassified session and an early October 2019 classified session which were held to examine Atkinson’s role in the handling of an alleged whistle-blower complaint. The missive was written by an anonymous intelligence officer — identified as Eric Ciaramella — in a saga which ultimately led to the first successful impeachment efforts by House Democrats against Trump in December 2019. Trump was acquitted by the Senate in early 2020.

Facts concealed from House investigators

The newly-released memos from 2019 laid out multiple self-admitted potential biases tied to Ciaramella’s Democratic Party registration, his work for Joe Biden, his knowledge of corruption-related discussions on Ukraine, his view that he had been pushed out of the Trump NSC because of "right wing bloggers," and more — some of which were never made public until Sunday, and many of which were concealed from House investigators when the intelligence community inspector general appeared before them in October 2019.

The whistle-blower's' complaint centered on a July 25, 2019 phone call between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.  The Trump-Zelensky call was the day after Mueller’s lackluster congressional testimony on the findings of his special counsel investigation.

Ciaramella did not respond to a request for comment sent to him through the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, where he is listed as the Ukraine Initiative Director for the Russia and Eurasia Program. Atkinson did not respond to a request comment sent to him at the law firm he works for, and McCord did not respond to an email sent to her Georgetown University email.

The Office of the Director of National Intelligence said Monday that Atkinson helped “manufacture a conspiracy” and argued that a “coordinated effort by elements within the Intelligence Community” was aided by Atkinson when he lent credibility to and covered up the political biases of the author of the whistle-blower complaint.

House Intel Dem staffer sought Russiagate angle during Atkinson’s first appearance

It was clear during the September 2019 appearance by Atkinson that some House Democrats were looking for a Russia angle to nail Trump.

“This committee — and you may or may not know this — but is conducting a variety of investigations, some of which are public, including whether the President or senior administration officials have any financial conflicts of interest with foreign countries or individuals; whether the President's personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, or others in the administration are improperly using the Office of the President to influence policy in foreign country or even our own political process; there is an investigation into the Trump Tower Moscow project; and there is also public investigations into the foreign influence in our elections,” a Democratic staff member whose name is redacted told the intel watchdog.

The Democratic staffer asked: “Can you say whether the subject of the complaint relates to any investigations that I just listed for this committee?”

“I am not authorized to disclose that information,” Atkinson replied at the time.

“Witness 2” worked with Strzok and co-authored 2016 intel report

An intelligence official dubbed “Witness 2” — an ally of Ciaramella’s during the Ukraine saga — spoke with Atkinson on August 21, 2019. At the time, “Witness 2” was a member of the NSC whose home agency was the National Security Agency, and he was working for the Directorate of Intelligence and for the European and Russian Affairs Directorate.

“Witness 2 reviewed the transcript [of the call between Trump and Zelenskyy] in order to have situational awareness of the circumstances surrounding the call, and the discussions of the call, as he was covering for the Director of Ukraine, hereafter referred to as (‘Alex’), while Alex was out of the office,” the recently-declassified memo said.

The memo said that “Witness 2 worked with Peter Strozk [sic], and Witness 2 knew how it would play out if [Redacted] said anything” as the intelligence community watchdog quoted him saying that “if I unilaterally try to make an issue out of it the only person impacted is me and not for the better.”

Strzok was a key player throughout the FBI’s deeply flawed Crossfire Hurricane investigation — including writing the opening communication that launched the inquiry. His text messages — particularly with his co-worker and paramour Lisa Page — in 2016 repeatedly displayed an anti-Trump bias.

“Witness 2 is assisting Complainant in regard to the urgent concern because Witness 2 wants to be able to sleep at night, and [Redacted] wants to help Complainant sleep at night, by registering how concerning this whole thing was,” the memo said. “Witness 2” stated that he “feels a moral and patriotic duty to help Complainant due [sic] what is right” and said that he wanted to “sleep the sleep of the just.'’

Despite this, “Witness 2” said he would not have done what Ciaramella had done.

“Witness 2 made it clear that [Redacted] would not have taken independent action on the information [Redacted] read in the transcript for two reasons: first that [Redacted] routinely deals with issues on a daily basis that are contrary to [Redacted] personal beliefs; and second that [Redacted] did not have the level of granular insight of details related to the Ukraine that Complainant had,” the memo said. “Witness 2 could not connect the same dots that Complainant did into the impact of what was said during the telephone call.”

In a section on “Potential for Biases or to Be Discredited” it was also revealed that “Witness 2” had helped with the 2016 ICA on alleged Russian election meddling.

ICA written at the direction of then-President Obama, overseen by Comey, former CIA Director John Brennan, and former DNI James Clapper

“If someone were to try to discredit information provided by Witness 2, they might focus on Witness 2 being the co-author of the 2017 ICA on Russian Interference in the 2016 election,” the memo said, adding that “the ICA could have been, or could be looked at, as negative towards President Trump.” The 2016 ICA was written at the direction of then-President Obama and largely overseen by Comey, former CIA Director John Brennan, and former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper.

Comey and former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe had pushed in December 2016 to include Christopher Steele's widely-debunked dossier in the 2016 ICA on alleged Russian meddling. The dossier was included in an annex to the assessment and was cited in the most highly-classified version of the ICA.

The House report declassified last year and the CIA review released last year sharply criticized Brennan for allegedly joining with these anti-Trump forces in the FBI in pushing to include Steele’s baseless anti-Trump dossier in the ICA.

“Witness 2” was referenced dozens of times in Atkinson’s October 2019 session before the House Intelligence Committee. Then-Rep. Peter Welch, D-Vt., asked Atkinson, “When you made your determination about the urgency of this matter, you didn't have the actual readout of the call, correct?”

“I did not have the actual'.transcript, that's correct,” the watchdog replied.

Welch continued, “Right. So you had information that was disclosed to you from the whistle-blower about what Witness 1 and Witness 2 had told him, correct?”

“That's correct. And we also had what Witness 2 told us about Witness 2's recollection of having read the call records,” Atkinson said.

The watchdog later added that “Witness 2 had authorized access to the White House and to the White House records as part of Witness 2's official duties.”

Russiagate figure Mary McCord praised Atkinson’s handling of Ukraine whistleblower complaint

Years before the two worked at the top of the Obama DOJ together, McCord was the Criminal Division chief at the U.S. Attorney’s Office in the nation’s capital, and Atkinson worked under McCord as the deputy chief of the Fraud & Public Corruption Section.

During the Obama years, DOJ calendars show McCord and Atkinson at meetings with other Obama DOJ officials such as Lisa Monaco and Bruce Ohr.

McCord also served as Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the Department of Justice’s National Security Division under Obama, then served as Acting Assistant Attorney General for National Security from October 2016 into 2017.

Atkinson was McCord’s chief legal counsel inside McCord’s office when she led the DOJ’s national security efforts under Obama in late 2016, with Atkinson working as an Acting Deputy Assistant Attorney General from March to June 2016, then working as senior counsel to McCord from July 2016 until she departed in 2017.

“It could have all been squashed by the Justice Department, but he persisted,” McCord told The Washington Post in October 2019, with the outlet saying that she had “worked closely with Atkinson when she led the Justice Department’s national security division and Atkinson was her senior counsel, and when both were in the U.S. attorney’s office in Washington.”

“As soon as I saw that this was coming from him, that was all I needed to know to credit the report, because I know him to be a careful, thoughtful, meticulous prosecutor,” McCord told the outlet. “He doesn’t seek the limelight. He doesn’t seek attention.”

The New York Times later reported in April 2020 that “Atkinson had no role in wiretap oversight or in the Clinton and Trump-Russia investigations, according to Mary McCord, the acting head of the division from 2016 to 2017.”

Atkinson told the Senate Intelligence Committee in January 2018 during his confirmation proceedings that “I have acquired intelligence and national security experience as an Acting Deputy Assistant Attorney General and Senior Counsel to the Assistant Attorney General in the National Security Division at the U.S. Department of Justice.”

Atkinson was not asked about his 2016 role at DOJ during his 2018 confirmation hearing.

Ciaramella has appeared on dozens of podcast episodes put out by the anti-Trump Lawfare outlet, and he is listed as a “contributing editor” at the site. Benjamin Wittes, the editor-in-chief of Lawfare, has appeared on multiple Lawfare episodes with Ciaramella. Wittes was described by Politico in 2017 as “The Bard of the Deep State” and is a longtime Trump critic and a self-described friend of fired FBI Director James Comey and disgraced FBI agent Peter Strzok.

McCord had a discussion with Wittes on the Lawfare Daily podcast in September 2024, where she critiqued Trump appointees over the Ukraine saga and again praised Atkinson. “You know, recall John Ratcliffe came out, you know, very, very harshly and harshly is probably way too mild of a term against the whistleblower involved in breaking the story about the Zelensky call that led to the first impeachment at this point,” McCord said. “That seems like ancient history, right? But we can't forget about the significance of that.”

McCord continued: “What Ratcliffe did there, to try to bury and to try to disparage and discredit that reporting, is dangerous because it was significant reporting about a serious national security issue.”

Atkinson’s former boss at the Obama DOJ was key Russiagate figure

McCord took over the DOJ’s national security division in October 2016, when the first FISA application targeting Carter Page was filed, and McCord reviewed that FISA and subsequent renewals. The FISA applications relied upon claims in British ex-spy Christopher Steele’s discredited and Democratic-funded dossier. McCord was also deeply involved with the investigation into Trump’s first national security adviser, retired Lt. Gen. Mike Flynn, and criticized the Trump DOJ’s 2020 efforts to dismiss the Flynn case.

McCord testified before the House Intelligence Committee in November 2017 that she “did not have the authority to sign FISA applications,” but she had reviewed an early version of the first Carter Page FISA application.

“I do know that it relied on information from Mr. Steele,” McCord said, adding that “I hadn’t seen a dossier. In fact, I didn’t read the dossier until January of 2017, when BuzzFeed published it.” She also falsely claimed Steele had been paid by Republicans before being paid by Democrats. In actuality, Steele was hired by Fusion GPS after it had been hired by the Clinton campaign through the Perkins Coie law firm.

McCord was mentioned more than two dozen times in DOJ inspector general Michael Horowitz’s FISA report, which said she was “involved in certain aspects of the investigation through the Office of Intelligence’s assistance with the first Carter Page FISA application in September and October 2016, as well as through meetings she attended in November and December 2016 about aspects of the cases against Flynn and former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort.

The Horowitz report said an Office of Intelligence attorney “submitted an updated draft application to McCord for her review” on Oct. 14, 2016, and McCord “said the collective thinking was that filing the application was a legitimate investigative step even though it may later be criticized unfairly.”

McCord was also provided with the Page FISA renewal application on Jan. 3, 2017, which she remembered, and with another Page renewal application on April 3, 2017, though she claimed that “she did not have a specific recollection.”

She appeared on Yahoo News’s Skullduggery podcast in December 2019, where she declined to give a firm answer on whether the DOJ would’ve applied for the Page FISA if all the FBI mistakes had been revealed to the department at the time. She said she agreed with the reforms suggested by Horowitz and by FBI Director Chris Wray, claiming, “I am, of course, very disappointed” that the FBI did not provide the DOJ with potentially “exculpatory” information on Page.

McCord also seemed to defend the use of allegations by Steele in FISA filings. "No question there was information included that was provided by Christopher Steele,” she said. “But this idea of ‘dossier’ is something that came up much later and included all kinds of stuff that is not in that FISA, right? All the salacious stuff [...] had nothing to do with the information that was included in the FISA … I don’t even think all of that was written at the time of the Carter Page FISA.”

That claim was false, as the baseless claim about Trump and the Ritz-Carlton Moscow appeared in Steele’s first anti-Trump report.

McCord was also in meetings related to the baseless 2016 Alfa Bank collusion hoax, as well as in ongoing Russian collusion meetings in 2017, including where Strzok made misleading claims about the origins of the Russiagate investigation.

McCord was picked by the FISA court to serve as an amicus curiae — or “friend of the court” — in April 2021, with Georgetown announcing it. Her husband, Sheldon Snook, had previously worked as a FISA court spokesman.

McCord had served as legal counsel on then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s security review after the January 2021 Capitol riot shortly before being picked by the FISA Court.

A straight line from Mueller’s failed investigation to the Ukraine impeachment

The two Ukraine-related articles of impeachment did not mention Mueller, but the Trump-Russia allegations from his report underpinned the December 2019 impeachment effort.

Wittes wrote in The Atlantic in April 2019 — shortly after the release of the Mueller report — that “the president committed crimes. There is no way around it. Mueller does not accuse the president of crimes. He doesn’t have to. But the facts he recounts describe criminal behavior.” Wittes claimed that “the president also committed impeachable offenses” as he signaled that House Democrats should impeach Trump over the Mueller report.

The New York Times reported in December 2019 that then-House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., had “made the case that the House should take up three articles of impeachment against President Trump” — including one related to the Mueller investigation. 

But the outlet said that “a vigorous debate unfolded, and in the end Ms. Pelosi made the call: There would be only two articles of impeachment, on abuse of power and obstruction of Congress, narrowly focused on the investigation into Mr. Trump’s pressure campaign on Ukraine. A third, on obstruction of justice tied to the president’s attempts to thwart the inquiry of Robert S. Mueller III, the former special counsel, was too much of a reach.”

The Democrat-authored articles of Impeachment — released in mid-December 2019 — did not specifically reference the Mueller report, but they did reference Russiagate claims.

The Ukraine-related “abuse of power” article of impeachment written by Democrats against Trump said his actions there “were consistent with President Trump’s previous invitations of foreign interference in United States elections,” according to the Democrats, in a clear reference to Trump-Russia allegations.

Mueller’s March 2019 report “did not establish” any criminal collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians, and reports by DOJ inspector general Michael Horowitz and by special counsel John Durham revealed deep flaws within the Trump-Russia inquiries and the weaponization and politicization of U.S. law enforcement and intelligence powers.

Mueller’s evidence was “not sufficient” 

Mueller laid out ten instances of possible obstruction by Trump, but did not say one way or the other whether Trump had actually obstructed.

Then-Attorney General William Barr said he and then-Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein reviewed Mueller’s report, consulted with DOJ officials, applied federal charging guidelines, and concluded Mueller’s evidence was “not sufficient” to establish Trump obstructed justice. Barr said his decision was made independent of the Office of Legal Counsel guideline that sitting presidents cannot be indicted, and Mueller made clear he was not saying that but for that OLC opinion that he would’ve charged Trump.

NBC News reported in early December 2019 that Wittes and Hennessey “had argued for the inclusion of one episode from the Mueller report” and that “both tweeted Tuesday that not including it was an error.”

“President Trump welcomed foreign interference in the 2016 election. He demanded it for the 2020 election. In both cases, he got caught, and in both cases, he did everything in his power to prevent the American people from learning the truth about his conduct,” Nadler said in his opening statement during the December 2019 impeachment proceedings.

Rep. Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., who is now the House Minority Leader, called Trump a “serial solicitor” of foreign interference as he sought to link the Russia and Ukraine sagas in late 2019.

Republicans rejected this line of attack. Then-Rep. John Ratcliffe, R-Texas, who is now the CIA director, said during the December 2019 impeachment proceedings that “Every time Democrats get caught trying to frame this president with some crime he didn’t commit, they follow up by accusing him of obstructing their efforts to frame him for the things he never did in the first place.”

McCord played key role in Mueller court battles for House Dems amidst impeachment effort

At the same time as the Ukraine impeachment saga unfolded, Atkinson’s former boss, Mary McCord, was actually directly assisting House Democrats with their efforts to oust Trump.

The New York Times wrote in an August 2019 article — titled “The House v. Trump: Stymied Lawmakers Increasingly Battle in the Courts” — that “the fights include efforts to reveal Mr. Trump’s hidden financial dealings” and to “force his aides to testify about his attempts to obstruct the Russia investigation.”

“The lawyers volunteering to help the House Democrats include […] Georgetown Law Center’s Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection, run by two former national security officials, including “Mary McCord,” the outlet said.

Politico reported in a December 2019 article titled “Meet the legal minds behind Trump’s impeachment” that “McCord and a team that includes former National Security Council and DOJ attorneys first appeared earlier this fall on the legal docket as attorneys representing the Judiciary Committee in its fights for McGahn’s testimony and Mueller’s grand jury evidence.”

On behalf of the Democratic House Judiciary Committee, McCord helped file multiple legal briefs in 2019 and 2020, including with the Supreme Court, as Democrats sought access to grand jury materials from Mueller’s investigation as part of a House Democratic impeachment efforts.

House Democrats fought for secret grand jury information from Mueller’s investigation in December 2019, saying they might use it in the January 2020 Senate trial or for additional articles of impeachment against Trump. “The current status of the impeachment proceedings underscores the continuing controversy regarding the withheld grand-jury material,” Democratic general counsel Douglas Letter told the court.

The Trump DOJ told the court at the time that the House shouldn’t get the grand jury material because the approved articles of impeachment “do not refer to the Mueller Report,” dismissing the Democratic arguments as efforts to ”backfill” their legal reasoning because the two articles relate to “a different controversy that post-dates the Mueller Report.”

“The Ukraine controversy, and allegations of obstruction of the House’s impeachment inquiry concerning that controversy, became the sole focus of the committee’s impeachment inquiry, and that is the basis on which the House of Representatives ultimately voted to impeach the President,” then-Assistant Attorney General Joseph Hunt said.

The Democrats insisted that they wanted access to the Mueller report information “to inform its ongoing investigations of President Trump’s offenses.” Trump was impeached by the Democrat-led House in December 2019, but was acquitted by the Senate in early 2020. 


Jerry Dunleavy

Source: https://justthenews.com/accountability/whistleblowers/ukraine-impeachment-effort-was-continuation-failed-mueller-effort#dig-deeper

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Gabbard refers impeachment whistleblower to DOJ for criminal investigation - John Solomon and Misty Severi

 

by John Solomon and Misty Severi

"ODNI can confirm a criminal referral was sent to DOJ related to one or more former employees of the Intelligence Community and their role in the 2019 impeachment of President Trump," an ODNI spokesperson told Just The News.

 

Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard on Wednesday referred the 2019 Ukraine impeachment whistleblower against Donald Trump, as well as the former intelligence community inspector general, for criminal investigation by the Justice Department, officials told Just The News

The criminal referrals were sent to the Justice Department just four days after Gabbard declassified intelligence that the CIA analyst who filed against Trump that prompted the impeachment had misled the investigators who first received his whistle-blower complaint and that then-inspector general Michael Atkinson kept evidence of the whistleblowers' bias from the impeachment proceedings. 

"ODNI can confirm a criminal referral was sent to DOJ related to one or more former employees of the Intelligence Community and their role in the 2019 impeachment of President Trump," an ODNI spokesperson told Just The News.

Just the News reported Sunday that documents recently showed the intelligence community's chief watchdog had flagged concerns about the CIA analyst who launched the 2019 impeachment proceedings against Trump with Ukraine policy-related allegations, but those concerns were kept classified and never made public during the congressional proceedings.

The concerns included that the accuser had the "potential for bias," had provided false information in his initial complaint and had animus toward conservatives inside Trump's circles, according to documents declassified by Gabbard this week.

Gabbard blasted Atkinson's work Monday, suggesting the former watchdog had "weaponized the whistle-blower process" and used his office to "manufacture a conspiracy that was used as the basis to impeach President Trump."

Others, including former Trump defense lawyers, the FBI and members of Congress, also sharply criticized the withholding of such evidence for six years, with famed law professor Alan Dershowitz going so far as to suggest Trump might have grounds to expunge his 2019 impeachment in the House of Representatives. 


John Solomon and Misty Severi

Source: https://justthenews.com/government/security/gabbard-refers-impeachment-whistleblower-doj-criminal-investigation

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Hegseth delivers warning directly to Iranian military leaders: 'choose wisely' - Steven Richards

 

by Steven Richards

The Pentagon touted the comprehensive blockade of Iran's coast and ports as Hegseth urged Iranians to choose a deal with the United States.

 

Secretary of War Pete Hegseth on Thursday delivered a stark warning to Iranian military and Revolutionary Guard leaders, urging them to "choose wisely" between agreeing to a deal with the United States or facing a resumption of the U.S. military campaign against the country. 

“We’re watching you," Hegseth said at a press conference at the Pentagon". Our capabilities are not the same. … This is not a fair fight."

Hegseth also said U.S. military strikes have crippled Iran's defense industry including its missile launchers and navy. 

You have no defense industry," he said. "You can move things around, but you cannot rebuild."

Hegseth touted the success of the U.S. blockade, which has largely prevented Iran from exporting its oil and exploiting one of its remaining streams of revenue. 

The secretary said Iran now faces a choice between "a prosperous future" and renewed U.S. strikes, which began Feb. 28 along with those launched by Israel.

“If Iran chooses poorly, they will have a blockade and bombs," Hegseth said. 

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Dan Caine, who joined Hegseth at the conference, briefed reporters about the naval blockade of Iran's ports and coasts. He said the U.S. navy will not only intercept vessels leaving Iran near the Strait of Hormuz, but will also intercept tankers associated with the country across the globe.  


Steven Richards

Source: https://justthenews.com/government/security/hegseth-delivers-warning-directly-iranian-military-leaders-choose-wisely

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

OPEC for Americas? Iran conflict solidifies U.S. focus on Western Hemisphere oil - Steven Richards

 

by Steven Richards

American companies have already begun ramping up investments in Latin America, closing new deals with a freshly compliant Venezuela and friendly Argentina in recent days that promise new petroleum capacity in the hemisphere.

 

Oil supply disruptions from the conflict with Iran may present the perfect opportunity for the United States to reorder the global energy market by exploiting its own natural resources and investing in the Western Hemisphere.  

American companies have already begun ramping up investments in Latin America, closing new deals with a freshly compliant Venezuela and friendly Argentina in recent days that promise new capacity in the hemisphere. 

Tim Stewart, President of the trade association the U.S. Oil & Gas Association, told Just the News that the Iran conflict could push the United States to consider securing the energy markets from vulnerabilities abroad by focusing investments closer to home. 

“[T]hese events like this have the tendency to completely restructure the geopolitical order for generations and it wouldn’t surprise me after this Iran situation is kind of resolved, people will sit down and say, ‘Okay, let's now make sure this never happens again,” Stewart told the John Solomon Reports podcast. “North American [and] South American markets, we can control, or we can contain any sort of residual damage from that.” 

Stewart also said that the United States could exploit the opportunity to ensure that “we’re the reliable supplier” in case of “disruption events that may take place in the future.” 

Oil prices have fallen since beginning of conflict

Since the conflict began, Iran has bet that it can outlast the United States’ military operation by holding the global energy market hostage forever, Just the News previously reported. Regime officials have explicitly threatened high gas prices for consumers in a bid to pressure Trump to end his attacks.

The conflict has led to volatility in global oil pricing. Last week, the U.S. benchmark price of oil surged to $112 per barrel last week prior to Trump announcing a two-week ceasefire with Iran. Once announced, the West Texas Intermediate price fell below $100. It continued to fall Wednesday, settling around $91 per barrel. 

There are already signs that the global supertanker fleet is heading for the United States to capitalize on U.S. exports as supplies are restricted elsewhere. The market intelligence firm Kpler, which tracks power markets and maritime logistics, is currently tracking 70 of the supertankers heading to the United States. 

The U.S. is expected to export 5 million barrels per day of oil this month, setting a new record. For context, the U.S. exported 4 million barrels per day last year, down from the previous record of 4.6 million in February 2024, The Wall Street Journal reported. 

U.S. companies rush to Latin America

At the same time, American companies have moved quickly to secure production rights in Latin America. 

Earlier this week, Chevron signed two agreements with the interim Venezuelan government to expand its operations in the country’s Orinoco Belt. It is one of the first big expansion deals in the country since Caracas reformed its oil laws at the behest of the United States earlier this year. 

It is among the first of the major deals announced since the U.S. government outlined its $100 billion reconstruction plan Venezuela’s energy sector after President Donald Trump ordered the capture of the country’s former dictator, Nicolás Maduro, in a daring overnight operation on drug trafficking charges. 

U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has worked directly with Maduro’s successors to cut ties with China and Russia and expand energy cooperation with the United States to rebuild the country’s struggling economy. The Trump administration is eyeing an eventual political transition away from the remnants of the Maduro regime after economic stabilization. 

The pacts will allow Chevron to boost its crude oil output in Venezuela’s main oil region in cooperation with the Venezuelan state oil company, PDVSA, in a joint arrangement. 

"Oil imports will both bring revenue to Venezuela, and it's helping Americans," Chevron says

Amid the Iran conflict, Chevron has also boosted imports of Venezuelan oil to its refinery in Pascagoula, Mississippi, aiming to ease fuel prices in the United States. Oil imports will both "bring revenue to Venezuela, and it's helping Americans," Chevron president of global refining, Andrew Walz, told CBS News

The same day, fracking giant Halliburton Co. announced that it had secured an exclusive, multibillion-dollar contract from the state-run oil company of Argentina to develop the Vaca Muerta shale patch–one of the world’s largest formations. Halliburton will use its new ZEUS electric fracturing services to help Argentina boost production from the field, which currently produces about 600,000 barrels of oil per day, to a target of 1 million per day by 2030. 

Stewart told Just the News that he would “love to see” these arrangements eventually lead to an oil alliance in the Western Hemisphere modeled after the global Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Nations, or OPEC. 

“[I]t'd be much, much better for us consumers, given our ability to supply ourselves to be able to be tied to a Western Hemisphere market,” Stewart said. 

“I imagine if we had much greater, sort of, collaboration with like-minded countries or like-minded provinces […] I think what you'd see is you'd see a fairly significant insulation from other choke points halfway across the world,” he added.  


Steven Richards

Source: https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/energy/iran-conflict-solidifies-us-focus-western-hemisphere-oil-could-reorder

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Tariff refunds begin as administration signals possible rate reinstatement by July - Just the News

 

by Just the News

Many tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act have been invalidated, triggering a large-scale refund process for importers.

 

A year after President Donald Trump launched an expansive tariff campaign under the banner of “Liberation Day,” U.S. trade policy is undergoing a significant shift following a landmark Supreme Court decision. 

Many tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act have been invalidated, triggering a large-scale refund process for importers. At the same time, the administration is turning to alternative legal authorities to preserve key elements of its trade agenda.

Supreme Court Ruling  

On Feb. 20, the high court ruled 6–3 that the act does not grant the president authority to impose broad, indefinite tariffs. 

The decision dismantled the foundation of Trump’s reciprocal tariff program, which had imposed duties – generally starting at 10% and rising higher for certain countries and goods – to address international trade imbalances, national security concerns and issues such as fentanyl trafficking. 

Estimates suggest the tariffs generated $165 billion to $182 billion from early 2025 until the ruling.

Within hours of the decision, the administration invoked Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 to implement a temporary 10% across-the-board import surcharge on goods from most countries, effective February 24, 2026. This measure is set to expire after 150 days, on July 24, unless Congress extends it. 

Refunds Underway for Invalidated Tariffs

Although the Supreme Court did not directly address refunds, subsequent litigation has accelerated the process. On March 4, the U.S. Court of International Trade, led by Judge Richard K. Eaton, ordered U.S. Customs and Border Protection to halt collection of IEEPA-based duties and to facilitate refunds for 53 million entries. 

CBP is developing a four-step electronic refund system, including a claims portal and bulk-processing capabilities. As of early April, key components were reportedly 60% to 85% complete, with processing times estimated at roughly 45 days once operational. 

The agency has signaled that claims processing could begin by mid-April. More than 330,000 importers and millions of entries may be eligible, though filings to date have been concentrated among larger firms. Smaller businesses may rely more heavily on administrative protests.

Refunds will primarily go to importers – the entities that paid the tariffs at entry – rather than to consumers or downstream buyers. 

In total, refunds could return from $166 billion to $182 billion, with interest potentially adding billions more if payments extend into 2027. 

Tariff Policy Continues to Evolve

Even as refunds move forward, the administration has signaled it intends to maintain an aggressive tariff posture.

“We had a setback at the Supreme Court in terms of the tariff policy, but we will be implementing or conducting Section 301 studies, so the tariffs could be back in place at the previous level by beginning of July,” Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said Tuesday at a Wall Street Journal event in Washington.

The administration has indicated it will continue to rely on authorities such as Section 232 (national security), Section 301 (unfair trade practices), and the temporary Section 122 surcharge to maintain its “America First” approach. Recent actions include adjustments to metals tariffs, new pharmaceutical duties and ongoing trade negotiations with other countries. Officials continue to frame tariffs as a key negotiating tool, even in the wake of the IEEPA ruling.

Legal challenges are ongoing, including lawsuits targeting the Section 122 tariffs. Questions around implementation, exemptions, and potential extensions are likely to shape the policy landscape through 2026 and beyond. 


Just the News

Source: https://justthenews.com/nation/economy/tariff-refunds-begin-administration-signals-possible-rate-reinstatement-july

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

‘Desperate cash grab,’ expert says of Hochul, Mamdani proposed tax on high-end, second homes in NYC - Debra Nussbaum Cohen

 

by Debra Nussbaum Cohen

Nicole Gelinas, of Manhattan Institute, told JNS that the move from Albany and City Hall is a “gimmicky tax-the-rich idea” that’s a “marketing ploy” amid a stalled state budget.

 

Mamdani tax the rich
New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani holds a Tax Day forum with economists Gabriel Zucman and Joseph Stiglitz at the CUNY Graduate Center in Manhattan, April 15, 2026. Credit: Michael Appleton/Mayoral Photography Office.

 

Facing a looming $5.4 billion budget deficit gap this year and next, New York Gov. Kathy Hochul and New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani, both Democrats, are jointly backing a tax on high-end pieds-à-terres, or second homes, in New York City, which can sit empty much of the year.

The proposal, which was presented without much detail, would tax people who own a second home in New York that is worth more than $5 million. Hochul said her goal is to raise $500 million annually, which would go toward closing the anticipated $5.4 billion budget deficit in 2027.

“If you can afford a $5 million second home that sits empty most of the year, you can afford to contribute like every other New Yorker,” Hochul stated.

Nicole Gelinas, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute and contributing editor to its City Journal who researches urban policy, including public finance, told JNS that New York City is “long overdue” for a “full rethink of its property-tax system.”

Hochul
New York Gov. Kathy Hochul announces proposed a pied-à-terre tax to support New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s efforts to close New York City’s budget gap, April 15, 2026. Credit: Susan Watts/Office of Gov. Kathy Hochul.

“Gently discouraging keeping a house or apartment unoccupied might make sense in the context of full property-tax reform,” according to Gelinas, a contributing opinion writer at the New York Times.

“The mayor and governor have not proposed full property tax reform, instead isolating one gimmicky, tax-the-rich idea essentially as a marketing ploy as the state budget remains stalled,” she told JNS.

“It sounds good to most people who don’t have second homes” but isn’t a “rational tax strategy,” she said. “It’s also concerning that they are making a desperate cash grab when state and city revenues, including property tax dollars, are still naturally rising with the economy.”

Hochul said at a press conference that “what I’m saying is simple and similar to what other international cities like Paris and Toronto have already adopted, because it’s a matter of fairness to all those millions of residents who actually live here.”

“Those who benefit from the city without living in a full-time capacity should contribute to the costs that it takes to run the city: public safety, world class parks, amenities, the roads, the subway system,” she said. “This proposal simply ensures that they’re contributing in a meaningful way to keeping New York City the greatest city in the world, and it goes also to help the city’s budget gap.”

Mamdani spoke on Wednesday at a Tax Day forum with leading economists Joseph Stiglitz and Gabriel Zucman.

Mamdani tax the rich
New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani holds a Tax Day forum with economists Gabriel Zucman and Joseph Stiglitz at the CUNY Graduate Center in Manhattan, April 15, 2026. Credit: Michael Appleton/Mayoral Photography Office.

“This is a tax on properties worth more than $5 million that are owned by people who do not reside in New York City,” the mayor, a Democratic Socialist, said at the forum.

Mamdani said that the “super wealthy” buy properties and use them to “store their wealth” but don’t “pay back into that same city that generates so much of that wealth in the way that they should.”

“What we are talking about is a recognition of the inequality that has permeated politics through the five boroughs of our city, through our country, through the world,” he said. Mamdani called a projected exodus of high earners from the city, if taxes get too high, “imagined,” saying that “we have to reckon with the very real exodus that we are seeing in this city: an exodus of working-class people.”

The mayor has also proposed raising property taxes by more than 9% in the next fiscal year. That and the proposed new tax on secondary homes have met strong opposition.

Multiple real estate brokers, who cater to an ultra-wealthy clientele, declined to comment on the impact such a tax would have on the Big Apple real estate industry.

Bess Freedman, CEO of the real estate brokerage Brown Harris Stevens, wrote to her staff that “while this proposal is being framed as a tax on the ultra-wealthy, the reality is that its impact would extend far beyond a narrow segment of the market” to “every corner of our industry.”

Freedman reportedly added in the memo that “targeting the top of the market creates a ripple effect” and “when luxury values decline, it compresses pricing throughout the entire market, impacting homeowners at all levels.” (Freeman’s firm said earlier this month that more buyers spent $10 million or more to buy a new development residence in Manhattan in the first quarter of 2026 than in any other quarter of the past 10 years.)

Mamdani tax the rich
New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani holds a Tax Day forum with economists Gabriel Zucman and Joseph Stiglitz at the CUNY Graduate Center in Manhattan, April 15, 2026. Credit: Michael Appleton/Mayoral Photography Office.

At the event with Mamdani and the economists, Stiglitz, a former chief economist at the World Bank who holds a Nobel Prize in Economics, said that in the past 25 years, “41% of all the increase in wealth has gone to the top 1%.”

“The bottom 50% of the world has gotten just 1% of that increase in wealth. So inequality has been growing,” he said. The United States has “more inequality than any other advanced country,” he said.

Stiglitz, a Jewish university professor at Columbia University, pointed to Mamdani during his remarks and told the mayor that in his travels all over the world, “one of the striking things, as we’ve traveled, is everywhere, you are known.”

“You are as famous as Donald Trump, and the point I want to make is that the election in New York got so much attention everywhere because it was symbolic,” the economist said. “It showed that there was another side of the United States, that there were, you know, a city, which is the largest Jewish city, could elect somebody of very different persuasion, a religious belief.”

“It was a real testimony to the good side of humanity, and we need affirmation that there exists a good side to humanity right now,” he said. “One can’t underestimate the influence that New York has on the entire world as a symbol of what is possible.”


Debra Nussbaum Cohen is the New York correspondent for JNS.org. She is an award-winning journalist, who has written about Jewish issues for The New York Times, Wall Street Journal and New York magazine, as well as many Jewish publications. She is also author of Celebrating Your New Jewish Daughter: Creating Jewish Ways to Welcome Baby Girls into the Covenant.

Source: https://www.jns.org/news/u-s-news/desperate-cash-grab-expert-says-of-hochul-mamdani-proposed-tax-on-high-end-second-homes-in-nyc

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter