Saturday, September 5, 2026

U.S. forces strike three Iranian oil tankers after IRGC missile attack on U.S. warships - Nicholas Ballasy

 

by Nicholas Ballasy

According to CENTCOM, a U.S. aircraft carrier and guided-missile destroyer successfully evaded multiple Iranian attacks

 

U.S. Central Command forces struck three Iranian crude oil tankers on Sept. 5 after Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps launched ballistic missiles toward two U.S. Navy warships operating in regional waters.

According to CENTCOM, a U.S. aircraft carrier and guided-missile destroyer successfully evaded multiple Iranian attacks. No American personnel were injured.

CENTCOM said U.S. forces subsequently disabled two IRGC-linked crude oil carriers—the M/T Downy off the coast of Kharg Island and the M/T Stark 1 near Jask.

American forces also destroyed the unladen crude oil carrier M/T Kylo, also known as the “Noxen,” in the Gulf of Oman. The vessel was struck in multiple critical areas after its crew was ordered to abandon ship, according to CENTCOM. 


Nicholas Ballasy

Source: https://justthenews.com/world/middle-east/us-forces-strike-three-iranian-oil-tankers-after-irgc-missile-attack-us-warships

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

How Trump’s Blockade Could Break the Iranian Regime - Fred Fleitz

 

by Fred Fleitz

Trump’s Iran strategy is no longer just sanctions—it is economic strangulation backed by a naval blockade, asset seizures, and military force designed to break the regime.

 

Pundits on cable news keep insisting that President Trump’s economic strangulation campaign against Iran cannot work. Sanctions, they say, have never brought down a regime. They note that Iran has survived decades of economic sanctions due to weak compliance and selling discounted oil through a shadow fleet, mostly to China.

That argument misses what is happening now. After the Iranian regime rejected President Trump’s diplomatic offers—including a generous Memorandum of Understanding and the substantial financial incentives that accompanied it—he turned to a different strategy. This is not another round of paper sanctions. It is a naval blockade, backed by asset seizures and targeted strikes. It does not merely ask governments and banks to comply. It stops tankers. That is why the campaign has a realistic chance of forcing a political rupture in Tehran that sanctions alone cannot produce.

The core pressure is blocking Iran’s oil revenue. Before the latest phase of the blockade, Iran was exporting over one million barrels per day. These shipments have been halted. No meaningful fresh crude is reaching China, Iran’s last major buyer. Combined losses from oil, products, and related maritime trade have been estimated to be $300 million–500 million per day. This is a devastating blow to the regime’s economic lifeline.

China will still buy whatever Iranian oil it can get. It will not replace what the U.S. Navy is blocking, and it will not make Tehran whole for the lost revenue. Beijing can buy Iranian oil sitting in Asian floating storage, but it cannot replenish that stock from Iranian oil terminals while American forces interdict the Strait of Hormuz and Iranian ports.

The Treasury Department has launched a bold campaign to cut Iran’s remaining economic lifelines. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has described the goal as economic asphyxiation: freeze IRGC and other Iranian elite accounts in places like the British Virgin Islands, target $100 million properties abroad, seize crypto wallets, and threaten secondary sanctions on anyone still doing business with the regime. The message is that luxury homes and offshore accounts funded by stolen oil money are no longer safe. Those assets, Bessent has said, should be returned to the Iranian people or to victims of terrorism.

These steps are already having an effect inside Iran. Some officials have signaled interest in a deal, citing economic collapse and reports that ordinary Iranians are going hungry. High inflation, unpaid security forces, and food-voucher politics are warning signs—especially after Iran’s central bank acknowledged that oil-export revenues had fallen toward zero. A regime that lives on patronage and repression needs cash. When the cash stops, factions start looking for an exit.

The military campaign is part of the same strategy. U.S. strikes have repeatedly targeted the radars, missile sites, and maritime assets Iran uses to threaten shipping in the Strait of Hormuz. The latest attacks have been calibrated to prevent Tehran from rebuilding the sensors and launchers it needs to tax or sink oil tankers. Iran’s recent retaliatory strikes were another futile display of resistance. They caused little damage and were largely intercepted.

At home, the regime is doing what collapsing authoritarian governments typically do: tightening the vise. Executions have surged, including people charged with security offenses during the January mass protests. Parliament has moved to criminalize contact with Western media. This is not strength. It is a government that fears its own people talking to the outside world while shops are empty and oil sits unsold behind a U.S. blockade.

None of this guarantees a quick or orderly transition. Authoritarian regimes can endure misery for a long time if security services remain paid and cohesive. But the math confronting Tehran is brutal. A state that loses several hundred million dollars a day, cannot sell oil to its only major customer, sees its elites’ foreign properties be confiscated, and cannot rebuild the weapons it needs to defend itself or threaten its neighbors and shipping is not in a sustainable situation.

Sixty to ninety days of this pressure is a short interval in historical terms and a long one for a cash-starved security state. If the blockade holds, financial channels stay closed, and Iran cannot restore a credible threat to the strait, the choice facing Tehran’s remaining decision-makers becomes simpler: negotiate under duress or watch the country collapse. That is how President Trump’s economic strangulation strategy could work—if the United States stays with it over the coming months. 


Fred Fleitz

Source: https://amgreatness.com/2026/09/04/how-trumps-blockade-could-break-the-iranian-regime/

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Can they talk themselves into being comfortable with JD Vance? - Jonathan S. Tobin

 

by Jonathan S. Tobin

GOP Jews want to support their party’s possible 2028 candidate, and he wants their backing. But if he won’t disavow Tucker Carlson and his followers, then they can’t trust him.

 

U.S. Vice President JD Vance speaks to members of the media before boarding Air Force Two at Ben-Gurion International Airport on his way back to Washington, D.C., Oct. 23, 2025. Photo by Nathan Howard/POOL/AFP via Getty Images.
U.S. Vice President JD Vance speaks to members of the media before boarding Air Force Two at Ben-Gurion International Airport on his way back to Washington, D.C., Oct. 23, 2025. Photo by Nathan Howard/POOL/AFP via Getty Images.

The last thing Jewish Republicans want is to find themselves in the same predicament as their Democratic counterparts. And if it means accepting a less-than-ideal candidate for president in 2028, then that is a pill they’re prepared to swallow so long as their party sticks to its basic principles and remains both opposed to antisemitism and committed to supporting the State of Israel.

As far as most are concerned, that’s the situation they face heading into the next presidential election cycle with Vice President JD Vance assuming the role of frontrunner in the GOP race. And if they’re far from completely satisfied with what Vance told an audience at the annual Republican Jewish Coalition National Leadership Summit in Las Vegas this week—and there’s no reason why they should be—they can at least console themselves that their situation is nothing like the one faced by the dwindling remnant of moderate pro-Israel Jews in the Democratic Party.

A friendship or a compromise?

Indeed, if all anyone focuses on is what Vance said to the RJC (as opposed to what he didn’t say), then they may be right to consider that their place in the party is secure whether or not he succeeds President Donald Trump. What he told them could also lead them to believe that a prospective Vance administration would be—if not as sympathetic to Israel or as eager to fight campus antisemitism as Trump—committed to preserving the alliance and ideologically opposed to the toxic woke theories and practices that are driving Jew-hatred in 21st-century America. The points of agreement between Vance and politically conservative Jews are numerous, and his willingness to join them in expressing horror at what is happening on the other side of the aisle with the Democrats went a long way to assuring his listeners.

But the fact that Vance chose to exclude the press and forbid the recording of his remarks (even though, as both the vice president and the RJC knew would happen, myriad recordings of his appearance were made on private phones and then circulated widely on the Internet) was in and of itself a warning sign. That and the fact that Vance pointedly refused to address the most serious concerns about his candidacy and said some things that called into question the extent of Tucker Carlson’s influence on him made it obvious that what was going on wasn’t necessarily the start of a beautiful friendship. Instead, it may turn out to be a political shape-shifting act that could end badly for the Jews who talk themselves into believing that he’s a friend, rather than a potential adversary.

The veep certainly wants Jewish Republican campaign contributions and votes in 2028. But his appearance at the RJC, which was reportedly in response to their invitation and not at his request, should be seen as more an effort on the part of the group to remain relevant in the post-Trump era than a prospective presidential candidate coming to court them.

The Tucker problem

At the top of the list of issues with Vance are his close ties with the nation’s most prominent and arguably most dangerous antisemite: political commentator and podcaster Tucker Carlson. Vance pointedly refused to address the issue with the RJC, but any doubt about his refusal to disavow him was dismissed later in the week when he said as much in public and on the record.

The vice president frames the issue as both a matter of personal integrity and opposition to the troubling politicization of relationships in the era of Donald Trump. But while he can be applauded for his ideas about not blowing up friendships over politics and the toxic nature of cancel culture, this deliberately misses the point about his connection to Carlson.

The issue here isn’t about a political faction demanding that he be mean to an old pal. It’s about a deliberate stance in which, as he first made clear at the Turning Point USA AmericaFest last December, Vance won’t write off Carlson’s antisemitic followers. He may now speak of his disagreement with Carlson over many issues, including Israel, and, most recently, the former Fox News host’s endorsement of Michigan Democratic Senatorial nominee, Dr. Abdul El-Sayed, because of their mutual embrace of Jew-hatred.

But as long as Vance maintains that Carlson and his antisemitic followers must be included in the GOP “big tent”—a stance Trump doesn’t share—then Jews and the vast majority of pro-Israel Republicans who aren’t Jewish would be faced with a very different reality if he is elected president. Their views would be but one among many constituencies that a President Vance would consider, including those who view Jews with intense hostility, suspicion and even outright antipathy.

Nor should voters accept the notion that Vance considers his bond with Carlson to transcend political differences. No one should care if he doesn’t let disagreements with a close personal friend over tax rates, tariffs or even geostrategic issues like the war on Iran interfere with such a relationship. The problem is Vance’s apparent belief that Carlson’s rabid antisemitism, coupled with his platforming and endorsement of some of the most vicious tropes of Jew-hatred, falls within the proverbial Overton Window of issues about which reasonable people should be expected to agree to disagree.

Tolerating hate

People who spread antisemitism the way Carlson has done the past few years once he began podcasting on his own network after his firing from Fox News ought to be beyond the pale. And when a potential president signals that a rabid Jew-hater is still his buddy, it sends a message to the country and the world that prejudice against Jews is OK.

It’s true, as Vance alluded to at the RJC, that there is a growing constituency, especially among young conservatives who don’t view the U.S.-Israel alliance with the same instinctual support the way older Americans do. He’s not wrong that the pro-Israel community must find ways of reaching these people. But the issue isn’t only teaching them, as he noted, about the amazing benefits that the United States derives from its ties with Israel. It’s that all too many of them have been indoctrinated—either by the teachings of woke leftists who dominate the education system or the influence of people like Carlson—to believe that Israel and the Jews are intrinsically evil.

Vance assures us that he doesn’t share those beliefs, and we hope that’s true. And he was willing to denounce by name the neo-Nazi groyper Nick Fuentes (who has been platformed and given a softball interview by Carlson), though that may have more to do with the vile podcaster’s personal attack on the vice president’s family than anything else.

Still, by continuing to treat Carlson—and others who share his opinions or who have been influenced by them—as persons who shouldn’t be considered beyond the pale, Vance has been materially contributing to the mainstreaming and normalization of toxic ideas that he claims to oppose.

Also unaddressed in the RJC event, where he was tossed the softest of softball questions by former Minnesota Sen. Norm Coleman, was how Vance has emerged as the leading Israel critic in the administration during the current war on Iran. The vice president has variously accused Israel of trying to manipulate U.S. opinion on the war and echoed conspiracy theories about pedophile Jeffrey Epstein being connected to Israeli intelligence.

His words that disingenuously admonished Israelis—telling them they can’t “kill [their] way out of security threats”—also raised alarm bells about him in the pro-Israel community. He has further seemed to be taking a position on Tehran that resembled the Obama administration’s appeasement of the Islamist regime more than that of Trump’s position. But he wasn’t asked about any of that.

Also of concern was one thing he did say in the course of a convoluted attempt to show his opposition to antisemitism.

Vance confused the concept of a “blood libel” with that of “blood guilt.” A blood libel is when Jews are falsely accused of horrible crimes, such as the current accusation hurled by people like Carlson and his counterparts on the left that Israelis are committing a “genocide” against Palestinian Arabs in Gaza. Blood guilt has to do with the deicide myth in which Jews are wrongly held responsible for the death of the Christian messiah, something that has been used to justify antisemitism down through the ages.

By claiming that Jews are hated today because of “blood guilt,” rather than because of “blood libels,” it made it appear as if the highly educated and intellectual Vance knows very little about the subject. But since “blood guilt” is something that Carlson likes to talk about, it was more evidence that the podcaster has more influence on his close friend than those who want to minimize the relationship care to admit.

The Democrats are worse

Where does that leave the Jewish Republicans?

Let’s start by conceding that the situation among them is nothing like what’s going on in the Democratic Party, where its intersectional left-wing base has made hatred for Israel a key organizing principle of their political efforts.

Jewish Republicans aren’t being purged the way their liberal counterparts have been treated by the party that the majority of American Jews still calls home. Leading Jewish Democrats like Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer have felt constrained to endorse antisemites like El-Sayed. Others, like Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel, have sunk so low as to advise their fellow Jews that victory for the Democrats is so important that it was worth sacrificing the existence of Israel and the Jewish people as a whole to achieve it.

Jewish Republicans can console themselves that their party has rejected its antisemitic groyper wing in primaries. The GOP will be even more pro-Israel in the next Congress than in the current one due to those results. Meanwhile, the Jew-haters in the other party, including the increasingly dominant Democratic Socialists of America, are winning election after election and look to largely control the Democratic caucuses in the next Congress.

But should Vance be their nominee in 2028 and win, the influence of figures linked to Qatar, who are also supporting the vice president while also financing Carlson’s network, could wind up being a lot more important than the views of the RJC.

The Obama precedent

If so, then we may look back at the attempt to portray Vance as a friend of Israel and the Jewish people the same way we regard the sales job done by then presidential candidate Barack Obama in 2008 when he was wooing Jewish Democrats. He, too, had associations, beliefs and statements that rightly worried Jews and others who cared about the U.S.-Israel relationship. But so successful was his effort to pull the wool over the eyes of those who were eager to support him that even after eight years of Israel-bashing, appeasement of Iran and sowing the seeds of the Democrats’ current embrace of antisemitism, many Jews still revere him.

Indeed, so complete was his mastery of the art of persuasion that after a first term that alarmed the pro-Israel community, Obama was able to execute a Jewish charm offensive in 2012 before pivoting again to attempt a rapprochement with Iran.

History doesn’t repeat itself. Nor does it rhyme. The situation with Vance is different.

He is clearly not as invested in a view of Israel and the Jews that was connected to settler-colonialism ideology as was Obama. While Obama had mentors and people with influence in his orbit hostile to Jewish interests, like former terrorist Bill Ayers and the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, he didn’t have a close friend quite like Carlson. And Vance also doesn’t have Obama’s knowledge of Jewish politics and ideas. Unlike Trump, who knew the pro-Israel community well from a life spent in New York real estate (though he remains baffled by Jews who don’t prioritize support for the Jewish state), Vance is clearly at sea when it comes to understanding American Jews.

In one sense, the RJC’s effort to build bridges with Vance may be sound political strategy. Politics is always a matter of difficult choices, and there’s no question that the Democrats are—and likely will be for the foreseeable future—worse for the Jews. The Republican Party as a whole remains solidly pro-Israel and aligned against the antisemitism that has taken hold of their rivals.

If Vance wins, they need to be able to claim that they did their best to support him and be able to claim a place at the table in the next GOP administration. However, if Israel and Jew-haters are allowed to sit at the table alongside them, they will never be able to trust him or really feel at home in an administration where Carlson and his followers are also welcome. 


Jonathan S. Tobin is editor-in-chief of JNS, a columnist for Newsweek and a contributor to many other publications. He covers the American political scene, foreign policy, the U.S.-Israel relationship, Middle East diplomacy, the Jewish world and the arts. He hosts the JNS “Think Twice” podcast, both the weekly video program and the “Jonathan Tobin Daily” program, available on all major audio platforms and on YouTube. Previously, he was executive editor, then senior online editor and chief political blogger, for Commentary magazine. Before that, he was editor-in-chief of The Jewish Exponent in Philadelphia and editor of the Connecticut Jewish Ledger. He has won 60-plus awards for his columns, commentary, art criticism and other writing. He appears regularly on television, commenting on politics and foreign policy. Born in New York City, he studied history at Columbia University.

Source: https://www.jns.org/opinion/column/jonathan-s-tobin/can-they-talk-themselves-into-being-comfortable-with-jd-vance

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Iran Was Losing. Then Washington Gave It Time. But What about the Kitchen Table? - Pierre Rehov

 

by Pierre Rehov

Voters possess a healthy, survival-dose of self-interest. They do not need to hear about Trump's many accomplishments, as praiseworthy as they are. They need to hear from Trump what he will do for them.

 

  • Trump's biggest objectives at the moment concern not only Iran, Russia and China, but also how to help his party retain control of the House of Representatives and Senate. Most important is to remind voters not of his accomplishments, but to return to what got him elected in the first place: focus on them. He will need to tell Americans, whose wages have not kept up with inflation, what, in the most practical terms, he will do to help.

  • Voters possess a healthy, survival-dose of self-interest. They do not need to hear about Trump's many accomplishments, as praiseworthy as they are. They need to hear from Trump what he will do for them. The cost of food, housing, electricity and gasoline — combined with subversive foreign propaganda to induce a fear of artificial intelligence and data centers — are all too real. It is hard to be impressed even by a spectacular and extremely necessary campaign against Iran if you are one of the 271,000 people whose jobs were cut by the administration, or one of the the 180,000 who were laid off by Big Tech. Too many voters are understandably terrified. They are looking toward anyone who will address their immediate concerns. Every morning, Trump needs to repeat "Kitchen Table" a hundred times.

  • Yes, Trump needs to win in Iran, continue his crucial reshoring, expand his economic boom even further to the middle class and the disadvantaged, and keep Russia, China and North Korea in line. To have a historic final two years of his term, however, Trump will need to reassure voters about their future, not his past.

President Donald Trump's biggest objectives at the moment concern not only Iran, Russia and China, but also how to help his party retain control of the House of Representatives and Senate. Most important is to remind voters not of his accomplishments, but to return to what got him elected in the first place: focus on them. He will need to tell Americans, whose wages have not kept up with inflation, what, in the most practical terms, he will do to help. Pictured: Trump answers questions from reporters during a Cabinet meeting on July 31, 2026 in Camp David, Maryland. (Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)

Military superiority rarely decides wars against regimes that measure victory by survival. The Islamic Republic of Iran, since its Islamic Revolution in 1979, has been refining this distinction.

By the first week of April, Iran was losing. Its naval fleet was on the seabed, its aircraft grounded, and American and Israeli aircraft were operating in Iranian skies unopposed. Washington then began granting extensions. Five months later, the Iranian regime is still setting conditions rather than receiving them.

Operation Epic Fury opened on February 28 with strikes that killed Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, and with a video address in which US President Donald J. Trump told the Iranian people that their hour of their freedom was at hand and that their government would be theirs to take. Six weeks earlier, during the January uprising in which regime security forces killed tens of thousands of its own citizens -- estimates range from 32,000 to 100,000 -- Trump had urged the Iran's population to keep protesting and promised that "help is on its way." The objectives assigned to the US military were narrower: destroy Iran's ballistic missile and drone capabilities, destroy its navy, destroy its defense industrial base. By the White House's own accounting, more than 13,000 targets were struck in 38 days.

Tehran's answer was maritime. Iran closed the Strait of Hormuz, mined it, boarded merchant vessels and made the shipping chokepoint its one remaining instrument of pressure. Washington replied with ultimatums. On March 22, Trump gave Iran 48 hours to reopen the strait or lose its power stations. The deadline slipped five days, then ten more, to April 6, when he described a four-hour plan to demolish every bridge and every power plant in the country. On April 7, hours before that deadline expired, Trump warned that a whole civilization would die that night, then suspended the attack for two weeks after calls from Pakistan's prime minister and army chief, calling a ten-point Iranian proposal a workable basis for negotiation.

Three postponements in 16 days amount to a strategy. Military campaigns do not resume at the point where they were interrupted, and surprise cannot be put into storage. What Iran's regime learned was that American resolve carried a price negotiated in public. Confirmation came within hours. On the day Trump was promising annihilation, Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) halted two Qatari gas tankers that a Pakistani-brokered arrangement had cleared for transit in the Strait of Hormuz.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had telephoned days earlier to counsel against any ceasefire at that stage. Direct talks in Islamabad collapsed after 21 hours on April 12, and Washington began blockading Iranian ports the next day, which is not the conduct of a government confident its truce is holding.

The mediation architecture compounded the problem. Pakistan carried the American proposals and brokered the April pause. Egypt and Turkey pressed a phased framework. Qatar and Oman took the maritime file. Their effect was to guarantee Tehran an interlocutor other than the United States, and to ensure every American ultimatum arrived with a third party counseling restraint. Iran built its regional network so that pressure applied to Tehran could be exported elsewhere, and diplomacy that leaves the network standing preserves the system the war was meant to dismantle.

The Islamabad Memorandum, signed June 17, measures the distance traveled in 14 articles. Article 2 commits both parties to refraining from interfering in each other's internal affairs, retiring Trump's February 28 encouragement to revolution. Article 6 commits Washington and regional partners to a reconstruction plan for Iran worth at least $300 billion. Article 7 commits the US to terminate all sanctions, including UN Security Council and IAEA resolutions. Article 9 freezes Iran's nuclear program at its current status quo and bars Washington from new sanctions or additional deployments. Article 8 obtains in exchange a reaffirmation that Iran will not acquire nuclear weapons, and an agreement to discuss uranium enrichment later.

Ballistic missiles appear nowhere in that text. Neither Hezbollah nor Hamas nor the Houthis are mentioned at any point. The objectives that justified the war to the American public survived in the military ledger and evaporated from the diplomatic one. IAEA inspectors have been unable to account for Iran's enriched uranium since June 2025, and the agency's director believes much of the 440 kilograms enriched to 60% remains buried at Isfahan.

The asymmetry is structural. Tehran has never needed to defeat the United States on a battlefield. The regime needs only to survive long enough for American objectives to become negotiable. When the regime fears imminent consequences, its appetite for diplomacy grows; when the danger recedes, diplomacy becomes the instrument for obtaining what its military cannot. By stopping when it did, Washington also demonstrated that Hormuz could be converted into American restraint.

The June framework lasted three weeks. After Iranian drones struck merchant ships in Hormuz, Trump on July 8, declared the MOU finished, called Iranian officials "scum," and ordered new strikes. Tehran suspended its own commitments 10 days later. By mid-July, Washington was reimposing the blockade and floating the idea of US tolls on the strait, while Iran informed ships transiting the strait must follow routes that it defined.

August clarified America's options. Iran's Supreme National Security Council now conditions the reopening of Hormuz on an end to American military operations against Iran and its allies, the lifting of the US blockade, the withdrawal of American forces from the region, the release of frozen assets, sanctions relief, and compensation for war damage.

Trump said on August 9 that Washington is low-keying it and only "semi-negotiating," apparently content to let Iranian inflation accomplish what bombing did not. He answered the reparations claim the next day with one of his own, instructing his negotiators to demand payment for Americans killed by Iranian roadside bombs and for protesters the regime has killed over 47 years, and citing Iran's nuclear weapons program as the reason the war began, two months after signing a document that froze that program in place. Tehran had meanwhile replaced the secretary of its security council with Mohsen Rezaei, who led the IRGC through the Iran-Iraq War and advises the new supreme leader, Mojtaba Khamenei.

Meanwhile, US Secretary of the Treasury Scott Bessent announced a total economic siege on Iran, including secondary sanctions — sanctioning not only Iran but also countries that do business with it. Iran's population is already suffering from an inflation rate of 87%, and reports have disclosed that lines for gasoline last all night. Bessent added that the US knows where Iran's leaders' secret bank accounts are in the British Virgin Islands, as well as their $100 million homes.

A domestic reckoning might be on the way. Trump's brand had rested on the proposition, backed up by action, that American threats would be believed.

Trump's biggest objectives at the moment concern not only Iran, Russia and China, but also how to help his party retain control of the House of Representatives and Senate. Most important is to remind voters not of his accomplishments, but to return to what got him elected in the first place: focus on them. He will need to tell Americans, whose wages have not kept up with inflation, what, in the most practical terms, he will do to help.

Voters possess a healthy, survival-dose of self-interest. They do not need to hear about Trump's many accomplishments, as praiseworthy as they are. They need to hear from Trump what he will do for them. The cost of food, housing, electricity and gasoline — combined with subversive foreign propaganda to induce a fear of artificial intelligence and data centers — are all too real. It is hard to be impressed even by a spectacular and extremely necessary campaign against Iran if you are one of the 271,000 people whose jobs were cut by the administration, or one of the 180,000 who were laid off by Big Tech. Too many voters are understandably terrified. They are looking to anyone who will address their immediate concerns. Every morning, Trump needs to repeat "Kitchen Table" a hundred times.

Yes, Trump needs to win in Iran, continue his crucial reshoring, expand his economic boom even further to the middle class and the disadvantaged, and keep Russia, China and North Korea in line. To have a historic final two years of his term, however, Trump will need to reassure voters about their future, not his past. 


Pierre Rehov
, who holds a law degree from Paris-Assas, is a French reporter, novelist and documentary filmmaker. He is the author of six novels, including "Beyond Red Lines", "The Third Testament" and "Red Eden", translated from French. His latest essay on the aftermath of the October 7 massacre " 7 octobre - La riposte " became a bestseller in France. As a filmmaker, he has produced and directed 17 documentaries, many photographed at high risk in Middle Eastern war zones, and focusing on terrorism, media bias, and the persecution of Christians. His latest documentary, "Pogrom(s)" highlights the context of ancient Jew hatred within Muslim civilization as the main force behind the October 7 massacre.

Source: https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/22836/iran-was-losing-washington-gave-it-time

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

The new libel to destroy Israel - Melanie Phillips

 

by Melanie Phillips

Violence in the “West Bank” is being malevolently misrepresented.

 

Protesters demonstrate at Paris Square in central Jerusalem against attacks by extremist Jewish settlers on Palestinians in the West Bank, Sept. 2, 2026. Photo by Yonatan Sindel/Flash90.
Protesters demonstrate at Paris Square in central Jerusalem against attacks by extremist Jewish settlers on Palestinians in the West Bank, Sept. 2, 2026. Photo by Yonatan Sindel/Flash90.

As every part of the “Gaza genocide” mass libel is exposed as a total fabrication, the new mass libel of “settler violence” has replaced it.

From the politicians, NGOs and mainstream media that promulgated the genocide lie, there’s been no acknowledgment of the collapse of the grotesque falsehoods they promoted about starvation and wanton killing of health workers and journalists that have fueled unprecedented attacks on Jews throughout the West.

Instead, without drawing breath, they’re promoting the new purported Israeli mass atrocity of “settler violence.”

This is doing far more damage than the genocide charge. That was patently preposterous, an inversion of the reality of genocidal Palestinian Arab attack and Israel’s supremely just war of self-defense.

By contrast, the claim of “settler violence” carries an element of truth that is being vastly exaggerated to damage the State of Israel itself.

The narrative in the West is that fanatical and violent Israeli “settlers” harass and attack local Arabs to drive them off their land, so that these ultra-nationalist religious Jews can erect yet more “illegal” outposts in a land grab across the “West Bank” of Judea and Samaria.

In recent days, this has spawned a sub-narrative of violent “settlers” laying siege to Arabs cowering inside their homes in the villages of Qusra and Jalud.

There’s no doubt that there’s a problem with fanatical Israeli youths attacking Arab property or mosques that has not been properly addressed. The Israel Defense Forces have now arrested a 19-year-old Israeli over the disturbances in Qusra. The authorities should have shut this problem down, but reprehensibly have not.

But these violent Israelis are very small in number.

David Zini, the head of the Israeli Security Agency (or Shin Bet), has said there’s a hard core of 70 to 100 offenders, mostly not even “settlers” at all but delinquent youths from elsewhere in the country.

Other Israeli sources put the number of these delinquents at between 200 and 500.

But half a million Israeli residents live in these disputed territories—overwhelmingly law-abiding people. And while they are being grotesquely defamed across the West, they are coming under violent and sometimes murderous attack by Arabs every single day.

The overwhelming majority of attacks in these disputed areas are by Arabs on Jews—thousands of incidents of rock-throwing, stabbings, arson, car-rammings, criminal damage and murder.

Moreover, the stories of these sieges have another side.

Last Shabbat, there was a reported siege of an Arab house on Talpiot hill near Jerusalem, with masked Israelis arriving by car.

But according to local Israeli residents, dozens of masked Arab rioters from the nearby village of Kfar Qasim, accompanied by foreign media photographers, ascended the hill, threw stones at residents, and set up barricades to thwart the arrival of IDF forces.

More Arabs then reportedly entered an abandoned house, barricaded themselves inside, and threw stones from it at the Jews in an attempt to brand the incident as another “siege.” Videos shot by local Israeli residents showed masked Arabs throwing stones while foreign journalists stood behind them filming.

On the same Shabbat, masked men described as “settlers” attacked an NBC crew in nearby Jalud. The American journalists were investigating a very similar claim that settlers had “besieged” an Arab family’s property.

The NBC footage itself shows masked men driving directly up to a camera crew, attacking them and leaving. But there was no evidence that these were even Israelis, let alone “settlers.”

There’s also a pattern of American involvement in these situations.

Loui Ridi, a Palestinian American from Ohio who lives full-time in America, said he built his house—the “siege” house—in Qusra three years ago.

In The New York Times, Ridi acknowledged that a week after the siege began, he returned to the house carrying an American flag “as a signal to the American people and the U.S. government to take action” and “impose sanctions on these settlers.”

As Reuters reported, when Ridi arrived, he made his way to Qusr “accompanied by several journalists.” Has anyone ever heard of a siege that a person actually joins behind the siege lines from outside, while brandishing a flag and accompanied by a phalanx of journalists? Does that sound like desperation—or a political stunt?

All these accounts are obviously difficult to verify. But media reports of “settler violence” don’t even acknowledge there’s another side to these stories. Nor do these journalists ask any blindingly obvious questions.

For example, why do so many foreign film crews just happen to be on the scene when Israeli “settlers” launch their unprovoked attacks? Or why are there multiple similar claims of sieges on family homes on the same day?

Or why do spontaneous attacks on local Arabs by Israelis coincide with the regular arrival of foreign activists who provoke the IDF and create violent disturbances, as was filmed in Hebron—by another amazing coincidence—last Shabbat?

The overwhelming majority of attacks in these disputed areas are by Arabs on Jews—thousands of incidents of rock-throwing, stabbings, arson, car-rammings, criminal damage and murder.

In recent days, while politicians and journalists whipped up “settler violence” claims into a feeding frenzy, residents in the Judean hills reported that Arabs from a local village had infiltrated the grazing areas of an Israeli farm and scattered lethal poison hidden inside the herds’ drinking troughs.

Jewish shepherds who arrived to find their dying goats—videos of which were posted on social media—said they were attacked with stones by dozens of Arabs lying in wait nearby.

Jewish residents say farmers’ herds are regularly being stolen and turning up in the Arab casbah. When IDF troops go in to retrieve them, they are set upon by hundreds of Arabs with stones and fireworks.

Israelis’ extremist or revenge attacks on Arabs, their homes or their mosques are happening, and they are shocking and inexcusable—as are their nihilistic attacks on IDF soldiers. But this is a highly complex situation that’s being weaponized to delegitimize and destroy Israel itself.

Western media and politicians never acknowledge attacks on the “settlers,” who have been effectively dehumanized.

The prevailing unwisdom is that they shouldn’t be there in the first place because they are in “illegal occupation of Palestinian land.” So if they are attacked or even murdered, they’re asking for everything they get, and their plight doesn’t even deserve a mention.

Apart from the callous inhumanity of this attitude, it also displays gross ignorance of history and international law.

Unfortunately, a significant number of IDF members and police, who are on the left along with most mainstream Israeli media outlets, also hate the “settlers” and produce a distorted picture on which the venomous West greedily feeds. And Israeli politicians, including the prime minister and president, have merely condemned the Israeli “rioters” and refrained from presenting the other side of the story.

Those who assume that this means the “settler violence” canard is true would do well to remember how in 2000, the Israelis leapt to take responsibility for the apparent shooting and killing of a Palestinian Arab child, Mohammed al-Durah, when a demonstration in the Gaza Strip during the Second Intifada apparently came under IDF fire.

Subsequent evidence revealed that the boy had not been killed and that the whole demonstration was staged.

But the Israelis were less concerned with establishing the truth than with tamping everything down and making the issue go away. The result was a libel against Israel that incited untold numbers of killings, including the murder of American journalist Daniel Pearl.

The same politically craven thinking seems to be operating here. Israel is now under enormous pressure over “settler violence” from both the Trump administration and American Jews, for whom this has become the No. 1 issue because they, too, believe the distorted accounts.

In addition to finally dealing properly with the true miscreants, Israel should not only be responding with the real story behind these “settler attacks,” including the role of foreign provocateurs. It should be telling the world that its citizens have the legal right to live in these disputed territories. It should also be publicly listing every single Arab attack on these Jewish residents.

But as ever, the Israeli government thinks there’s no point trying to persuade the incorrigibly anti-Jewish West of the truth and justice of Israel’s cause.

The result is untold damage being done to the Jewish state, as yet again it fails to engage with the war being waged against it on the battleground of the mind.  


Melanie Phillips, a British journalist, broadcaster and author, writes a weekly column for JNS. Currently a columnist for The Times of London, her new book, Fighting the Hate: A Handbook for Jews Under Siege, has just been published by Wicked Son. Her previous book, The Builder’s Stone: How Jews and Christians Built the West and Why Only They Can Save It, was published in 2025. Access her work at: melaniephillips.substack.com.

Source: https://www.jns.org/opinion/column/melanie-phillips/the-new-libel-to-destroy-israel

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

I Pledge Allegiance to…? - Thaddeus G. McCotter

 

by Thaddeus G. McCotter

The Left has shredded the governing paradigm.

 

 

Once more in these trying times, Americans are compelled to recognize and reflect upon the lessons of history.

First, we are compelled to note the danger posed by the radical Left that has pledged its allegiance to ideology over country, rejecting any shard of patriotism for our free republic and shredding the governing paradigm that has united us as sovereign citizens.

What has traditionally united us as Americans is the recognition that our inspired experiment in self-government is a sacred undertaking. Further, we recognize that each succeeding generational calibration of the tension between liberty and equality, while often arduous, is a necessary, noble pursuit made possible, in large part, by equal justice under law. (The expansion and improvement of this legal equality being one of most significant advances accomplished by succeeding generations of Americans.)

Indeed, the supreme law of the land, the U.S. Constitution, issues us a challenge to forge a “more perfect union.” Behind this is the eminently practical realization that no nation comprised of frail, flawed human beings can ever be perfected. Yet, amid an environment of ordered liberty and equal justice under the law, our union can certainly be made less imperfect. That liberty, equality, and the oft-contentious relationship between the two is incapable of being perfected is inarguable to rational minds. It is also true, however, that they can be and have been improved, promoted, and protected in creating a “more perfect union.”

Thus, a governing paradigm in which Americans operated evolved from the beginning: America was an imperfect free republic that was, nonetheless, great, in that it possessed the requisite conditions to continually forge a better future for all—i.e., a “more perfect union.”

Today’s Left denies this is possible and, believing our nation as constituted is irredeemable, has shredded the governing paradigm that has united Americans to impose its radical agenda upon their fellow citizens.

Logic is a stubborn thing. Presently, the radical Left holds racism to be one of the worst beliefs any individual or institution may hold. With this, the vast majority of Americans justly agree. But the Left takes it further.

The Left holds that since our republic’s birth, racism is and remains America’s foundational, systemic, and persistent sin. Believing this sin to be irredeemable, the Left cannot and does not love America.

Ominously, the philosophical divide between the radical Left and the rest of the country regarding whether America needs to be fundamentally transformed is even greater than it was during the Civil War era.

The supporters of preserving the Union believed that America was great, but could never form a more perfect union as long as slavery remained a sinful stain upon the land. The Confederate states also believed America was great, but believed it could never form a more perfect union if slavery was abolished.

Ultimately, even within a governing paradigm where both sides believed America was great, the Confederate states could not abide equality for all who resided in our land; and years of horrific slaughter during the Civil War preceded a Union victory and the emancipation of an entire race into freedom.

Like the secessionists, the current Left loves what they think they can fundamentally transform America into—namely, a socialist utopia for the masses but ruled by a minority of like-minded Leftists. Unlike the secessionists, the current Left does not want to leave the Union and apply its radical vision only upon itself. It wants to foist its insanity upon everyone.

This brings us to a second lesson of history: When radicals promise “heaven on earth,” they ultimately deliver a hellish nightmare.

The radical Left cannot abide those whose patriotism for our nation is unconditional. These individuals, be they Republicans, Democrats, or Independents, are considered obstacles to be removed from the path of the Left’s agenda for America.

As evidenced by the Left’s promotion of “repressive tolerance” and opposition to free speech (among other human rights to be eroded under its rule), its opponents, presently, are targeted for social “cancellation.” But the lessons of history also record this may well be only a passing milestone along the Left’s pursuit of more lethal means to terminate dissent.

Indeed, in its hubris and hatred of our free republic, the radical Left has fecklessly shorn itself of any allegiance to the reality of America and shredded the governing paradigm that has protected the public from tumult and terror.

The radical Left has pledged allegiance not to our country but to its ideology. Thus, as this lesson of history is being drafted, the question is how Americans will write it.

Will our free people vote to resist and refute the radical Left’s socialist, anti-democratic agenda and restore the parameters of America’s governing paradigm?

Or will the public be coaxed and cowed into voting to reward the radical Left and hastening the dissolution of our free republic’s sacred quest to form a more perfect union?

This lesson of history awaits your verdict. 


Thaddeus G. McCotter

Source: https://amgreatness.com/2026/09/05/i-pledge-allegiance-to/

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Top White House official says he believes Trump speech censorship behind Bartiromo ouster at Fox - Amanda Head

 

by Amanda Head

How a presidential speech, an interview request and a stunning text preceded Fox News yanking a top anchor from the airwaves.

 

Assistant to the President Peter Navarro has been alongside Donald Trump for more than a decade, as a trade policy architect, relentless defender and even an adviser sent to prison for refusing to violate the president's executive privilege.

So when he received a text message in July from a star anchor at Fox News suggesting the storied TV network fancied by millions of conservatives might underplay a major address by the 47th president on election vulnerabilities, he sprung into action.

The text message was from longtime Fox Business anchor Maria Bartiromo, host of the network's popular Sunday show, offering an explanation why Navarro wasn't going to appear on her show the morning after Trump's big speech as he had hoped.

The text, obtained by Just the News, was a screenshot of an internal communication among Fox News executives stating the network officially was not promoting the speech or planning morning-after coverage even though Trump was releasing newly declassified government memos detailing intelligence agency concerns dating to 2020 about election machine and voter registration data vulnerabilities.

"Hi--We don't want to promote it or push to the speech at all," the screenshot of the message stated. "We don't want to do 2020 election segments at all Thurs or Friday."

Navarro said the message was clear to him, so he sent it up the chain inside the White House, hoping Fox News chief executive Suzanne Scott would be held accountable for the network's decision.

"This is unconscionable. I did what duty required. I received information that Fox and Suzanne Scott were censoring a major speech and I passed it on," Navarro told Just The News in an interview Friday night.

The episode in mid-July reportedly is at the center of a weeks-long drama inside Fox News that led to this week's decision by Fox to permanently remove Bartiromo from its airwaves.

The decision whipsawed many loyal fans of Fox News, including the president himself, who reacted with sadness.

"I can't believe Maria Bartiromo is no longer going to have her great show(s) on FoxNews/Business. Three different shows, always number one. Maria is a total professional and a true warrior," Trump wrote on Truth Social on Thursday.

It also touched off a firestorm of false speculation, ranging from Bartiromo being officially fired to the network was trying to protect China from revelations in Trump's speech.

Just the News talked with several people with direct knowledge of what transpired who confirmed that while Bartiromo has been permanently removed from airwaves, she has not been fired. She remains under contract until 2029 and will be paid even though she won't appear on television shows.

Her lawyer confirmed as much in a statement Friday.

Attorney Bryan Freedman called reports that she was fired or is no longer a Fox employee “absolutely and unequivocally false,” saying, “we have the receipts and witnesses.”

People familiar with the episode also said the events that led to Bartiromo's ouster also had nothing to do with China, but rather with the network's reluctance to wade into anything involving the 2020 election or election machine vulnerabilities, after Fox was forced to pay hundreds-of-millions of dollars to settle defamation lawsuits by two American voting machine makers.

Bartiromo, a spokesperson for Fox and officials in the White House declined to comment.

According to Navarro, he was set to appear on Bartiromo's show the day after Trump gave his speech.

Navarro's appearance, however, was canceled before the segment, and Bartiromo offered the text message as a polite explanation for the cancellation.

Navarro said he believes Fox News' announcement that it was taking Bartiromo off the airwaves was retaliation for the shared communications and any backlash that came with it.

 "The White House expressed displeasure with the decision, and now they're blaming Maria by taking her job, and they're blaming me," he said, adding that he has not been back on Fox News for weeks since the episode.

"Her [Bartiromo] problem with Fox is that she's fearless and reports the story. My problem with Fox is that I'm fearless and tell the story," Navarro said.

It is rare for anyone inside the Trump White House to publicly express concern about Fox News, which has been a staple of conservative viewing for three decades and routinely dominates the cable channel news ratings.

Fox News carried Trump's speech live during star Sean Hannity's show, but it did not have extensive coverage on the documents or the speech in the days that followed.

Navarro said he and other administration officials have endured an "on-again, off-again" relationship with the network over the last several years.

Navarro said that in his opinion "the people of America need to know that you will not get reliable reporting from Fox News on China, on Fauci and on election security, as long as Suzanne Scott is calling the balls and strikes. And tariffs as well."

Bartiromo's rise

Bartiromo rose to national prominence after joining CNBC in 1993, following five years as a producer and writer at CNN Business News, then becoming in 1995 the first television journalist to deliver daily live reports from the floor of the New York Stock Exchange. 

The Brooklyn-born NYU journalism and economics graduate quickly became a recognizable figure amid the 1990s bull market, earning the tabloid nickname “Money Honey” as she reported from the chaotic, male-dominated trading floor and later anchored programs including Squawk Box, Closing Bell with Maria Bartiromo, and the syndicated Wall Street Journal Report

Her pioneering NYSE presence, combined with two Emmy Awards and two decades as one of CNBC’s most visible faces, established her as a leading financial journalist before she moved to Fox Business Network in 2014.

Trump praised her as a “true warrior” on social media, while speculation that she might join the administration as press secretary was dismissed by Vice President JD Vance. 

Just The News reached out to Fox News and Ms. Scott for comment but did not hear back as of the publishing of this article. 


Amanda Head
is White House Correspondent for Just The News. You can follow her here.  

Source: https://justthenews.com/government/white-house/bartiromo

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Do Not Be Fooled: Iran's Islamist Regime Is Building a Post-Trump Nightmare - Majid Rafizadeh

 

by Majid Rafizadeh

Without another leader as willing as Trump to confront Tehran directly, the regime will extract concessions, dictate terms, and attain hegemonic power in the region.

 

  • Iran's Islamist regime has not been in power by accident for nearly 50 years. The regime is already laying the groundwork for conditions that will make the world far more perilous after President Donald Trump's term of office ends.

  • What Iran is doing now is preparing for the post-Trump era — as in the series of arrangements and agreements with Oman for the Strait of Hormuz — control over roughly one-fifth of the world's oil transit outside U.S. or Western control.

  • Without another leader as willing as Trump to confront Tehran directly, the regime will extract concessions, dictate terms, and attain hegemonic power in the region.

  • The regime only has to wait out two small remaining years of this administration before it can resume doing anything it wants.

  • Above all, Iran's current leadership cannot stay. If this regime is allowed to remain in power, the world after Trump will not be the same. The United States would do itself a great service to resume working closely with Israel.

  • There is no realistic path for Iran to become a constructive, peaceful country while its current leadership remains.... If it stays, there will be no lasting peace, security, or good life for democracies or the West

Iran's Islamist regime has not been in power by accident for nearly 50 years. The regime is already laying the groundwork for conditions that will make the world far more perilous after President Donald Trump's term of office ends. Pictured: A billboard pledging revenge against the United States, in Tehran, on July 27, 2026. (Photo by AFP via Getty Images)

Iran's Islamist regime has not been in power by accident for nearly 50 years. The regime is already laying the groundwork for conditions that will make the world far more perilous after President Donald Trump's term of office ends.

The regime is a dictatorship, oriented long-term. What Iran is doing now is preparing for the post-Trump era — as in the series of arrangements and agreements with Oman for the Strait of Hormuz — control over roughly one-fifth of the world's oil transit outside U.S. or Western control. Recent joint meetings of the Hormuz Committee and frameworks for temporary corridors, mine-clearing, and permanent management reveal that — no surprise — Iran is seeking lasting influence over the waterway, "service fees" of a few million dollars per tanker, day after day, as well as geopolitical leverage over oil-dependent countries, even in the West.

Some of the revenue Iran earns would also flow to its proxies — Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis, and other militias. Without another leader as willing as Trump to confront Tehran directly, the regime will extract concessions, dictate terms, and attain hegemonic power in the region.

The Oman negotiations are planning for the period after Trump. Pressure might ease, and Iran could resume holding energy markets hostage — extracting further concessions while expanding its terror network

Iran's regime appears to believe it can survive the economic sanctions. It already has. It weathered multiple rounds of United Nations Security Council sanctions, not merely unilateral U.S. measures, and endured an eight-year war with Iraq. The regime only has to wait out two small remaining years of this administration before it can resume doing anything it wants.

Iran, with the help of its allies, Russia and China (here, here and here), has been using pauses in the action to rebuild its military capabilities. Russia has been helping Iran develop supersonic cruise missiles, as well as having shipped explosives, ammunition, and drone components to restock arsenals depleted in recent fighting. Ballistic-missile reconstitution has already surprised observers with its speed. Iran, Russia and China are clearly planning to hold the world hostage in a broader challenge to the existing order.

Economic sanctions, including stringent secondary sanctions, as outlined by U.S. Secretary of the Treasury Scott Bessent, need to be tightly enforced, especially against Russia and China, countries that are enabling Iran. Pressure also needs to be applied to Gulf states and other neighboring countries, including Iraq, to halt talks and arrangements that strengthen Tehran's hand.

Above all, Iran's current leadership cannot stay. If this regime is allowed to remain in power, the world after Trump will not be the same. The United States would do itself a great service to resume working closely with Israel. Israel understands how to target and transform adversaries' leadership structures. The present Iranian leadership is anti-American, anti-Semitic, and anti-Iranian — reportedly slaughtering 100,000 of its own people this year alone.

There is no realistic path for Iran to become a constructive, peaceful country while its current leadership remains. Totally removing this leadership is essential. If it stays, there will be no lasting peace, security, or good life for democracies or the West

Bring the regime down, or it will keep pulling the world under its Islamist rule.

 

Dr. Majid Rafizadeh is a political scientist, Harvard-educated analyst, and board member of Harvard International Review. He has authored several books on the US foreign policy. He can be reached at dr.rafizadeh@post.harvard.edu

Source: https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/22833/iran-building-post-trump-nightmare

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

States challenging federal data access shared similar voter info with nonprofit - Steven Richards

 

by Steven Richards

A Homeland Security investigation found Democratic-led states shared sensitive driver records with nonprofit organizations despite challenging federal access to similar voting data.

 

For years, Democratic states currently challenging the Trump administration's access to voter and motor vehicle driver data over privacy concerns have been turning that data over to a nonprofit accused by the Homeland Security Department of violating privacy laws.

The Justice Department has sued dozens of states since last fall to force them to hand over unredacted voter rolls, including driver's license numbers and partial Social Security numbers, and several Democratic-led states have refused, citing privacy statutes and warning the data could be misused. 

But a letter Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin sent Attorney General Todd Blanche this week shows some of those same states have long belonged to a data-sharing consortium that funneled comparable motor vehicle records to a nonprofit with ties to Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg.

Mullin's letter, released by the White House on Friday, asks the Justice Department to investigate whether the Electronic Registration Information Center violated the Driver's Privacy Protection Act by disclosing Social Security and driver's license numbers to “unknown contractors, subcontractors and agents.” 

ERIC, Mullin wrote, later passed that data to the Center for Election Innovation and Research, a nonprofit co-founded by the same official who helped start ERIC and that is funded, in part, by a foundation run by Priscilla Chan and her husband, Zuckerberg.

ERIC and CEIR were each founded and organized by David Becker, a former government lawyer who later became a director for the progressive People for the American Way.

Twenty-seven states and the District of Columbia belong to ERIC, according to the group's own membership list. Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New York and Pennsylvania, all Democratic-led states that have either sued the Trump administration or been sued by it this year over demands for unredacted voter files, are members of ERIC. 

The Justice Department has filed at least 31 lawsuits against 30 states and Washington, D.C., seeking full voter registration lists. Michigan, Minnesota, New York and Pennsylvania were among the six states the Justice Department sued in September 2025 after they refused to comply. Massachusetts was sued that December along with 17 other states. 

Minnesota Secretary of State Steve Simon said his office had asked the Justice Department for assurances that residents' data, including Social Security and driver's license numbers, would be protected before the state was sued, but the department "remained silent," he said.

Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson has been similarly outspoken about federal access to voter data, telling constituents that no federal agency has "the right to your sensitive, private voter information," the Brennan Center noted in its lawsuit tracker. 

Yet, Benson credited a 2020 CEIR grant with helping drive down Michigan's ballot rejection rate that year, according to CEIR's own account of its Voter Education Grant Program, which distributed nearly $65 million to 23 states that year using Chan Zuckerberg Initiative funding.

Mullin's letter singles out another arrangement, with Pennsylvania, a $13 million CEIR grant that required the state to turn over motor vehicle data "originally shared with ERIC" so CEIR could build outreach lists of eligible but unregistered voters, Just the News reported on Friday. 

Mullin wrote that the disclosures may not fall under any of the narrow exceptions Congress carved into the federal statute governing motor vehicle privacy, which bars using the data to contact individuals. ERIC disputes any wrongdoing, according to Mullin's letter.

Federal judges in California, Michigan and Oregon have already dismissed the Justice Department’s lawsuits, with the California judge calling the government's demand "unprecedented and illegal," according to NPR

But the ERIC-CEIR arrangement shows the same category of data, driver's license and Social Security numbers pulled from state motor vehicle agencies, moved through a private nonprofit network for years with far less public scrutiny than the Justice Department’s current demands have drawn, and in a way that may have violated privacy laws. 


Steven Richards

Source: https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/elections/states-challenging-federal-data-access-shared-similar-voter-info

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Putin pauses strikes on Kyiv as Witkoff and Kushner arrive in Russia - Nicholas Ballasy

 

by Nicholas Ballasy

Kushner and Witkoff are expected to meet with Putin during their visit.

 

Russian President Vladimir Putin has implemented a 72-hour pause on strikes on Kyiv as U.S. envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner arrived in Moscow.

Kushner and Witkoff are expected to meet with Putin during their visit. 

They will reportedly discuss a possible peace plan during the meeting to wind down the war in Ukraine. 


Nicholas Ballasy

Source: https://justthenews.com/world/putin-pauses-strikes-kyiv-witkoff-and-kushner-arrive-russia

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter