FINALLY JUSTICE IS COMING FOR T-D-S HATERS.PAGE-STRZOK (LOVE BIRDS) AND 30 OTHERS GET SUBPOENAS.

FINALLY JUSTICE IS COMING FOR T-D-S HATERS.PAGE-STRZOK (LOVE BIRDS) AND 30 OTHERS GET SUBPOENAS.

And here are the bounderies of the land that Israel will inherit either through war or peace or God in the future. God says its Israels land and only Israels land. They will have every inch God promised them of this land in the future.
Egypt east of the Nile River, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, The southern part of Turkey and the Western Half of Iraq west of the Euphrates. Gen 13:14-15, Psm 105:9,11, Gen 15:18, Exe 23:31, Num 34:1-12, Josh 1:4.ALL THIS LAND ISRAEL WILL DEFINATELY OWN IN THE FUTURE, ITS ISRAELS NOT ISHMAELS LAND.12 TRIBES INHERIT LAND IN THE FUTURE.

Joel 3:2-King James Version (YOU DIVIDE JERUSALEM IN HALF - YOUR POKING GOD IN THE EYE - GOD SAYS AN EYE FOR AN EYE AND A TOOTH FOR A TOOTH- YOU WANNA DIVIDE JERUSALEM IN HALF -  HALF OF EARTHS POPULATION 4 BILLION DIE ON EARTH.
2 I will also gather all nations, and will bring them down into the valley of Jehoshaphat, and will plead with them there for my people and for my heritage Israel, whom they have scattered among the nations, and parted my land.

HALF OF EARTHS POPULATION DIE DURING THE 7 YR TRIBULATION.(THESE VERSES ARE JUDGEMENT SCRIPTURES NOT RAPTURE SCRIPTURES)

LUKE 17:34-37 (8 TOTAL BILLION - 4 BILLION DEAD IN TRIB = 4 BILLION TO JESUS KINGDOM) (HALF DIE DURING THE 7 YR TRIBULATION PERIOD JUST LIKE THE BIBLE SAYS)(GOD DOES NOT LIE)(AND NOTICE MOST DIE IN WAR AND DISEASES-NOT COMETS-ASTEROIDS-QUAKES OR TSUNAMIS)
34 I tell you, in that night there shall be two men in one bed; the one shall be taken,(IN WW3 JUDGEMENT) and the other shall be left.(half earths population 4 billion die in the 7 yr trib)
35 Two women shall be grinding together; the one shall be taken,(IN WW3 JUDGEMENT) and the other left.
36 Two men shall be in the field; the one shall be taken,(IN WW3 JUDGEMENT) and the other left.
37 And they answered and said unto him, Where, Lord? And he said unto them, Wheresoever the body is, thither will the eagles be gathered together.(Christians have new bodies,this is the people against Jerusalem during the 7 yr treaty)(Christians bodies are not being eaten by the birds).THESE ARE JUDGEMENT SCRIPTURES-NOT RAPTURE SCRIPTURES.BECAUSE NOT HALF OF PEOPLE ON EARTH ARE CHRISTIANS.AND THE CONTEXT IN LUKE 17 IS THE 7 YEAR TRIBULATION OR 7 YR TREATY PERIOD.WHICH IS JUDGEMENT ON THE EARTH.NOT 50% RAPTURED TO HEAVEN.

MATTHEW 24:37-42 (THESE ARE JUDGEMENT SCRIPTURES-SURE NOT RAPTURE SCRIPTURES)
37 But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
38 For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark,
39 And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
40 Then shall two be in the field; the one shall be taken,(IN WW3 JUDGEMENT) and the other left.
41 Two women shall be grinding at the mill; the one shall be taken,(IN WW3 JUDGEMENT) and the other left.
42 Watch therefore:(FOR THE LAST DAYS SIGNS HAPPENING) for ye know not what hour your Lord doth come.

PSALMS 83:3-7
3 They (ARABS,MUSLIMS) have taken crafty counsel against thy people,(ISRAEL) and consulted against thy hidden ones.
4 They have said, Come, and let us cut them off from being a nation; that the name of Israel may be no more in remembrance.
5 For they (MUSLIMS) have consulted together with one consent: they are confederate against thee:(TREATIES)
6 The tabernacles of Edom,(JORDAN) and the Ishmaelites;(ARABS) of Moab, PALESTINIANS,JORDAN) and the Hagarenes;(EGYPT)
7 Gebal,(HEZZBALLOH,LEBANON) and Ammon,(JORDAN) and Amalek;(SYRIA,ARABS,SINAI) the Philistines (PALESTINIANS) with the inhabitants of Tyre;(LEBANON)

JEREMIAH 47:1-7
1 The word of the LORD that came to Jeremiah the prophet against the Philistines,(PALESTINIAN/ARABS) before that Pharaoh smote Gaza.
2  Thus saith the LORD; Behold, waters rise up out of the north,(NORTHERN TSUNAMI POSSIBLY) and shall be an overflowing flood, and shall overflow the land, and all that is therein; the city, and them that dwell therein: then the men shall cry, and all the inhabitants of the land shall howl.
3  At the noise of the stamping of the hoofs of his strong horses,(ISRAELS ARMY) at the rushing of his chariots, and at the rumbling of his wheels, the fathers shall not look back to their children for feebleness of hands;(ISRAEL POSSIBLY NUKES GAZA)
4  Because of the day that cometh to spoil all the Philistines,(PALESTINIAN FAKE ARABS) and to cut off from Tyrus and Zidon every helper that remaineth: for the LORD will spoil the Philistines, the remnant of the country of Caphtor.
5  Baldness is come upon Gaza;(NUKED POSSIBLY) Ashkelon is cut off with the remnant of their valley: how long wilt thou cut thyself?
6  O thou sword of the LORD, how long will it be ere thou be quiet? put up thyself into thy scabbard, rest, and be still.
7  How can it be quiet, seeing the LORD hath given it a charge against Ashkelon, and against the sea shore? (MEDITTERANEAN SEA) there hath he appointed it.

RUSSIA,GERMANY, ARAB MUSLIMS COME AGAINST ISRAEL.

EZEKIEL 38:1-23
1 And the word of the LORD came unto me, saying,
2 Son of man, set thy face against Gog,(RULER) the land of Magog,(RUSSIA) the chief prince of Meshech (MOSCOW) and Tubal,(TOBOLSK) and prophesy against him,
3 And say, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I am against thee, O Gog,(LEADER OF RUSSIA) the chief prince of Meshech(MOSCOW) and Tubal:TOBOLSK)
4 And I (GOD) will turn thee back, and put hooks into thy jaws,(GOD FORCES THE RUSSIA-MUSLIMS TO MARCH) and I will bring thee forth, and all thine army, horses and horsemen, all of them clothed with all sorts of armour, even a great company with bucklers and shields, all of them handling swords:
5 Persia,(IRAN,IRAQ) Ethiopia, and Libya with them; all of them with shield and helmet:
6 Gomer,(GERMANY) and all his bands; the house of Togarmah (TURKEY) of the north quarters, and all his bands: and many people with thee.(AFRICAN MUSLIMS,SUDAN,TUNESIA ETC)
7 Be thou prepared, and prepare for thyself, thou, and all thy company that are assembled unto thee, and be thou a guard unto them.
8 After many days thou shalt be visited: in the latter years thou shalt come into the land that is brought back from the sword, and is gathered out of many people, against the mountains of Israel, which have been always waste: but it is brought forth out of the nations, and they shall dwell safely all of them.
9 Thou shalt ascend and come like a storm, thou shalt be like a cloud to cover the land, thou, and all thy bands, and many people with thee.(RUSSIA-EGYPT AND MUSLIMS)
10 Thus saith the Lord GOD; It shall also come to pass, that at the same time shall things come into thy mind, and thou shalt think an evil thought:
11 And thou shalt say,(RUSSIA-ARAB-MUSLIMS) I will go up to the land of unwalled villages;(ISRAEL) I will go to them that are at rest, that dwell safely, all of them dwelling without walls, and having neither bars nor gates,
12 To take a spoil,(OIL IS IN SPOIL) and to take a prey; to turn thine hand upon the desolate places that are now inhabited, and upon the people that are gathered out of the nations, which have gotten cattle and goods, that dwell in the midst of the land.
13  Sheba, and Dedan,(SAUDI-ARABIA) and the merchants of Tarshish,(SPAIN) with all the young lions thereof,(ENGLAND,AND ALL ITS ASSOCIATES-CANADA,AUSTRALIA-NEW ZEALAND, USA, AND WESTERN ENGLISH SPEAKING NATIONS) shall say unto thee, Art thou come to take a spoil? hast thou gathered thy company to take a prey? to carry away silver and gold, to take away cattle and goods, to take a great spoil?(OIL IS IN SPOIL-I BELIEVE THATS WHY RUSSIA,ARAB/MUSLIMS MARCH TO ISRAEL)
14  Therefore, son of man, prophesy and say unto Gog, Thus saith the Lord GOD; In that day when my people of Israel dwelleth safely, shalt thou not know it?
15  And thou shalt come from thy place out of the north parts, thou, and many people with thee, all of them riding upon horses, a great company, and a mighty army:
16  And thou shalt come up against my people of Israel, as a cloud to cover the land; it shall be in the latter days, and I will bring thee against my land, that the heathen may know me, when I shall be sanctified in thee, O Gog, before their eyes.
17  Thus saith the Lord GOD; Art thou he of whom I have spoken in old time by my servants the prophets of Israel, which prophesied in those days many years that I would bring thee against them?
18  And it shall come to pass at the same time when Gog shall come against the land of Israel, saith the Lord GOD, that my fury shall come up in my face.
19  For in my jealousy and in the fire (atomic bomb) of my wrath have I spoken, Surely in that day there shall be a great shaking in the land of Israel;
20  So that the fishes of the    sea, and the fowls of the heaven, and the beasts of the field, and all creeping things that creep upon the earth, and all the men that are upon the face of the earth, shall shake at my presence, and the mountains shall be thrown down, and the steep places shall fall, and every wall shall fall to the ground.
21  And I will call for a sword against him throughout all my mountains, saith the Lord GOD: every man’s sword shall be against his brother.
22  And I will plead against him with pestilence (biological,chemical,nuclear) and with blood; and I will rain upon him, and upon his bands, and upon the many people that are with him, an overflowing rain, and great hailstones, fire, and brimstone.(NUKED,THEN MIGRATING BIRDS EAT RUSSIA/ARAB/MUSLIMS FLESH)
23  Thus will I magnify myself, and sanctify myself; and I will be known in the eyes of many nations, and they shall know that I am the LORD.

EZEKIEL 39:1-29
1 Therefore, thou son of man, prophesy against Gog,(LEADER OF RUSSIA) and say, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I am against thee, O Gog, the chief prince of Meshech (MOSCOW) and Tubal: (TUBOLSK)
2 And I will turn thee back,(RUSSIA-ARAB MUSLIM ISRAEL HATERS) and leave but the sixth part of thee,(5/6TH OR 300 MILLION DEAD RUSSIAN/ARAB/MUSLIMS I BELIEVE) and will cause thee to come up from the north parts,(RUSSIA) and will bring thee upon the mountains of Israel:
3 And I will smite thy bow out of thy left hand, and will cause thine arrows to fall out of thy right hand.
4 Thou shalt fall upon the mountains of Israel, thou, and all thy bands,( ARABS) and the people that is with thee: I will give thee unto the ravenous birds of every sort, and to the beasts of the field to be devoured.
5 Thou shalt fall upon the open field: for I have spoken it, saith the Lord GOD.
6 And I will send a shall come to pass in that day, that I will give unto Gog (RUSSIA/ARAB/MUSLIMS) a place there of graves in Israel, the valley of the passengers (EAST OF THE DEAD SEA IN JORDAN VALLEY) on the east of the sea: and it shall stop the noses of the passengers: and there shall they bury Gog (RUSSIAN) and all his multitude:(ARAB/MUSLIM HORDE) and they shall call it The valley of Hamongog.(BURIEL SITE OF THE 300 MILLION,RUSSIAN/ARAB/MUSLIMS)
12 And seven months shall the house of Israel be burying of them, that they may cleanse the land.(OF ISRAEL)
13 Yea, all the people of the land (OF ISRAEL) shall bury them; and it shall be to them a renown the day that I (GOD-JESUS) shall be glorified, saith the Lord GOD.
14 And they shall sever out men of continual employment,(NUCLEAR ATOMIC BOMB EXPERTS) passing through the land to bury with the passengers those that remain upon the face of the earth, to cleanse it: after the end of seven months shall they search.
15 And the passengers that pass through the land, when any seeth a man’s bone, then shall he set up a sign by it,(WON'T TOUCH IT) till the buriers have buried it (PROPERLY) in the valley of Hamongog.(RUSSIA/ARAB/MUSLIMS NEW BURIEL SITE)(EAST OF THE DEAD SEA IN THE JORDAN VALLEY)
16 And also the name of the city shall be Hamonah. Thus shall they cleanse the land.(OF THE ISRAEL-GOD HATERS)
17 And, thou son of man, thus saith the Lord GOD; Speak unto every feathered fowl,(500 MILLION MIGRATING BIRDS THREW ISRAEL EVERY SPRING,FALL) and to every beast of the field, Assemble yourselves, and come; gather yourselves on every side to my sacrifice that I do sacrifice for you, even a great sacrifice upon the mountains of Israel, that ye may eat flesh, and drink blood.(OF THE RUSSIAN/ARAB/MUSLIM ARMIES)
18 Ye shall eat the flesh of the mighty, and drink the blood of the princes of the earth, of rams, of lambs, and of goats, of bullocks, all of them fatlings of Bashan.
19 And ye (MIGRATING BIRDS IN ISRAEL) shall eat fat till ye be full, and drink blood till ye be drunken, of my sacrifice which I have sacrificed for you.(RUSSIAN/ARAB/MUSLIM ISRAEL HATERS)
20 Thus ye shall be filled at my table with horses and chariots, with mighty men, and with all men of war, saith the Lord GOD.
21 And I (GOD-JESUS) will set my glory among the heathen,(WORLD NATIONS) and all the heathen (WORLD NATIONS) shall see my judgment that I have executed,(AGAINST ISRAELS ENEMIES) and my (GODS) hand that I have laid upon them.(ISRAELS HATER ENEMIES)
22  So the house of Israel shall know that I am the LORD their God from that day and forward.
23  And the heathen shall know that the house of Israel went into captivity for their iniquity: because they trespassed against me, therefore hid I my face from them, and gave them into the hand of their enemies: so fell they all by the sword.
24  According to their uncleanness and according to their transgressions have I done unto them, and hid my face from them.
25  Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD; Now will I bring again the captivity of Jacob, and have mercy upon the whole house of Israel, and will be jealous for my holy name;
26  After that they have borne their shame, and all their trespasses whereby they have trespassed against me, when they dwelt safely in their land, and none made them afraid.
27  When I have brought them again from the people, and gathered them out of their enemies’ lands, and am sanctified in them in the sight of many nations;
28  Then shall they know that I am the LORD their God, which caused them to be led into captivity among the heathen: but I have gathered them unto their own land, and have left none of them any more there.
29  Neither will I hide my face any more from them: for I have poured out my spirit upon the house of Israel, saith the Lord GOD.

PSALMS 83:3-7
3 They (ARABS,MUSLIMS) have taken crafty counsel against thy people,(ISRAEL) and consulted against thy hidden ones.
4 They have said, Come, and let us cut them off from being a nation; that the name of Israel may be no more in remembrance.
5 For they (MUSLIMS) have consulted together with one consent: they are confederate against thee:(TREATIES)
6 The tabernacles of Edom,(JORDAN) and the Ishmaelites;(ARABS) of Moab, PALESTINIANS,JORDAN) and the Hagarenes;(EGYPT)
7 Gebal,(HEZZBALLOH,LEBANON) and Ammon,(JORDAN) and Amalek;(SYRIA,ARABS,SINAI) the Philistines (PALESTINIANS) with the inhabitants of Tyre;(LEBANON)

JEREMIAH 47:1-7
1 The word of the LORD that came to Jeremiah the prophet against the Philistines,(PALESTINIAN/ARABS) before that Pharaoh smote Gaza.
2  Thus saith the LORD; Behold, waters rise up out of the north,(NORTHERN TSUNAMI POSSIBLY) and shall be an overflowing flood, and shall overflow the land, and all that is therein; the city, and them that dwell therein: then the men shall cry, and all the inhabitants of the land shall howl.
3  At the noise of the stamping of the hoofs of his strong horses,(ISRAELS ARMY) at the rushing of his chariots, and at the rumbling of his wheels, the fathers shall not look back to their children for feebleness of hands;(ISRAEL POSSIBLY NUKES GAZA)
4  Because of the day that cometh to spoil all the Philistines,(PALESTINIAN FAKE ARABS) and to cut off from Tyrus and Zidon every helper that remaineth: for the LORD will spoil the Philistines, the remnant of the country of Caphtor.
5  Baldness is come upon Gaza;(NUKED POSSIBLY) Ashkelon is cut off with the remnant of their valley: how long wilt thou cut thyself?
6  O thou sword of the LORD, how long will it be ere thou be quiet? put up thyself into thy scabbard, rest, and be still.
7  How can it be quiet, seeing the LORD hath given it a charge against Ashkelon, and against the sea shore? (MEDITTERANEAN SEA) there hath he appointed it.

Now the scriptures that a week in Israel history is 7YEARS.

Heres the scripture 1 week = 7 yrs Genesis 29:27-29
27 Fulfil her week, and we will give thee this also for the service which thou shalt serve with me yet seven other years.
28 And Jacob did so, and fulfilled her week: and he gave him Rachel his daughter to wife also.
29 And Laban gave to Rachel his daughter Bilhah his handmaid to be her maid.

Isn"t this interesting it comes from the same Person whos name was changed to Israel,(JACOB) and Israel and Jerusalem is the places dealt with in Daniel 9:24-27.

GENESIS 32:27-28
27 And he said unto him, What is thy name? And he said, Jacob.
28 And he said, Thy name shall be called no more Jacob, but Israel: for as a prince hast thou power with God and with men, and hast prevailed.

DANIEL 9:26-27
26 And after threescore and two weeks(62X7=434 YEARS+7X7=49 YEARS=TOTAL OF 69 WEEKS OR 483 YRS) shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary;(ROMAN LEADERS DESTROYED THE 2ND TEMPLE) and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.(THERE HAS TO BE 70 WEEKS OR 490 YRS TO FUFILL THE VISION AND PROPHECY OF DAN 9:24).(THE NEXT VERSE IS THAT 7 YR WEEK OR (70TH FINAL WEEK).
27 And he ( THE ROMAN,EU PRESIDENT) shall confirm the covenant (PEACE TREATY) with many for one week:(1X7=7 YEARS) and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease,(3 1/2 yrs in TEMPLE ANIMAL SACRIFICES STOPPED) and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

ISAIAH 28:14-19 (THIS IS THE 7 YR TREATY COVENANT OF DANIEL 9:27)
14 Wherefore hear the word of the LORD, ye scornful men, that rule this people which is in Jerusalem.
15 Because ye have said, We have made a covenant with death, and with hell are we at agreement; when the overflowing scourge shall pass through, it shall not come unto us: for we have made lies our refuge, and under falsehood have we hid ourselves:
16 Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD, Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner stone, a sure foundation: he that believeth shall not make haste.
17 Judgment also will I lay to the line, and righteousness to the plummet: and the hail shall sweep away the refuge of lies, and the waters shall overflow the hiding place.
18 And your covenant with death shall be disannulled, and your agreement with hell shall not stand; when the overflowing scourge shall pass through, then ye shall be trodden down by it.
19 From the time that it goeth forth it shall take you: for morning by morning shall it pass over, by day and by night: and it shall be a vexation only to understand the report.

JEREMIAH 6:14
14 They have healed also the hurt of the daughter of my people slightly, saying, Peace, peace; when there is no peace.

JEREMIAH 8:11
11 For they have healed the hurt of the daughter of my people slightly, saying, Peace, peace; when there is no peace.

 1 THESSALONIANS 5:3
3 For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape.

ISAIAH 33:8
8  The highways lie waste, the wayfaring man ceaseth: he hath broken the covenant,(7 YR TREATY) he hath despised the cities, he regardeth no man.(THE WORLD LEADER-WAR MONGER CALLS HIMSELF GOD)

China's new aircraft carrier enters service in key move to modernise fleet By Peter CATTERALL.

Beijing (AFP) Nov 7, 2025-China's third aircraft carrier entered service this week, state media said on Friday, marking a key milestone in President Xi Jinping's drive to modernise the military.The Fujian joins China's fleet as Beijing projects its maritime power against the United States and others in the region, with flashpoints including territorial disputes in the South China Sea and persisting claims over Taiwan.The latest aircraft carrier is equipped with an electromagnetic aircraft launch system (EMALS) -- something that previously only the USS Gerald R. Ford possessed.The advanced take-off system allows the Chinese air force to deploy jets carrying larger payloads and more fuel.State news agency Xinhua said Friday that Xi had "personally decided" that the Fujian -- which shares the name of the province facing Taiwan -- would adopt an EMALS system.Beijing does not rule out using force to seize Taiwan, a democratic, self-ruled island that China claims as part of its territory.Analysts say China lags behind the United States, which has 11 aircraft carriers in service, in overall military prowess.But Beijing has directed billions of dollars into defence in recent years, a trend that has unnerved some governments in East Asia despite China insisting its aims are peaceful.The navy in particular has seen a massive expansion as leaders seek to grow China's reach in the Pacific and challenge a US-led alliance.-- 'Grand and enthusiastic' --The new carrier's official commissioning took place at a naval port in China's southern island province of Hainan on Wednesday, Xinhua reported, describing the atmosphere as "grand and enthusiastic"."After the ceremony, Xi Jinping boarded the Fujian... and learned about the development of the aircraft carrier system combat capabilities and the construction and application of the electromagnetic catapult system," it said.Xi also went into the carrier's control tower to learn about flight operations, Xinhua said, adding that he "solemnly signed the ship's logbook".After conducting sea trials in recent months, the Fujian now joins China's other two carriers in active operation, the Liaoning and the Shandong.The Soviet-built Liaoning is the oldest, commissioned in 2012, while the Shandong entered service in 2019.China's third carrier is "by many measures more capable than the Liaoning and the Shandong", Collin Koh, an expert in regional naval affairs at Nanyang Technological University, told AFP."Overall, compared to the two preceding carriers which are ski-jump configured, the Fujian has greater combat persistence and striking power," said Koh.The Fujian had already been in the spotlight several times leading up to its formal commissioning.Chinese defence officials confirmed in September that the Fujian had sailed through the sensitive Taiwan Strait to carry out "scientific research trials and training missions" in the South China Sea.Analysts say the transit was likely intended to send a strong signal to potential adversaries.Defence ministries in Japan and Taiwan said at the time that they had detected the Fujian's movements, which brought it within approximately 200 kilometres (125 miles) of the disputed Senkaku Islands, known in Chinese as the Diaoyu Islands.China also released videos in September of aircraft takeoffs and landings aboard the Fujian, including with its fifth-generation J-35 stealth fighter.State media hailed it as a "new breakthrough" in the development of Chinese carriers and a "major milestone" in the modernisation of the navy.

North Korea fires unidentified ballistic missile: Seoul military.

Seoul, Nov 7 (AFP) Nov 07, 2025-North Korea fired a ballistic missile Friday, Seoul's military said, around a week after US President Donald Trump approved South Korea's plan to build a nuclear-powered submarine.Analysts have said Seoul's plan to construct one of the atomic-driven vessels would likely draw an aggressive response from Pyongyang.South Korea's Joint Chiefs of Staff said North Korea fired an unidentified ballistic missile towards the East Sea, referring to the body of water also known as the Sea of Japan.The missile landed in the sea outside Japan's economic waters and no damage or injuries had been reported, said Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi.But the Kremlin defended North Korea's latest launch, saying Pyongyang -- a key ally for Russia during its Ukraine campaign -- had the "legitimate right" to do so."We are respectful of the legitimate right of our friends in the DPRK (North Korea) to ensure their security and take measures for it," Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told reporters.Washington's security ally Tokyo, meanwhile, said North Korea's ballistic missile launches have been "absolutely unforgivable".As "evidenced" by North Korea's provocations, "it's never too early to accelerate efforts to revamp our defence capabilities," Defence Minister Shinjiro Koizumi said."We will consider what steps are needed to protect our nation's... peace and the lives of our people, without ruling out any options."The missile launched at 12:35 pm (0335 GMT) from an area north of Pyongyang and flew around 700 kilometres (435 miles), South Korea's military said.North Korea has significantly increased missile testing in recent years, which analysts say is aimed at improving precision strike capabilities, challenging the United States as well as South Korea, and testing weapons before potentially exporting them to Russia."From North Korea's perspective, the possibility of sudden attacks from the East Sea will be a source of anxiety," Ahn Chan-il, a defector-turned-researcher who runs the World Institute for North Korea Studies, told AFP."If South Korea acquires a nuclear-powered submarine, they would be able to enter North Korean waters and preemptively monitor or intercept weapons such as submarine-launched ballistic missiles."Trump had announced that South Korea would build the submarine in the United States, but Seoul says it is considering making it at home.Unlike diesel-powered submarines, which must regularly surface to recharge their batteries, nuclear-powered ones can remain submerged for far longer.- 'Irreversible' nuclear state -Analysts say developing a nuclear-powered submarine would be a significant leap for South Korea.Only the United States, Australia, China, Russia, India, France and Britain have moved toward nuclear-powered submarines, according to media and analysis reports.Since North Korean leader Kim Jong Un's 2019 summit with Trump collapsed over the scope of denuclearisation and sanctions relief, Pyongyang has repeatedly declared itself an "irreversible" nuclear state.Kim has since been emboldened by the war in Ukraine, securing critical support from Moscow after sending thousands of troops to fight alongside Russian forces.Pyongyang did not respond to Trump's offer to meet with Kim last week, and instead its Foreign Minister Choe Son Hui headed to Moscow, where she and Russian President Vladimir Putin agreed to strengthen bilateral ties.In September, Kim appeared alongside Chinese President Xi Jinping and Putin at an elaborate military parade in Beijing -- a striking display of his new, elevated status in global politics.Trump met Kim three times during his first term and once famously said the pair had fallen "in love", but the US leader ultimately failed to secure a lasting agreement on North Korea's nuclear programme.South Korean lawmaker Lee Seong-kweun said this week that Seoul's spy agency believes Kim was still open to talks with Washington, "and will seek contact when the conditions are in place".Although the proposed meeting with Trump did not materialise, "multiple signs suggest" that Pyongyang "had been preparing behind the scenes for possible talks with the US", said the lawmaker.

What we know about S. Korea's nuclear-powered submarine plans.

Seoul, Nov 7 (AFP) Nov 07, 2025-South Korea is expected to join a small circle of countries that operate nuclear-powered submarines after receiving approval from US President Donald Trump.The South, which is technically still at war with nuclear-armed North Korea, said it expects to launch its first nuclear-powered submarine by the mid-to-late 2030s, using its own technology.AFP takes a look at what we know:What is the deal? Trump said last week he had approved ally South Korea's plan to build a nuclear-powered submarine after meeting counterpart Lee Jae Myung on the sidelines of an APEC summit.Lee's office has said Seoul needed US approval because of the requirement for nuclear fuel, which is restricted for military use.The exact scale and cost of the submarine project are unknown but South Korea has said it will invest $150 billion in enhancing the US shipbuilding industry.From there, the details start to become murky.South Korea's promised investment is part of a response to the tariff blitz Trump launched after his return to the White House in January and was announced before the submarine approval.Critics argue that, given remarks that Trump made on his Truth Social platform, Washington could have pushed Seoul to invest in a shipyard in Philadelphia in exchange for US support to build the vessel.The two sides now appear to be hammering out the details.Where will it be built? Trump said last week that South Korea would build the submarine in Philadelphia. US nuclear technology is among its most sensitive and tightly guarded military secrets.He also mentioned a shipyard run by a South Korean company, although Seoul later said that did not align with its plans.Some think the idea could still work to South Korea's advantage."The shipyard, acquired by South Korea's Hanwha Group, has extensive experience with the US Navy and would offer valuable access to American design and operational know-how," Choi Il, head of The Submarine Research Institute, told AFP.However, South Korea's presidential office said on Friday that Seoul will develop and build the vessel at home, with US-supplied fuel, and that the discussion between Trump and Lee was based on that "premise".South Korean Defence Minister Ahn Gyu-back said the US yard is "currently lacking sufficient technology, workforce, and facilities". National security adviser Wi Sung-lac said it "wouldn't be realistic to invest in submarine facilities" there.Hanwha Ocean has run the Philadelphia shipyard since last year.How is the submarine different? Nuclear-powered submarines can remain submerged for months, unlike their diesel-powered predecessors that must surface regularly to recharge their batteries."Submarines are designed for stealth infiltration, but those with shorter submergence times must surface more often, increasing the risk of detection," Hong Sung-pyo, senior researcher at the Korea Institute for Military Affairs, told AFP."To conduct challenging or high-level missions, a country needs advanced intelligence and precision strike capabilities, and nuclear-powered submarines are one of the most effective tools in that regard."South Korea and the United States are moving to transfer wartime operational control of their combined forces to a South Korean commander with a US deputy, and experts say the submarine will strengthen Seoul's push for greater military autonomy.Currently, Washington would command allied troops in the event of war on the Korean peninsula.Why does South Korea want it? South Korea is protected by the US nuclear umbrella and there are nearly 30,000 US troops stationed there.Analysts say developing a nuclear-powered submarine would mark a significant leap in South Korea's naval and defence industrial base, allowing it to join a select group of countries with such vessels.Only the United States, China, Russia, India, France and Britain currently have them.North Korea has bolstered its military ties with Russia and has repeatedly declared itself an "irreversible" nuclear power.The "possibility of sudden attacks from the East Sea will be a source of anxiety" for Pyongyang, said Ahn Chan-il, a defector-turned-researcher who runs the World Institute for North Korea Studies."Feeling threatened by this plan backed by Washington, Pyongyang is likely to respond aggressively -- and another nuclear test cannot be ruled out," Ahn told AFP.And the final details? Seoul's Policy Chief Kim Yong-beom said last week the two sides have nearly "finalised the details of the agreement", and that a factsheet "combining (tariff and) security matters" would be released.South Korea has yet to announce a detailed deal on tariffs and its investment pledge, which totals $350 billion and includes the shipbuilding pledge, that was agreed in exchange for the cut in US tariffs to 15 percent.Defence Minister Ahn told a parliamentary hearing this week "the process appears to have been delayed as various issues, including nuclear-powered submarines" were worked out.The Presidential office in Seoul said on Friday a final document could be released "anytime" if "things go smoothly". 

EU eyes tweaks to AI law to heed tech industry 'concerns'.

Brussels, Belgium, Nov 7 (AFP) Nov 07, 2025-The European Union said Friday it is considering adjustments to its landmark artificial intelligence law, the AI Act, after tech firms and several member states raised concerns.The flagship AI Act entered into force last year but its obligations will kick in over several years -- with pressure mounting on Brussels to delay or review some to ease the burden on the industry."We are hearing concerns from the industry and from our member states," European Commission digital spokesman Thomas Regnier told reporters.The EU executive is expected on November 19 to unveil a broader package of measures to simplify digital legislation and cut red tape, which Regnier said "would be the appropriate framework to address some of these concerns"."No decision has been taken at this stage, but a reflection is of course ongoing," he said.Asked about pressure from the United States, where industry giants and President Donald Trump's administration have pushed for softer touch EU tech regulations, Regnier said the bloc remained committed to enforcing its rules."We are fully behind the AI Act, and no pressure from anywhere will impact us," he said.Possible adjustments could include extending implementation deadlines to give companies more time to comply.Henna Virkkunen, the commission's digital chief, had already floated the idea of easing compliance earlier this year, suggesting that some flexibility might be needed to help businesses adapt.

Brennan, Strzok, Page subpoenaed as part of federal Russiagate probe: Sources-Law enforcement sources told Fox News Digital that up to 30 subpoenas related to the probe will be issued in the coming days-Brooke Singman By Brooke Singman Fox News-Published November 7, 2025 5:52pm EST-DOJ to take 'Russiagate' case to a grand jury.Fox News correspondent David Spunt reports on the latest in the 'Russiagate' investigation on 'Special Report.'

EXCLUSIVE: A federal grand jury has subpoenaed former CIA Director John Brennan, former FBI officials Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, among others as part of the Justice Department’s investigation into the origins of the Trump-Russia probe, Fox News Digital has learned.Sources told Fox News Digital Brennan; Strzok, the FBI’s former deputy assistant director of counterintelligence; and Page, a former FBI lawyer, were served with federal subpoenas on Friday.John Brennan on Meet the Press-Law enforcement sources told Fox News Digital that up to 30 subpoenas will be issued in the coming days relating to the investigation.The grand jury is out of the Southern District of Florida. U.S. attorney for the Southern District of Florida Jason Reding Quiñones is supervising the probe.Fox News Digital first reported this summer that Brennan was under criminal investigation. Strzok and Page first came under scrutiny in 2018 when Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz uncovered a series of anti-Trump text messages between them. Both were assigned to work on Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s team in 2017.Page served on Mueller’s team on a short detail, returning to the FBI’s Office of General Counsel in July 2017. Strzok, though, was removed from the team and was reassigned to the FBI’s Human Resources Division. Prior to serving in the special counsel’s office, Strzok was a top agent in the bureau’s counterintelligence division.Strzok is the FBI agent who, in July 2016, opened the FBI’s initial Russia investigation, which was nicknamed "Crossfire Hurricane" inside the bureau.Former FBI officials Peter Strzok, left, and Lisa Page, right, both served on Special Counsel Robert Mueller's team. Page resigned from the bureau in May 2018, and Strzok eventually was fired in August 2018.EX-OBAMA INTEL BOSS WANTED ANTI-TRUMP DOSSIER INCLUDED IN 'ATYPICAL' 2016 ASSESSMENT DESPITE PUSHBACK-Strzok was fired from the bureau in August 2018 after months of scrutiny regarding the anti-Trump text messages exchanged between himself and Page.During congressional testimony in 2018, Strzok confirmed that he and Page were involved in an extramarital affair.As for the criminal investigation into Brennan, CIA Director John Ratcliffe referred evidence of wrongdoing by Brennan to FBI Director Kash Patel for potential prosecution, DOJ sources told Fox News Digital.Sources, at the time, said that the referral was received and told Fox News Digital that a criminal investigation into Brennan was opened and is underway. DOJ sources declined to provide further details. It is unclear, at this point, if the investigation spans beyond his alleged false statements to Congress.Attorney General Pam Bondi and FBI Director Kash Patel-The Brennan investigation came after Ratcliffe, this summer, declassified a "lessons learned" review of the creation of the 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA). The 2017 ICA alleged Russia sought to influence the 2016 presidential election to help then-candidate Donald Trump. But the review found that the process of the ICA's creation was rushed with "procedural anomalies," and that officials diverted from intelligence standards. It also determined that the "decision by agency heads to include the Steele Dossier in the ICA ran counter to fundamental tradecraft principles and ultimately undermined the credibility of a key judgment." The dossier — an anti-Trump document filled with unverified and wholly inaccurate claims that was commissioned by Fusion GPS and paid for by Democrat presidential candidate Hillary Clinton's campaign and the DNC — has been widely discredited. Last week's review marks the first time career CIA officials have acknowledged politicization of the process by which the ICA was written, particularly by Obama-era political appointees.Records declassified as part of that review further revealed that Brennan did, in fact, push for the dossier to be included in the 2017 ICA.Brennan testified to the House Judiciary Committee in May 2023, however, that he did not believe the dossier should be included in that intelligence product.Ratcliffe was not surprised by the review's findings, a source familiar told Fox News Digital, given the director's long history of criticizing Brennan's politicization of intelligence. But Ratcliffe was compelled to refer aspects of Brennan’s involvement to the FBI for review of possible criminality, the source said.WHITE HOUSE WANTS OBAMA INTEL OFFICIALS 'HELD ACCOUNTABLE' FOR ROLE PEDDLING 2016 RUSSIA HOAX-The source was unable to share the sensitive details of Ratcliffe’s criminal referral to the FBI with Fox News Digital, but said that Brennan "violated the public’s trust and should be held accountable for it."CIA Director John Ratcliffe testifies-The false statements portion of the probe stems from a newly declassified email sent to Brennan by the former deputy CIA director in December 2016. That message said that including the dossier in the ICA in any capacity jeopardized "the credibility of the entire paper.""Despite these objections, Brennan showed a preference for narrative consistency over analytical soundness," the new CIA review states. "When confronted with specific flaws in the Dossier by the two mission center leaders – one with extensive operational experience and the other with a strong analytic background – he appeared more swayed by the Dossier's general conformity with existing theories than by legitimate tradecraft concerns."Barack Obama with John Brennan-The review added: "Brennan ultimately formalized his position in writing, stating that ‘my bottomline is that I believe that the information warrants inclusion in the report.’"OBAMA ADMIN 'MANUFACTURED' INTELLIGENCE TO CREATE 2016 RUSSIAN ELECTION INTERFERENCE NARRATIVE, DOCUMENTS SHOW-But Brennan testified the opposite in front of Congress in May 2023."The CIA was very much opposed to having any reference or inclusion of the Steele dossier in the Intelligence Community Assessment," Brennan testified before the House committee, according to the transcript of his deposition reviewed by Fox News Digital. "And so they sent over a copy of the dossier to say that this was going to be separate from the rest of that assessment."CIA officials at the time of its creation pushed back against the FBI, which sought to include the dossier, arguing that the dossier should not be included in the assessment, and casting it as simply "internet rumor." Ultimately, Steele’s reporting was not included in the body of the final ICA prepared for then-President Barack Obama, but instead detailed in this footnote, "largely at the insistence of FBI’s senior leadership," according to a review by the Justice Department inspector general, and later, the Senate Intelligence Committee.Christopher Steele-But back in June 2020, Ratcliffe, while serving as director of national intelligence, declassified a footnote of the 2017 ICA, which revealed that the reporting of Trump dossier author Christopher Steele had only "limited corroboration" regarding whether then-President-elect Trump "knowingly worked with Russian officials to bolster his chances of beating" Hillary Clinton and other claims.FLASHBACK: DNI DECLASSIFIES BRENNAN NOTES, CIA MEMO ON HILLARY CLINTON 'STIRRING UP' SCANDAL BETWEEN TRUMP, RUSSIA-The footnote, also known as "Annex A" of the 2017 ICA, exclusively obtained by Fox News Digital in June 2020, spanned less than two pages and detailed reporting by Steele, the former British spy who authored the unverified anti-Trump dossier — a document that helped serve as the basis for controversial Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrants obtained against former Trump campaign aide Carter Page.Steele’s reporting, at the time, was commissioned by opposition research firm Fusion GPS and funded by the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee (DNC) through law firm Perkins Coie.The footnote made clear the internal concerns officials had over that document."An FBI source (Steele) using both identified and unidentified subsources, volunteered highly politically sensitive information from the summer to the fall of 2016 on Russian influence efforts aimed at the US presidential election," the annex read. "We have only limited corroboration of the source’s reporting in this case and did not use it to reach the analytic conclusions of the CIA/FBI/NSA assessment.""The source collected this information on behalf of private clients and was not compensated for it by the FBI," it continued.But the annex notes that Steele's reporting was "not developed by the layered subsource network.""The FBI source caveated that, although similar to previously provided reporting in terms of content, the source was unable to vouch for the additional information's sourcing and accuracy," the annex states. "Hence this information is not included in this product."FBI IGNORED 'CLEAR WARNING SIGN' OF CLINTON-LED EFFORT TO 'MANIPULATE' BUREAU FOR 'POLITICAL PURPOSES'-Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz also reviewed the inclusion of Steele’s reporting in the ICA during his review of alleged misconduct related to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISAHis report, released in late 2019, found that there were "significant inaccuracies and omissions" in FISA warrants for former Trump campaign aide Page. Those warrants relied heavily on Steele’s reporting, despite the FBI not having had specific information corroborating allegations against Page that were included in Steele’s reporting.Meanwhile, Fox News Digital exclusively reported in October 2020 that Brennan briefed former President Obama and administration officials on intelligence that then-Democrat nominee former Secretary of State Clinton was stirring up a plan to tie Trump to Russia.Robert Mueller at the Department of Justice-Ratcliffe, as director of national intelligence, declassified Brennan’s handwritten notes memorializing that meeting, which were exclusively obtained by Fox News Digital in October 2020.On July 28, 2016, Brennan briefed Obama on a plan from one of Clinton's campaign foreign policy advisors "to vilify Donald Trump by stirring up a scandal claiming interference by the Russian security service." Comey, then-Vice President Joe Biden, former Attorney General Loretta Lynch and former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper were in the Brennan-Obama briefing.FLASHBACK: DECLASSIFIED TRUMP-RUSSIA PROBE DOCS TO DATE: WHAT TO KNOW After that briefing, the CIA properly forwarded that information through a Counterintelligence Operational Lead (CIOL) to Comey and then-Deputy Assistant Director of Counterintelligence Peter Strzok, with the subject line: "Crossfire Hurricane."Fox News Digital exclusively obtained and reported on the CIOL in October 2020, which stated: "The following information is provided for the exclusive use of your bureau for background investigative action or lead purposes as appropriate.""Per FBI verbal request, CIA provides the below examples of information the CROSSFIRE HURRICANE fusion cell has gleaned to date," the memo continued. "An exchange (REDACTED) discussing US presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s approval of a plan concerning US presidential candidate Donald Trump and Russian hackers hampering US elections as a means of distracting the public from her use of a private email server."James Comey speaks during a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing on Capitol Hill.The FBI on July 31, 2016, opened a counterintelligence investigation into whether candidate Trump and members of his campaign were colluding or coordinating with Russia to influence the 2016 campaign. That investigation was referred to inside the bureau as "Crossfire Hurricane."Former Special Counsel Robert Mueller was appointed to take over the FBI’s original "Crossfire Hurricane" investigation. After nearly two years, Mueller’s investigation, which concluded in March 2019, yielded no evidence of criminal conspiracy or coordination between the Trump campaign and Russian officials during the 2016 presidential election.Shortly after, John Durham was appointed as special counsel to investigate the origins of the "Crossfire Hurricane" probe.Durham found that the FBI "failed to act" on a "clear warning sign" that the bureau was the "target" of a Clinton-led effort to "manipulate or influence the law enforcement process for political purposes" ahead of the 2016 presidential election.Durham-Trump-Clinton split"The aforementioned facts reflect a rather startling and inexplicable failure to adequately consider and incorporate the Clinton Plan intelligence into the FBI’s investigative decision-making in the Crossfire Hurricane investigation," Durham’s report states."Indeed, had the FBI opened the Crossfire Hurricane investigation as an assessment and, in turn, gathered and analyzed data in concert with the information from the Clinton Plan intelligence, it is likely that the information received would have been examined, at a minimum, with a more critical eye," the report continued.COMEY PLEADS NOT GUILTY IN COURT AFTER INDICTMENT ON ALLEGED FALSE STATEMENTS, OBSTRUCTION-Durham, in his report, said the FBI "failed to act on what should have been—when combined with other incontrovertible facts— a clear warning sign that the FBI might then be the target of an effort to manipulate or influence the law enforcement process for political purposes during the 2016 presidential election."The Justice Department, earlier this year, formed a "strike force" to assess evidence publicized by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard relating to former President Barack Obama and his top national security and intelligence officials' alleged involvement in the origins of the Trump–Russia collusion narrative.Meanwhile, Fox News Digital also first reported that Comey was under criminal investigation. Comey has been charged with making false statements and obstruction of a congressional proceeding. Comey has pleaded not guilty. His trial is expected to begin in January.Brooke Singman is a political correspondent and reporter for Fox News Digital, Fox News Channel and FOX Business.

Article-The Subpoenas Are Coming! The Subpoenas Are Coming! Communications Lawyer-By Lee Levine and Isabella Salomão Nascimento-September 17, 2025

Reprinted with permission from Communications Lawyer, August 28, 2025.Lee Levine is a retired lawyer who represented journalists and news organizations for more than four decades. Isabella Salomão Nascimento is a senior associate in Ballard Spahr LLP’s Media & Entertainment Law group. She began her career as a civil rights attorney with the ACLU of Minnesota. The authors wish to thank Helen Lampe, a student at American University’s Washington College of Law, for her substantial assistance.It’s not like we weren’t warned. “Go to the reporter and ask him/her” to disclose their confidential sources, Donald Trump wrote in 2023. “If not given the answer, put whoever in jail until the answer is given. You might add the publisher and editor to the list.”[i]A year earlier, the once and future president described the consequences he foresaw for a journalist who went to jail rather than betray a source: “When the reporter learns that he’s going to be married in two days to a certain prisoner that’s extremely strong, tough and mean, he will say . . . ‘You know, I think I’m going to give you the information. Here’s the leaker. Get me the hell out of here.’”[ii] In late 2024, President-elect Trump feared that the Senate might vote to join the House in passing the PRESS Act, sweeping legislation designed to insulate journalists and news organizations from subpoenas. His instruction to Senate Republicans was blunt: “KILL THIS BILL.” One of them, Senator Tom Cotton (R-AR), did just that.[iii] In March, Tulsi Gabbard, the president’s director of national intelligence, launched investigations designed to hold “accountable” government officials who leaked information to the press. In her public announcement, Gabbard pointed specifically to news reports in the Washington Post and by NBC News that contained information provided by confidential government sources about the Iran/Israel conflict and U.S./Russia relations, respectively.[iv] The following month, Attorney General Pam Bondi formally scrapped Department of Justice (DOJ) guidelines, put in place by her predecessor Merrick Garland, that had stripped federal prosecutors of the power to subpoena journalists in most circumstances. She did so, she said, to address “growing concerns about federal government employees intentionally disseminating confidential, privileged or otherwise protected information to the media.”[v] More recently, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth announced a Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) probe into the source of a leak of a classified report about the United States’ military strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities.[vi] “We are declaring a war on leakers,” a senior White House official said.[vii] So make no mistake—the subpoenas are coming, most likely from federal grand juries seeking to compel journalists to reveal their confidential sources of classified or other so-called national defense information. And make no mistake about something else—as the president and his FBI director both have made abundantly clear, the subpoenas will have little to do with protecting national security and everything to do with intimidating and punishing the press. The president has made it no secret he views the institutional press as “the enemy of the people,” and FBI Director Kash Patel has candidly described his agency’s “mission” as bringing to heel “the most powerful enemy that the United States had ever seen . . . the mainstream media.”[viii] What is the press to do? The PRESS Act is dead. The Garland-era DOJ guidelines are history. State shield laws typically do not apply to subpoenas issued by federal grand juries. The U.S. Supreme Court has famously held that the First Amendment offers little solace to a journalist subpoenaed to appear before a grand jury.[ix] Federal courts have not exactly warmed to the idea of a common law reporter’s privilege.[x] In short, there is very little left in the media lawyer’s toolkit. If you dig deep enough, however, it is not entirely bare. In Branzburg v. Hayes, the same case in which the Supreme Court found no First Amendment violation when three journalists were compelled to testify before grand juries, the Court also held that the First Amendment does protect a reporter’s right to protect confidential sources and unpublished work product in one specific circumstance—when a subpoena is issued “other than in good faith.” Under the First Amendment, the Court explained, “[o]fficial harassment of the press, undertaken not for the purposes of law enforcement but to disrupt a reporter’s relationship with his news sources, would have no justification.”[xi] There has been precious little judicial explication of this largely ignored aspect of Branzburg. For media lawyers, the challenge now is how to breathe life into this “bad faith” exception in the grand jury context.In this article, we hope to provide a usable framework for practitioners to do just that. In the first part, we explore the Court’s decision in Branzburg, the contours of the First Amendment–based protections it identified, and what guidance can be gleaned from the lower courts’ admittedly meager assessment of the reach of those protections.In the second part, we expand the lens to assess how courts, including the Supreme Court, have addressed the scope of First Amendment protection against bad faith government action directed at the press in other contexts.In the third part, the focus shifts to examining the basic contours of affirmative claims for government retaliation, and the evidence considered probative of bad faith, in litigation brought by non-media plaintiffs.In each of these endeavors, we pay particular attention to two related inquiries: (1) What substantive standard must the press satisfy to prove government “bad faith” and (2) How can a subpoenaed journalist or news organization satisfy that burden? Finally, in the fourth part, we offer a framework to be used by media lawyers when challenging grand jury subpoenas issued to their clients “other than in good faith.”Branzburg v. Hayes and Its Progeny-The Supreme Court-The saga of Branzburg v. Hayes and its aftermath is well-documented and oft-told. In a case of first impression, the Supreme Court—by a 5-4 vote with Justice Lewis Powell writing an “enigmatic” concurring opinion—appeared to hold that “requiring newsmen to appear and testify before state or federal grand juries” does not “abridge the freedom of speech and press guaranteed by the First Amendment.”[xii] In the years that followed, media lawyers largely succeeded in limiting the holding to the grand jury context, invoking Justice Powell’s concurrence to convince lower courts to establish a qualified First Amendment–based reporter’s privilege in civil and at least some criminal cases.[xiii] For present purposes, these decisions provide two salient takeaways. First, virtually all of them relied on Justice Powell’s concurrence to anchor the privilege in the First Amendment. Second, in the more than 50 years since Branzburg, the Supreme Court has not taken up a single one of these cases, leaving its decision in Branzburg as the sole source of binding national authority about the role of the First Amendment when a grand jury subpoenas a journalist or news organization.It is, therefore, worth revisiting what the Supreme Court actually held in Branzburg and how it might be mobilized by media lawyers in the subpoena battles to come. Most significantly, the Court—in both Justice Byron White’s opinion for the majority and in Justice Powell’s concurring opinion—took pains to emphasize that the First Amendment does provide a measure of protection unique to journalists and their news organizations.Justice White twice declared that the First Amendment—apparently, though not explicitly, through its Press Clause—protects the newsgathering process itself, including journalists’ ability to provide promises of confidentiality to their sources. “[W]ithout some protection for seeking out the news,” Justice White wrote, “freedom of the press would be eviscerated.”[xiv] His opinion also flatly rejected any suggestion that “news gathering does not qualify for First Amendment protection.”[xv] Turning to the contours of that protection, the Court asserted that any “attempt to require the press to publish its sources of information or indiscriminately to disclose them on request” would violate the First Amendment.[xvi] Assessing the subpoenas before the Court, Justice White emphasized that none involved “a governmental institution that has abused its proper function” by, for example, “‘probing at will’” or “forcing wholesale disclosure . . . for a purpose that was not germane to the determination of whether crime has been committed.”[xvii] At the opinion’s end, the Court both repeated its admonition that “news gathering is not without its First Amendment protections” and declared affirmatively that “grand jury investigations, if instituted or conducted other than in good faith, would pose wholly different issues for resolution under the First Amendment.”[xviii] Specifically, Justice White explained, if a grand jury were to be employed as a governmental tool for “[o]fficial harassment of the press undertaken not for purposes of law enforcement, but to disrupt a reporter’s relationship with his news sources,” the First Amendment would stand in its way.[xix] His opinion cautioned prosecutors that “[g]rand juries are subject to judicial control and subpoenas to motions to quash. We do not expect courts will forget that grand juries must operate within the limits of the First Amendment as well as the Fifth.”[xx] As for its holding rejecting the reporters’ First Amendment claims in Branzburg itself, the Court emphasized that it was limited to their refusal “to answer the relevant and material questions asked during a good-faith grand jury investigation.”[xxi] In his separate opinion, Justice Powell explained that his vote to join the majority was based, in significant part, on its recognition that “no harassment of newsmen will be tolerated.”[xxii] The Court, Justice Powell added, “does not hold that newsmen, subpoenaed to testify before a grand jury, are without constitutional rights with respect to the gathering of news or in safeguarding their sources.”[xxiii] To the contrary, he wrote, it would plainly violate the First Amendment if governmental officials employed a grand jury “to ‘annex’ the news media as ‘an investigative harm of government.’”[xxiv] Moreover, if a journalist has reason “to believe that his testimony implicated confidential source relationships without a legitimate need of law enforcement, he will have access to the court on a motion to quash.”[xxv] In adjudicating such a motion, Justice Powell emphasized, the “asserted claim to privilege should be judged on its facts by striking the proper balance between freedom of the press and the obligation of all citizens to give relevant testimony with respect to criminal conduct.”[xxvi] Viewed in this light, Justice Powell’s opinion assumes a significance materially different from the one it has attained in grounding a constitutional privilege outside the grand jury context. For one thing, Justice Powell takes the majority at its word that “news gathering” conduct, as distinct from the dissemination of “speech,” is protected by the First Amendment’s guarantee of “freedom of the press.” For another, if the government usurps a grand jury for improper purposes, even in those cases in which a reporter possesses “relevant testimony with respect to criminal conduct,” it remains the duty of the court to strike “the proper balance” between these competing interests.In other words, when there is evidence that a grand jury subpoena has been issued “other than in good faith,” Justice Powell reads the Court’s opinion to require both a searching judicial inquiry of the underlying facts and a balancing of the reporter’s right to be free from “official harassment” against whatever need the grand jury may have for the reporter’s testimony.Justices White and Powell left two important questions unaddressed. First, how is a court to “strike the proper balance” in such cases? Second, what evidence of “bad faith” or “official harassment” is required to trigger the balancing process and how can a subpoenaed journalist go about making the requisite showing? Presumably, neither the Court nor Justice Powell saw the need to provide answers because, as Justice White noted, none of the reporters before the Court in Branzburg alleged the government had acted “other than in good faith.” (Ironically, as one of us has written elsewhere, in the case of reporter Earl Caldwell, “[t]here is substantial reason to conclude” that the subpoena he received was issued “other than in good faith,” not for the purpose of securing relevant grand jury testimony from him, “but rather to disrupt his relationship” with his sources within the Black Panther Party.)[xxvii] The Lower Courts-In the 50-odd years since its decision in Branzburg, the Court’s silence on the subject of a reporter’s privilege has been met equally with silence from the lower courts with respect to the “bad faith” exception carved out by the Court. Although federal and state courts have issued literally thousands of opinions addressing a journalist’s claim to a constitutionally rooted privilege in a variety of settings, civil and criminal, very few have been presented with an argument that a subpoena should be quashed because the government procured it “other than in good faith.”Still, a handful of cases have addressed the “bad faith” exception, albeit more generally. In an early post-Branzburg decision widely viewed as rejecting any First Amendment–based privilege, the Sixth Circuit, itself relying on Justice Powell’s concurrence, placed on lower court judges an affirmative obligation to “make certain that the proper balance is struck between freedom of the press” and the legitimate needs of the grand jury.[xxviii] It should do this, the court explained, by “determining whether the reporter is being harassed in order to disrupt his relationship with confidential news sources, whether the grand jury’s investigation is being conducted in good faith, whether the information sought bears more than a remote and tenuous relationship to the subject of the investigation, and whether a legitimate law enforcement need will be served by forced disclosure of the confidential source relationship.”[xxix] Just as in Branzburg itself, however, the Sixth Circuit offered no further guidance concerning how a subpoenaed journalist might make this showing.In Wolf v. United States,[xxx] the Ninth Circuit declined to quash a grand jury subpoena issued to a freelance videographer, which sought footage he recorded at a protest. The videographer invoked the “bad faith” exception, arguing that it applied because “the burning of a police car”—the event apparently depicted in his footage—“is not a federal concern.”[xxxi] In the course of disposing of that contention (on the ground that the government had cited a specific federal statute as the basis for its investigation as well as the subpoena in question), the court nevertheless reiterated that “a limited balancing of First Amendment interests” would be necessary “‘where a grand jury inquiry is not conducted in good faith.’”[xxxii For its part, the Second Circuit has addressed some of the issues raised by an assertion that a grand jury subpoena was issued in “bad faith,” albeit in the context of a motion to quash brought not by a reporter but by a source.[xxxiii] In that case, the court recognized both that a “‘grand jury subpoena is presumed to have a proper purpose’” and that “the party challenging the subpoena ‘bears the burden of showing that the grand jury has exceed its legal powers.’”[xxxiv] To satisfy its burden, the court added, the subpoenaed party “‘must present ‘particularized proof’ of an improper purpose.”[xxxv] It appears that, to date, no district court has had occasion to apply the Branzburg “bad faith” exception. In one case, a judge supervising a grand jury in the Eastern District of Virginia was presented with the opportunity to do so. In United States v. Sterling, investigative journalist James Risen claimed he was subpoenaed to reveal the identity of a confidential source in retaliation for his reporting about theGeorge W. Bush administration’s covert warrantless wiretapping program.[xxxvi] The court declined to consider the claim because it concluded (erroneously as it turned out) that the First Amendment protected Risen from compelled unmasking of his confidential sources even in the absence of bad faith.[xxxvii] When the government appealed the district court’s identical ruling in connection with its trial subpoena to Risen, the Fourth Circuit reversed but did not address the reporter’s bad faith claim.[xxxviii] In its initial decision, however, the district court appeared to offer, in dicta, a glimpse at the kind and quantum of evidence that might support a valid bad faith claim. After summarizing Risen’s own contention that the subpoena had been issued in retaliation for his articles “that criticized and exposed the government’s national security practices during a time of war,” the court noted that he had made a showing that “[m]any officials—including former President Bush—criticized Risen’s reporting and some threatened investigations and potential prosecution.”[xxxix] Apparently on its own initiative, the district court added that reissuance of the subpoena during the Obama administration did “not remove the specter of harassment, because we do not know how many of the attorneys and government officials who sought Risen’s testimony in 2006 are still in their jobs and to what extent, if any, they advised the new Attorney General about approving the subpoena.”[xl] In addition, the court suggested the subpoena’s “sweeping scope”—including its request for a book proposal Risen had submitted to potential publishers—itself “provides some support for Risen’s harassment argument.”[xli] “Bad Faith” Governmental Conduct Against the Press in Other Contexts-Absent dispositive judicial guidance in the specific context of journalists and their confidential sources, media lawyers are left to look elsewhere for useful precedent to reinvigorate Branzburg’s bad faith exception. Happily, in a variety of other settings, courts—including the Supreme Court—have found that the First Amendment generally, and its Press Clause specifically, protects journalists and news organizations from governmental action taken against them in bad faith.The Supreme Court-Perhaps the most significant such case, Grosjean v. American Press,[xlii] arrived at the Supreme Court from Louisiana, where U.S. Senator (and former Governor) Huey Long had strong-armed the legislature to impose a punitive tax on the state’s largest newspapers. As it happened, the newspapers had been overtly critical of Long, who had an outsized appetite for authoritarian behavior. Of the nine newspapers subject to the tax, “[a]ll but one” had allegedly “‘ganged up’” on the senator “and a circular distributed by Long and the Governor to each member of the state legislature described ‘lying newspapers’ as conducting ‘a vicious campaign’ and the tax as ‘a tax on lying, 2 cent a lie.’”[xliii] A unanimous Court held that the statute abridged “the freedom of the press.”[xliv] In so holding, it explained that the “predominant purpose” of the First Amendment’s Press Clause “was to preserve an untrammeled press as a vital source of public information.”[xlv] The Louisiana statute was “bad,” Justice Sutherland wrote for the Court, because it was “a deliberate and calculated device in the guise of a tax to limit the circulation of information to which the public is entitled.”[xlvi] It violated the First Amendment because a “free press stands as one of the great interpreters between the government and the people” and “[t]o allow it to be fettered is to fetter ourselves.”[xlvii] Within its four corners, the Court’s opinion in Grosjean is largely silent about the basis for its conclusion that the Louisiana statute constituted a “deliberate and calculated device in the guise of a tax to limit the circulation of information to which the public is entitled.” Judicial explication of that conclusion first arrived nearly a half-century later in Minneapolis Star v. Minnesota Commissioner of Revenue.[xlviii] There, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor’s opinion for the Court provided the description of Senator Long’s and the Louisiana legislature’s bad faith recited above, while candidly acknowledging that Grosjean itself “did not describe this history.”[xlix] Still, Justice O’Connor recognized that its holding was more than likely “dependent on the improper censorial goals of the legislature.”[l] In Minneapolis Star, where there was “no legislative history and no indication, apart from the structure of the tax itself, of any impermissible or censorial motive,” the Court extended Grosjean to create a presumption of bad faith whenever a statute singles out the press for “differential treatment.” “[U]nless justified by some special characteristic of the press,” Justice O’Connor explained, government action targeting journalists and news organizations with precision “suggests that the goal of the regulation is not unrelated to suppression of expression, and such a goal is presumptively unconstitutional.”[li] The Lower Courts-Until recently, there has been scant precedent in the lower courts addressing governmental action taken against the press in bad faith. In one case, Rossignol v. Voorhaar,[lii] law enforcement officers allegedly conspired with a county sheriff and prosecutor to remove the entire press run of a local newspaper from circulation by buying up every available copy. They allegedly did so both because the newspaper had been persistently critical of them and because the confiscated edition contained more of the same.The Fourth Circuit had little trouble concluding that “[t]he seizure clearly contravened the most elemental tenets of First Amendment law.”[liii] Not only had government officials targeted a “newspaper for suppression and retaliation because they disagreed with its viewpoint and intended to prevent its message from being disseminated,” but the “category of speech that defendants suppressed ‘occupies the core of the protection afforded by the First Amendment.’”[liv] In Media Matters for America v. Paxton,[lv] a journalistic watchdog that had been critical of Elon Musk, a political ally of Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, brought a First Amendment retaliation claim against Paxton after his office launched an investigation into the nonprofit organization over its reporting on X (formerly Twitter) and Musk.[lvi] Media Matters also claimed that, as a result of Paxton’s investigation, its reporting efforts had been irreparably harmed, and it sought to enjoin the probe.[lvii] The district court granted a preliminary injunction, finding Media Matters was likely to succeed on the merits of its retaliation claim.[lviii] A unanimous panel of the D.C. Circuit affirmed, noting that the investigation about which Media Matters had sued transcended just “the chilling effects of the actions taken against them.”[lix] Rather, the court explained, “they involve concrete and felt acts of retaliation against a media company and one of its investigative reporters for having exercised their protected rights of free speech.”[lx] Against that backdrop, the court set out the traditional First Amendment retaliation standard (about which we have more to say below):To prevail on the merits of their First Amendment retaliation claim, [the plaintiffs] must prove (1) they engaged in conduct protected under the First Amendment; (2) the defendant took some retaliatory action sufficient to deter a person of ordinary firmness in their position from speaking again; and (3) a causal link between the exercise of a constitutional right and the adverse action taken against them.[lxi] The unanimous court held that the first element was easily established—Media Matters “was obviously engaged in conduct protected under the First Amendment. Indeed, the underlying incident that precipitated their claim involved their news reporting on a public figure and alleged political extremism on a popular social media platform.”[lxii] And, although the court noted that “Paxton ha[d] forfeited a challenge to the second and third elements by failing to adequately contest them on appeal,” it did address those elements elsewhere in its opinion.Rejecting Paxton’s argument that Media Matters’ complaint “should be dismissed because it does not raise a justiciable claim,”[lxiii] the court held unequivocally the plaintiffs’ “allegation that they are targets of a retaliatory government investigation is a claim regarding concrete harm.”[lxiv] In other words, retaliatory government investigations directed at a media entity can constitute “retaliatory action sufficient to deter a person of ordinary firmness in their position from speaking again.” Indeed, the court expressly concluded that Media Matters had “made this showing.”[lxv] Finally, the court found there was a causal link between Media Matters’ reporting and Paxton’s decision to open the investigation. It pointed to (1) his “Office’s press release establishing that Paxton opened the investigation in response to Media Matters’ reporting; (2) his description of Media Matters as a ‘radical anti-free speech’ and ‘radical left-wing organization’; and (3) his encouragement of other state attorneys general to investigate Media Matters” as “ample evidence of Paxton’s retaliatory motive.”[lxvi] Notably for our purposes, without citing to Branzburg, the court in Media Matters offered a clear (albeit sub silentio) nod to the case, explaining that not every government investigation into a news organization results in a cognizable First Amendment retaliation claim. Rather, the key is “distinguishing between ‘good faith’ and ‘bad faith’ investigations,” as it is the “bad faith use of investigative techniques” that “abridge[s] journalists’ First Amendment rights.”[lxvii] As the court explained:[T]he First Amendment protects information-gathering activities from official harassment and that official harassment of the press places a special burden on information-gathering, for in such cases the ultimate, though tacit, design is to obstruct rather than investigate, and the official action is proscriptive rather than observatory in character.[lxviii] One week later, a different panel of the same court issued its decision in Associated Press v. Budowich,[lxix] an opinion that neither cited to nor discussed Media Matters.[lxx] In Budowich, the court granted a motion to stay a preliminary injunction preventing the White House from excluding the Associated Press (AP) from events otherwise open to members of the press pool covering the president.The administration effectively conceded that it had done just that in retaliation for the AP’s refusal to refer to the Gulf of Mexico as the “Gulf of America,” as the president preferred. In a per curiam order, the court held that the White House was “likely to succeed on the merits” of its appeal.[lxxi] In a concurring opinion, Judge Neomi Rao set out a more stringent First Amendment retaliation standard than the court had articulated in Media Matters, requiring the AP to “demonstrate that (1) it engaged in protected expression; (2) a government actor took a materially adverse action against it; and (3) there is a causal relationship between the protected expression and the adverse action.”[lxxii] She defined a “materially adverse action” as “generally one that deprives a person of certain property rights or infringes a liberty interest,” offering the “loss of employment” or “the withdrawal of a business license” as examples.[lxxiii] “The White House’s choice of who to allow into the Oval Office,” Judge Rao wrote, “is simply not like a decision about a government benefit or license.”[lxxiv] In dissent, Judge Cornelia Pillard called out what she characterized as Judge Rao’s remarkably narrow view of First Amendment retaliation claims. She noted both that (1) White House officials had “concede[d] that they ousted the AP from the Press Pool based on the AP’s expression of its own views outside the Press Pool”[lxxv] and (2) “[t]here is no finding—nor was there any evidence—that the AP’s activity within the Press Pool was . . . in any other way distinguishable from that of representatives of the media outlets that the White House still allows to report from the Oval Office.”[lxxvi] Affirmative Claims for Government Bad Faith by Non-Media Plaintiffs-Although the elements of a claim for First Amendment retaliation under the Speech Clause are generally the same for media and non-media plaintiffs, unlike in media cases, the Supreme Court has shed significantly more light on what it considers probative evidence of bad-faith motive by government actors in other cases. This Part examines those standards through the lens of both a quintessential First Amendment retaliation claim, as well as another constitutional doctrine in which establishing bad faith is required in order to prevail.Mt. Healthy v. Doyle and Its Progeny-The Supreme Court first addressed a First Amendment retaliation claim in Mt. Healthy City School District Board of Education v. Doyle (Mt. Healthy).[lxxvii] The Court’s decision established a framework for such claims that has endured for more than four decades. The case revolved around Fred Doyle, a teacher employed by the school district.[lxxviii] As the Court described the underlying facts, “[i]n one instance, he engaged in an argument with another teacher,” “culminating in the other teacher’s slapping him.”[lxxix] He also “got into an argument with employees of the school cafeteria” over the amount of food he was served, would refer to students as “sons of bitches,” and “made an obscene gesture to two girls” who failed “to obey [his] commands.”[lxxx] In a separate incident, he called in to a local radio station to criticize the school principal’s adoption of a dress code for teachers.[lxxxi] A month later, the district’s board of education voted not to rehire Doyle and referenced the radio station incident as one basis for its decision.[lxxxii] When the case ultimately reached the Supreme Court, the justices were tasked with deciding whether “the fact that protected conduct played a ‘substantial part’ in the actual decision not to renew [Doyle’s contract] would necessarily amount to a constitutional violation justifying remedial action.”[lxxxiii] The Court noted initially that, if the discharge was motivated solely by Doyle’s engagement in protected speech, then it would unquestionably be unlawful.[lxxxiv] On the other hand, the Court asserted that “had the radio station incident never come to its attention,” there would be no First Amendment violation when the board terminated him.[lxxxv] The hard cases, the Court recognized, involved mixed-motive discharges. As the Court explained, “[a] rule of causation which focuses solely on whether protected conduct played a part, ‘substantial’ or otherwise, in a decision not to rehire, could place an employee in a better position as a result of the exercise of constitutionally protected conduct than he would have occupied had he done nothing.”[lxxxvi] To strike the proper balance, the Court devised a burden-shifting test under which a plaintiff such as Doyle must first “show that his conduct was constitutionally protected, and that this conduct was a ‘substantial factor’—or, to put it in other words, that it was a ‘motivating factor’” in the action taken against him.[lxxxvii] Where that threshold showing is made, the burden then shifts to the defendant to show “by a preponderance of the evidence that it would have reached the same decision”—here, termination—“even in the absence of the protected conduct.”[lxxxviii] In recent years, the Supreme Court has reexamined the Mt. Healthy framework in the context of other First Amendment retaliation claims. Those cases offer further insight into the types of evidence that can be used to show bad faith by government actors. For example, in Nieves v. Bartlett,[lxxxix] the Court held that a “plaintiff pressing a retaliatory arrest claim must plead and prove the absence of probable cause for the arrest” to prevail.[xc] In so holding, it acknowledged that an officer’s state of mind, that is, whether the officer was subjectively motivated by retaliatory animus, would be sufficient proof of the requisite causal link between the plaintiff’s injury and the defendant’s conduct.[xci] The Court also recognized that plaintiffs could meet their burden through “objective evidence” that they had been treated differently than “otherwise similarly situated individuals . . . engaged in the same sort of protected speech.”[xcii] Last term, in Gonzalez v. Trevino,[xciii] the Supreme Court clarified that a plaintiff can show retaliatory animus even without evidence of similarly situated comparators.[xciv] In her concurring opinion, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson emphasized that the Court’s opinion “should not be taken to suggest that plaintiffs cannot use other types of objective evidence to make this showing.”[xcv] She provided examples of alternative evidence such as the “officers’ employment of an unusual, irregular, or unnecessarily onerous arrest procedure”; “the timing of and events leading up to a plaintiff’s arrest”; or “if officers falsely document the arrest or include other indicia of retaliatory motive in arrest-related documents that [] might suggest meaningfully different treatment.”[xcvi] Government Bad Faith in the Equal Protection Context-The Court also has developed tests designed to discern the motive underlying governmental conduct, and to determine whether it was improper, in other contexts. One such area is race-based discrimination claims brought under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. The evidence the Supreme Court has deemed relevant to discriminatory governmental motive in that setting provides a helpful framework for identifying the kinds of evidence that could demonstrate bad faith in the First Amendment context as well.In the leading case, Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corporation,[xcvii] a developer sought to rezone a parcel of land to allow the construction of multifamily residences. After the town denied the request, the developer sued, claiming the denial was “racially discriminatory” and thus violated the Equal Protection Clause. At the center of the case was the question of what evidence sufficed to show a racially discriminatory motive in order to trigger strict constitutional scrutiny under the Fourteenth Amendment.As the Supreme Court explained, although “[p]roof of racially discriminatory intent or purpose is required to show a violation of the Equal Protection Clause,” a plaintiff is not required “to prove that the challenged action rested solely on racially discriminatory purposes.”[xcviii] “Rarely can it be said,” the Court wrote, “that a legislature or administrative body operating under a broad mandate made a decision solely [motivated] by a single concern, or even that a particular purpose was the ‘dominant’ or ‘primary’ one.”[xcix] Given this mixed-motive reality, the Court laid out several categories of evidence—direct and circumstantial—to which plaintiffs could point in order to make the necessary showing that “invidious discriminatory purpose was a motivating factor” in the government’s conduct.[c] One such category, the Court noted, was the official action’s impact.[ci] Although “impact alone is not determinative” of bad intent, it “may provide a starting point.”[cii] “Sometimes,” the Court explained, “a clear pattern, unexplainable on other grounds . . . emerges from the effect of the [government’s] action even when the governing legislation appears neutral on its face.”[ciii] In addition, the Court held, the “historical background of the [government’s] decision” could serve as “one evidentiary source” of discriminatory motive, “particularly if it reveals a series of official actions taken for invidious purposes.”[civ] The Court directed litigants to look at “[t]he specific sequence of events leading up to the challenged decision,” citing its decision in Grosjean.[cv] A third category of relevant evidence, the Court asserted, included “[d]epartures from the normal procedural sequence,” which “might afford evidence that improper purposes are playing a role,” “particularly if the factors usually considered important by the decisionmaker strongly favor a decision contrary to the one reached.”[cvi] Finally, the Court pointed to “[t]he legislative or administrative history” leading up to the government’s action.[cvii] Such evidence could prove “especially” significant “where there are contemporary statements by members of the decisionmaking body, minutes of its meetings, or reports.”[cviii] In addition, the Court asserted it could envision some “extraordinary instance[]” in which “the members might be called to the stand at trial to testify concerning the purpose of the official action.”[cix] The Court also noted that this was a non-exhaustive list of the kinds of evidence that could be marshalled to prove discriminatory motive, but stressed that all of them were “subjects of proper inquiry in determining whether discriminatory intent existed.”[cx] Motions to Quash Subpoenas Issued in Bad Faith-Based on the foregoing, we propose that, in moving to quash a grand jury subpoena issued to a journalist or news organization by the Department of Justice, counsel include some version of the following argument:[cxi]
1. The First Amendment’s Press Clause presumptively protects journalists and news organizations from grand jury subpoenas issued by the government in bad faith.In Branzburg, the Supreme Court unanimously recognized that (1) “newsgathering” is protected by the First Amendment’s Press Clause, (2) “newsgathering” includes a journalist’s ability to promise confidentiality to news sources, and (3) grand jury subpoenas to journalists and their news organizations issued in bad faith are constitutionally suspect.[cxii] Every circuit to consider the question has held that, in such circumstances, the subpoena is presumptively invalid and the recipient enjoys a qualified constitutional privilege to resist it.[cxiii]
2. To invoke the First Amendment’s protection, the subpoenaed journalist or news organization must make a prima facie showing of bad faith.Those courts that have considered analogous constitutional protections in the face of governmental conduct undertaken in bad faith or for improper motives have indicated the requisite showing can be made through evidence that:The subpoenaed party either gathered or disseminated information critical of (or otherwise objected to by) the government;[cxiv] Dissemination of that information is itself protected by the First Amendment;[cxv] The government has admitted—through contemporaneous statements, documents, testimony, or other available evidence—that the subpoena was issued, at least in part, for a retaliatory or other bad faith purpose;[cxvi] There is a temporal or causal link between the purportedly objectionable information and the subpoena’s issuance;[cxvi Enforcement of the subpoena is likely to deter either (1) similarly situated journalists and news organizations from gathering and disseminating information deemed objectionable by the government or (2) news sources from providing such information in the first instance;[cxviii] The relevant government decisionmakers have a history of taking retaliatory action against those who disseminate information they deem objectionable;[cxix] The government’s conduct reveals a pattern of conduct that cannot reasonably be explained on any basis other than bad faith;[cxx] The subpoena does not serve a legitimate need of law enforcement;[cxxi] The testimony or evidence sought by the subpoena bears only a remote or tenuous relationship to the subject of the grand jury’s investigation;[cxxii] The subpoena sweeps broadly and/or could have been more narrowly tailored to achieve its purported purpose;[cxxiii] The grand jury issued no subpoenas to similarly situated persons or entities that had not gathered or disseminated information the government deemed objectionable;[cxxiv] The process surrounding the subpoena’s issuance, including its timing and the events leading up to it, was unusual or irregular or imposed unnecessarily onerous requirements on its recipient;[cxxv] and The government based issuance of the subpoena on information it knew or should have known was materially false.[cxxvi] A subpoenaed party may make the requisite prima facieshowing without on-the-nose evidence. As the caselaw surrounding unconstitutional government retaliation demonstrates, a presumption of bad faith can be based on circumstantial evidence of the above.[cxxvii] As that caselaw further indicates, the requisite showing can be based on an aggregation of some, but not necessarily all or even most, of these evidentiary categories.[cxxviii] Even without such evidence, there is ample available support for a presumption of bad faith whenever the current administration subpoenas a journalist or news organization to testify before a grand jury. As the Introduction demonstrates, the administration and its relevant decision-makers—including the Attorney General, the director of the FBI, the director of national intelligence, and the president himself—have publicly declared their intent to retaliate against perceived critics and other enemies including, most especially, through the issuance of subpoenas to the press. In addition, both the president (in his public and putatively private capacity) and his administration have an established track record of retaliating against disfavored journalists and news organizations. Standing alone, such evidence should be more than sufficient to satisfy the subpoenaed party’s initial burden of establishing a presumption of bad faith.3. Once a prima facie showing has been made, the subpoena is presumptively invalid and the burden shifts to the government to demonstrate that (1) the subpoena seeks information material to the grand jury investigation; (2) the grand jury has a compelling need for the subpoenaed information; and (3) the information is not available from alternative sources.As we have explained, in some circumstances, courts adjudicating First Amendment–based retaliation claims have required speakers to demonstrate either that retaliation was a substantial factor motivating an adverse governmental action or that the action had a materially adverse impact on that speaker.[cxxix] Accordingly, there may be an understandable inclination to allow the government to overcome the presumption of bad faith in such circumstances.For a number of reasons, however, the caselaw demonstrates that, although such evidence may be relevant to the requisite showing, it is by no means sufficient. Cases like Grosjean and Rossignol indicate that such a showing is irrelevant where a retaliatory motive against the press has been demonstrated.[cxxx] Those cases, as well as established First Amendment doctrine more generally, reflect the notion that even fleeting infringement of the constitutional right necessarily causes “irreparable harm.”[cxxxi] The Supreme Court also has deemed such showings insufficient to rebut claims of improper governmental motive in analogous contexts, including under the Equal Protection Clause.[cxxxii] Most significantly, in Branzburg and its progeny, courts have similarly indicated that evidence of a nonretaliatory motive (in addition to an illicit one) or allegedly de minimis impact, standing alone, would be insufficient to overcome the presumption of bad faith.[cxxxiii] Thus, in the face of a prima facie showing of bad faith, the government’s burden of rebutting the resulting presumption is necessarily heavy.[cxxxiv] We suspect that, in the run of cases, the current administration will not attempt to rebut a journalist’s or news organization’s showing of bad faith, whether because of the persuasive body of existing evidence referenced above or the administration’s likely desire to avoid the unearthing of additional evidence of its bad faith. Rather, for the reasons that follow, the administration will likely opt instead to attempt to overcome the qualified privilege established by a prima facie showing of bad faith.In Branzburg, the subpoenaed journalists all argued (unsuccessfully) that the constitutional privilege they sought was not absolute.[cxxxv] In his dissenting opinion, Justice Potter Stewart advocated for a qualified privilege based on three factors:[T]he government must (1) show that there is probable cause to believe that the newsman has information that is clearly relevant to a specific probable violation of law; (2) demonstrate that the information sought cannot be obtained by alternative means less destructive of First Amendment rights; and (3) demonstrate a compelling and overriding interest in the information.[cxxxvi] In the absence of further Supreme Court guidance, lower courts have widely adopted it outside the grand jury context.[cxxxvii] Moreover, in grand jury cases following Branzburg, the federal appellate courts that have considered the issue have strongly suggested that even a subpoena issued in bad faith may be enforced consistent with the First Amendment if the government satisfies Justice Stewart’s three-part test. Specifically, those courts have construed Justice Powell’s concurrence as requiring that a court faced with a motion to quash a subpoena issued in bad faith “balance” the journalist’s right to avoid this intrusion on the newsgathering process against the need for the journalist’s testimony.[cxxxviii] As more than five decades of precedent outside the grand jury context indicates, the balance is struck through judicial assessment of whether the government nevertheless has an overriding, compelling interest in enforcing the subpoena. If so, even where it was issued in bad faith, the subpoena may be enforced.Conclusion-A broad swath of our First Amendment jurisprudence is composed of prophylactic rules designed to protect the press from the ever-present risk that government officials will invoke their power to penalize or retaliate against it for disfavored reporting or commentary.In New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, for example, the Court—aware that Alabama officials had weaponized libel law to punish and stifle critical reporting—erected a constitutional regime designed to make it difficult for them (and others) to do so.[cxxxix] In Minneapolis Star, the Court created a presumption that a tax directed solely at the press violates the First Amendment expressly because it feared that any such tax would likely be imposed in bad faith.[cxl] By contrast, in Branzburg,[cxli] the Court declined to adopt an analogous prophylactic rule creating a presumption of constitutional invalidity when a federal grand jury subpoenas a reporter or news organization. Instead, it placed on the press the onus of establishing the subpoena was issued in bad faith.In this article, we have taken the Court at its word and, drawing on precedent established in analogous contexts, have offered a framework for vindicating the press’s constitutional right to resist grand jury subpoenas designed to punish or retaliate against it for speaking truth to power. [i] Marvin Kalb, Enemy of the People: Trump’s War on the Press, the New McCarthyism, and the Threat to American Democracy (2018); Susan B. Glasser, Donald Trump’s Revenge, New Yorker (Nov. 6, 2024), https://www.newyorker.com/news/the-lede/donald-trump-wins-a-second-term; Josh Gerstein, Trump Promised to Get Revenge. Here Are His Targets., Politico (Nov. 6, 2024), https://www.politico.com/news/2024/11/06/trump-retribution-enemy-list-00187725. [ii] Glasser, supra note 1. [iii] Liam Scott, Bill to Protect Journalists Fails in US Senate, Voice of Am. (Dec. 10, 2024), https://www.voanews.com/a/bill-to-protect-journalists-fails-in-senate/7897008.html. [iv] Julian E. Barnes & David E. Sanger, Trump Administration Opens Leak Investigations, N.Y. Times (Mar. 14, 2025), https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/14/us/politics/trump-administration-leak-investigations.html. [v] Charlie Savage & Devlin Barrett, Attorney General Lifts Ban on Subpoenaing Reporters’ Notes in Leak Investigations, N.Y. Times (May 1, 2025), https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/01/us/politics/attorney-general-ban-subpoenae-reporter-notes.html.[vi] Julian E. Barnes et al., Strike Set Back Iran’s Nuclear Program by Only a Few Months, U.S. Report Says, N.Y. Times (June 24, 2025), https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/24/us/politics/iran-nuclear-sites.html.[vii] Marc Caputo, Scoop: Trump to Limit Sharing Classified Info with Congress After Leak on Iran Bombing Damage, Axios (June 25, 2025), https://www.axios.com/2025/06/25/iran-bombing-intelligence-trump-congress.[viii] Kalb, supra note 1; Cody Venzke, Where FBI Director Nominee Kash Patel Stands on Civil Liberties, ACLU (Jan. 8, 2025), https://www.aclu.org/news/civil-liberties/where-fbi-director-nominee-kash-patel-stands-on-civil-liberties.[ix] Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665 (1972).[x] See In re Grand Jury Subpoena, Judith Miller, 438 F.3d 1138 (D.C. Cir. 2006).[xi] Branzburg, 408 U.S. at 707–08.[xii] Id. at 667; id. at 709 (Powell, J., concurring); id. at 725 (Stewart, J., dissenting).[xiii] See generally Lee Levine et al., Newsgathering and the Law 18 (Matthew Bender & Co. 5th ed. 2018); James C. Goodale, Branzburg v. Hayes and the Developing Qualified Privilege for Newsmen, 26 Hastings L.J. 709 (1975); Lee Levine & Stephen Wermiel, A Tale of Three Reporters: Reflecting on Branzburg v. Hayes at 50, 38 Commc’ns Law. 6 (2022).[xiv] Branzburg, 408 U.S. at 681.[xv] Id.[xvi] Id. at 682.[xvii] Id. at 700 (quoting DeGregory v. Att’y Gen. of N.H., 383 U.S. 829 (1966)).[xviii] Id. at 707–08.[xix] Id.[xx] Id.[xxi] Id. at 708.[xxii]Id. at 709 (Powell, J., concurring).[xxiii] Id. at 710.[xxiv] Id.[xxv] Id.[xxvi] Id.[xxvii] Levine & Wermiel, supra note 13.[xxviii] In re Grand Jury Proceedings, 810 F.2d 580, 585 (6th Cir. 1987).[xxix] Id. Similarly, in another early post-Branzburg decision, the D.C. Circuit determined that the reference to balancing of competing interests in Justice Powell’s concurring opinion was directed at (and limited to) “the availability of judicial case-by-case screening out for bad faith ‘improper and prejudicial’ interrogation.” Reps. Comm. for Freedom of the Press v. AT&T, 593 F.2d 1030, 1061 n.107 (D.C. Cir. 1978). See In re Special Counsel Investigation, 332 F. Supp. 2d 26, 30 (D.D.C. 2004) (“[T]here is no reporter’s privilege except in the face of a grand jury acting in bad faith.”).[xxx] 201 F. App’x 430 (9th Cir. 2006).[xxxi] Id. at 432.[xxxii] Id. (quoting In re Grand Jury Proceedings (Scarce), 5 F.3d 397, 401 (9th Cir. 1993)).[xxxiii] In re Grand Jury Proceeding, 971 F.3d 40 (2d Cir. 2020).[xxxiv] Id. at 54 (quoting United States v. Salameh, 152 F.3d 88, 109 (2d Cir. 1998)).[xxxv] Id. (citations omitted).[xxxvi] In re Grand Jury Subpoena to Risen, No. 1:10CR485, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 143340, at *1 (E.D. Va. June 28, 2011).[xxxvii] Id. at *25 n.6.[xxxviii] United States v. Sterling, 724 F.3d 233 (4th Cir. 2013), rev’g, 818 F. Supp. 2d 945 (E.D. Va. 2011).[xxxix] Risen, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 143340, at *25 n.6.[xl] Id.[xli] Id.[xlii] 297 U.S. 233 (1936).[xliii] Minneapolis Star v. Minn. Comm’r of Revenue, 460 U.S. 575, 579–80 (1983).[xliv] Grosjean, 297 U.S. at 250.[xlv] Id.[xlvi] Id.[xlvii] Id.[xlviii] 460 U.S. 575 (1983).[xlix] Id. at 579–80.[l] Id.[li] Id.[lii] 316 F.3d 516 (4th Cir. 2003).[liii] Id. at 521.[liv] Id. In Baltimore Sun v. Ehrlich, 437 F.3d 410 (4th Cir. 2006), Maryland’s governor had instructed his administration to cease providing interviews or other information to two reporters who had written articles critical of him. Without citing Rossignol, the court looked to precedent (discussed infra) governing First Amendment retaliation claims brought by non-media speakers. Under that body of law, the court concluded that, even though it was conceded the two journalists had “engaged in constitutionally protected speech” and the governor had issued the “directive in response to their speech,” there can be no “actionable retaliation claim . . . when a government official denies a reporter access to discretionarily afforded information or refuses to answer questions.” Id. at 417. The court so held, it explained, both because it feared that authorizing a retaliation claim in such circumstances would “constitutionalize virtually every day-to-day interchange between the press and the Governor” and because, in the absence of evidence of a demonstrable “chilling effect” on the Sun’s “exercise of its First Amendment rights,” the law does not provide a remedy for a “de minimis inconvenience.” Id.[lv] 138 F.4th 563 (D.C. Cir. 2025).[lvi] Id. at 569.[lvii] Id. at 569–70.[lviii] Id. at 570.[lix] Id. (emphasis added).[lx] Id.[lxi] Id. at 584 (cleaned up).[lxii] Id.[lxiii] Id. at 579.[lxiv] Id. at 580.[lxv] Id. at 581.[lxvi] Id. at 580 (emphasis added).[lxvii] Id.[lxviii] Id.[lxix] No. 25-5109, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 13980, at *1 (D.C. Cir. June 6, 2025).[lxx] See generally id.[lxxi] Id. at *3.[lxxii] Id. at *27 (emphasis added).[lxxiii] Id. at *28.[lxxiv] Id.[lxxv] Id. at *36.[lxxvi] Id. at *48. Judge Pillard also rejected Judge Rao’s formulation of the First Amendment retaliation standard as requiring “a materially adverse action.” Id. at *63–64. Even if this novel element were added to the traditional standard, she asserted, the AP was likely to succeed on the merits of its claim because the White House’s “exclusion was retributive” in nature. Id. at *62.[lxxvii] 429 U.S. 274 (1977).[lxxviii] Id. at 281.[lxxix] Id.[lxxx] Id. at 281–82.[lxxxi] Id.[lxxxii] Id. at 282–83.[lxxxiii] Id. at 285.[lxxxiv] Id. at 283–84.[lxxxv] Id. at 285.[lxxxvi] Id.[lxxxvii] Id. at 287.[lxxxviii] Id. at 287 & n.2 (citing Arlington Heights v. Metro. Hous. Dev. Corp., 429 U.S. 252 (1977)). For further discussion regarding Arlington Heights, see infra.[lxxxix] 587 U.S. 391 (2019).[xc] Id. at 402.[xci] Id. at 403.[xcii] Id.[xciii] 02 U.S. 653 (2024).[xciv] Id. at 658.[xcv] Id. at 675.[xcvi] Id. at 676.[xcvii] 429 U.S. 252 (1977).[xcviii] Id. at 265.[xcix] Id.[c] Id. at 266.[ci] Id.[cii] Id.[ciii] Id.[civ] Id. at 267.[cv] Id.[cvi] Id.[cvii] Id. at 268.[cviii] Id.[cix] Id.[cx] Id.[cxi] In circuits in which a reporter’s privilege has not been recognized absent bad faith even outside of the grand jury context, this framework could be employed in motions to quash other subpoenas as well. See, e.g., Convertino v. U.S. DOJ, Case No. 07-CV-13842, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 66889 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 28, 2008). [cxii] Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665, 681, 707 (1972).[cxiii] See In re Grand Jury Proceedings, 810 F.2d 580, 585 (6th Cir. 1987); In re Grand Jury Proceedings (Scarce), 5 F.3d 397, 400 (9th Cir. 1993); Reps. Comm. for Freedom of the Press v. AT&T, 593 F.2d 1030, 1061 n.107 (D.C. Cir. 1978).[cxiv] See, e.g., Grosjean v. Am. Press, 297 U.S. 233, 250 (1936); Minneapolis Star v. Minn. Comm’r of Revenue, 460 U.S. 575, 579–80 (1983); Rossignol v. Voorhaar, 316 F.3d 516, 521 (4th Cir. 2003); In re Grand Jury Subpoena to Risen, No. 1:10CR485, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 143340, at *25 n.6 (E.D. Va. June 28, 2011).[cxv] See Mt. Healthy City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274, 283, 287 (1977); Media Matters for Am. v. Paxton, 138 F.4th 563, 570 (D.C. Cir. 2025).[cxvi] See Grosjean, 297 U.S. at 250; Minneapolis Star, 460 U.S. at 579–80; Arlington Heights v. Metro. Hous. Dev. Corp., 429 U.S. 252, 268 (1977); Rossignol, 316 F.3d at 521.[cxvii] See Nieves v. Bartlett, 587 U.S. 391, 403 (2019); Gonzalez v. Trevino, 602 U.S. 653, 658 (2024); Media Matters for Am. v. Paxton, 138 F.4th 563, 570 (D.C. Cir. 2025).[cxviii] See Balt. Sun. v. Ehrlich, 437 U.S. 410, 417 (4th Cir. 2006); Arlington Heights, 429 U.S. at 266; Media Matters for Am., 138 F.4th at 580; Associated Press v. Budowich, No. 25-5109, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 13980, at *27 (D.C. Cir. June 6, 2025).[cxix] See Grosjean, 297 U.S. at 250; Minneapolis Star, 460 U.S. at 579–80; Arlington Heights, 429 U.S. at 267.[cxx] See Arlington Heights, 429 U.S. at 266; Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 (1886).[cxxi] See Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665, 707–08 (1972); id. at 710 (Powell, J., concurring); see In re Grand Jury Proceedings, 810 F.2d 580, 585 (6th Cir. 1987); In re Grand Jury Proceedings (Scarce), 5 F.3d 397, 400 (9th Cir. 1993); Reps. Comm. for Freedom of the Press v. AT&T, 593 F.2d 1030, 1061 n.107 (D.C. Cir. 1978).[cxxii] See Branzburg, 408 U.S. at 707–08; id. at 710 (Powell, J., concurring); see In re Grand Jury Proceedings, 810 F.2d at 585; In re Grand Jury Proceedings (Scarce), 5 F.3d at 400; Reps. Comm. for Freedom of the Press, 593 F.2d at 1061 n.107.[cxxiii] See In re Grand Jury Subpoena to Risen, No. 1:10CR485, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 143340, at *25 n.6 (E.D. Va. June 28, 2011).[cxxiv] See Nieves v. Bartlett, 587 U.S. 391, 403 (2019); Associated Press v. Budowich, No. 25-5109, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 13980, at *48 (D.C. Cir. June 6, 2025) (Pillard, J., dissenting).[cxxv] See Arlington Heights, 429 U.S. at 267; Gonzalez v. Trevino, 602 U.S. 653, 676 (2024) (Jackson, J., concurring).[cxxvi] See Arlington Heights, 429 U.S. at 267; Gonzalez, 602 U.S. at 676 (Jackson, J., concurring).[cxxvii] See notes 3–14 supra (citing cases).[cxxviii] See id.[cxxix] See, e.g., Mt. Healthy City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274, 283, 287 (1977); Nieves, 587 U.S. at 403; Budowich, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 13980, at *27; Balt. Sun v. Ehrlich, 437 U.S. 410, 417 (4th Cir. 2006).[cxxx] See Grosjean v. Am. Press, 297 U.S. 233, 250 (1936); Minneapolis Star v. Minn. Comm’r of Revenue, 460 U.S. 575, 579–80 (1983); Rossignol v. Voorhaar, 316 F.3d 516, 521 (4th Cir. 2003).[cxxxi] See Grosjean, 297 U.S. at 250; Minneapolis Star, 460 U.S. at 579–80; Rossignol, 316 F.3d at 521; Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347, 373 (1976) (“The loss of First Amendment freedoms, for even minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury.”).[cxxxii] See, e.g., Arlington Heights v. Metro. Hous. Dev. Corp., 429 U.S. 252, 267 (1977).[cxxxiii] See Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665, 707–08 (1972); id. at 710 (Powell, J., concurring); see In re Grand Jury Proceedings, 810 F.2d 580, 585 (6th Cir. 1987); In re Grand Jury Proceedings (Scarce), 5 F.3d 397, 400 (9th Cir. 1993); Reps. Comm. for Freedom of the Press v. AT&T, 593 F.2d 1030, 1061 n.107 (D.C. Cir. 1978).[cxxxiv] As the Supreme Court suggested in Arlington Heights, there may be an “extraordinary” case in which a subpoenaed reporter or news organization would be entitled to targeted discovery from the relevant government actors to bolster its bad-faith claim, specifically when the government has challenged the sufficiency of its prima facie showing. See Arlington Heights, 429 U.S. at 268. Such discovery could both be tailored to avoid intrusion on grand jury proceedings themselves and be undertaken—at least initially—pursuant to a confidentiality regime supervised by the court.[cxxxv] See Branzburg, 408 U.S. at 680 (“the newsmen in these cases do not claim an absolute privilege against official interrogation”).[cxxxvi] Id. at 740, 743 (Stewart, J., dissenting).[cxxxvii] See Lee Levine et al., 2 Newsgathering and the Law 16.07 (4th ed. 2011) (citing cases).[cxxxviii] See note 2 supra (citing cases).[cxxxix] 376 U.S. 254 (1964).[cxl] Minneapolis Star v. Minn. Comm’r of Revenue, 460 U.S. 575 (1983).[cxli] Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665 (1972).

J6 Shocker: FBI informants warned of armed violence, Antifa presence before riot, lawmaker reveals-Rep. Barry Loudermilk says he fears that the FBI withheld vital intelligence, creating fateful security holes before Capitol riot.By John Solomon-Published: November 7, 2025 11:13pm

Numerous confidential informants alerted the FBI prior to the Jan. 6, 2021 riot that there was the strong possibility of “armed” conflict at the U.S. Capitol, but that intelligence was not disbursed aggressively enough to force a change in security that fateful day, the first congressman to review those source reports tells Just the News.Rep. Barry Loudermilk, R-Ga., the chairman of the House Judiciary subcommittee investigating Jan. 6 law enforcement failures, said he was floored to see the specificity of threats and the consistency in warnings that multiple confidential human sources provided the FBI and that the intelligence was serious enough that it should have prompted more security and possibly even a cancellation of President Donald Trump’s speech that day on the Ellipse. Loudermilk said the intelligence reports came weeks and days in advance of the Capitol riot from about two dozen informants embedded in radical groups around the country and that many of those informants came to the Capitol to keep assisting the FBI.“I was surprised that we found this significant intelligence that was derived from these people embedded in these organizations,” he said Friday night in an expansive interview on the "Just the News, No Noise" television show. “There is no way that at least the Washington Field Office or the FBI headquarters was not aware that there were elements, not the entire crowd. There were elements of people coming to Washington, DC with the intent of attacking the Capitol of the United States.”The Georgia lawmaker credited current FBI Director Kash Patel and Attorney General Pam Bondi for giving him access to the intelligence reports of the informants and said that it opened a whole new avenue of inquiry into whether some elements inside the FBI withheld intelligence that could have helped Capitol Police better prepare or repel the violence that occurred that day.“We’re really having a hard time finding really any tangible reports that were sent to the Capitol Police or other agencies. And so my question is, what did they know? When did they know it, and what did they do with the information?” he said.“I can tell you unequivocally, they had to know that there was something not only bad going to happen, but the reports coming from these confidential human sources, not just one, but multiple sources from multiple organizations across multiple field offices across the nation, were reporting the same thing,” he added.Loudermilk said the informants made clear to their FBI handlers “that not only was there going to be violence in Washington, DC, at the Capitol on January 6, most of the reports were it was going to be a whole lot worse than what actually it turned out to be."Pressed further, Loudermilk said he was waiting to have documents further declassified but confirmed multiple informants told the FBI that groups were planning an armed attack on the Capitol, lawmakers or law enforcement during the certification of the 2020 election results that cleared the way for Joe Biden to become the 46th president.“There were elements, not every group that was there, but there were certain groups that were planning on an armed attack of the Capitol, and even against law enforcement if they got in the way,” he disclosed. “And it's not just isolated. It was, again, from several different places across the United States, and reported to several different field offices.FBI had as many as 26 confidential informants embedded in Jan. 6 crowd“One of my concerns about this, and I'm just going to speak from my own self, and one of the, one of the things that I think we need to run down is if they would have passed along this level of intelligence, if they would have shared that level of intelligence, would it had changed the security posture to the extent where President Trump would not have come out and given his speech at the ellipse,” Loudermilk added.It was revealed last year by the DOJ’s internal watchdog that the FBI had as many as 26 confidential informants in the crowd on Jan. 6 and that some had been passing on warnings to agents about potential violence by right-leaning groups like the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers.Also warned about Antifa-But Loudermilk revealed for the first time Friday night that one of the groups that were being flagged by the FBI informants was the far-left anarchist group Antifa, which was recently designated a domestic terror group by Trump.“The answer is yes, there was concerns that Antifa would be embedded within the crowds there,” he said. “There were several references, again, not just isolated to one, but several different field offices, different organizations that were reporting that they had heard that Antifa would be embedded within the crowd.”FBI officials confirmed to Just the News that their informant did warn of armed conflict and even Antifa, that the reports have now been shared with Congress and that efforts are underway to declassify them, so the public could see the long-hidden warnings.Just the News has previously reported that Capitol Police intelligence analysts did not receive intelligence warnings of major violence and were led to believe by intelligence partners that Jan. 6 would look like prior peaceful Trump rallies. That assessment led Capitol Police to have a smaller security footprint and for top lieutenants to reject then-Capitol Police Chief Steve Sund’s request days ahead of the event for the National Guard to be deployed for extra security.Loudermilk released last year videotape of then-Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., admitting she should not have opposed the deployment of the National Guard.Loudermilk said the intelligence and informants he has now read four years later warranted a far more aggressive security plan than was deployed.“There should have been even more security put in place. The National Guard should have been at the Capitol the first time Chief of Police, Steven Sund requested it, just based on that information,” he said.Since the revelation last year of the presence of FBI informants in the Jan. 6 crowd, some have questioned whether their presence had a nefarious intent. Loudermilk said the evidence he has seen leads him to the opposite conclusion, that the informants did a good job warning the FBI, but those warnings fell on deaf ears.“They are all reporting the same thing, and it's just not prior to January 6. Some of them are reporting during January 6 and post reporting,” he said. “And so that's what I found enlightening. They continue to report what was going on which, which increases their credibility, in my opinion, that they were trying to do the right thing.”

House committees threaten subpoena over no-show ActBlue official in fundraiser fraud probe-Republicans launched an investigation earlier this year into the fundraising giant over concerns about fraud prevention policies which uncovered lax security measures that allowed foreign donations to American political campaigns.By John Solomon and Steven Richards-Published: November 7, 2025 2:44pm

The three House committees leading the probe into Democratic-aligned fundraising platform ActBlue have threatened a former lead official in the company with a subpoena to appear for testimony about the company’s fraud prevention practices. "On August 1, you expressed your intent to cooperate with the Committees’ oversight and appear for a transcribed interview once you retained counsel,” House Administration committee Chairman Bryan Steil, House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan, and House Oversight Chairman James Comer wrote in a letter Friday. “To date, however, you have failed to comply with the Committees’ request.”The former official, who is identified as the “Former Senior Total Rewards Specialist” for ActBlue, is believed by the committee heads to possess knowledge about “reported internal misconduct and whistleblower retaliation” at the fundraising platform. You can read the letter below:File 2025-11-07_JDJ_BS_BC_to_employee_re_follow-up_Redacted.pdf .In March, at least seven senior officials resigned from the fundraising giant as it came under scrutiny from House Republicans over concerns about the company’s fraud prevention policies. One remaining lawyer at the company also alleged that he faced internal retaliation, the New York Times reported. Earlier this year, the committee subpoenaed ActBlue CEO Regina Wallace-Jones for documents related to its probe.They soon discovered that the platform, which is used by hundreds of Democratic campaigns and progressive causes, had accepted possibly fraudulent donations from domestic and foreign sources, in part, because of policy changes during the 2024 campaign cycle that relaxed verification for credit or gift card donations, Just the News previously reported. According to internal company documents reviewed by the committees, during the 2024 campaign cycle, ActBlue issued new standards encouraging staff to “look for reasons to accept contributions.” Before the policy change, the platform already failed to require CVV numbers for credit card transactions, increasing fraud risks.An internal assessment by the company determined the policy change led to “between 14 and 28 additional fraudulent contributions each month,” the committees said.The documents also show the platform began monitoring potential fraudulent donations from several foreign sources, including hundreds of donations from Brazil, Colombia, India, Iraq, the Philippines and Saudi Arabia, and other countries.ActBlue has repeatedly denied any wrongdoing and says that it is fully cooperating with ongoing investigations.The platform has acknowledged to Congress that it has updated its donor verification policy to automatically reject donations that “use foreign prepaid/gift cards, domestic gift cards, are from high-risk/sanctioned countries, and have the highest level of risk as determined,” by its solution provider, Sift. 

Pro-Israel Christians, Jews use law loathed by pro-life activists to stop anti-Israel disruptions-"It would make it more difficult to hold violent agitators and intimidating antisemites accountable under the law" if Congress repeals the FACE Act, as pro-life activists want, lawyer for religious organizations says.By Greg Piper Published: November 7, 2025 11:20pm

Texas pro-life activists took a page from California environmental activists to functionally ban abortion in The Lone Star State, by outsourcing civil litigation to private citizens so that abortion clinics couldn't sue public officials to block SB 8. Red states repeated the environmental trick this year through bills targeting abortion pills as contaminants of drinking water. Now the bane of pro-life activists for over 30 years is being fashioned to protect Christian and Jewish congregations, whose faith compels them to support Israel, from anti-Israel activists in the San Diego area.First Liberty Institute filed a Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act lawsuit against "hostile agitators affiliated with Code Pink" on behalf of the Christian and Jewish Alliance, The Mission Church of Carlsbad and Jewish worshipper Ruth Mastron, alleging they carried out an illegal "campaign of disruption and harassment" against three worship services."We just want to be able to gather safely, pray, and worship together without fearing for our lives," Mastron said, alleging "a masked person holding a vulgar sign jumped onto the hood of our car, screaming and banging on the windshield" at a Sept. 7 service.The federal FACE Act makes it unlawful for any person to use "force, the threat of force, or physical obstruction to intentionally injure or intimidate a person because he or she is lawfully exercising the right of religious freedom at a place of worship" or "obtaining or providing reproductive health services," whether abortion or anti-abortion counseling.The legislation has rarely been used to protect churches or pro-life pregnancy centers but has been used overwhelmingly to prosecute pro-life activists and impose steep criminal penalties far beyond what a state or local trespassing charge would carry. In the first week of his second term, President Trump granted pardons to 23 liberal and conservative pro-life activists facing years in prison under FACE Act convictions for peaceful sit-ins at abortion clinics. A 24th activist didn't seek a pardon so he could challenge the law as null and void under Dobbs, the Supreme Court ruling that eliminated federal abortion rights.The Heritage Foundation has called it "an ideological weapon designed to suppress ordinary pro-life activity and expression," and the GOP-controlled House Judiciary Committee approved a FACE Act repeal bill this summer that hasn't gone anywhere since.Asked why it didn't seek terrorism-related charges for politically motivated threats of violence against worshippers and physical assault of Mastron, First Liberty senior counsel Jeremy Dys told Just the News that "Congress gave us the solution" to deal with agitators who "exchange peace with intimidation and antisemitism" under the guise of peaceful protest."It would make it more difficult to hold violent agitators and intimidating antisemites accountable under the law" if Congress repealed the FACE Act, he said.Screaming 'obscenities and slurs at the children,' showing them dead babies-Known to an older generation for its antiwar disruptions during George W. Bush's presidency, Code Pink has shown its staying power over two decades, reportedly turning President Trump against the Secret Service by getting dangerously close to him at a restaurant this month.It is formally committed to nonviolence, meaning its activists will "use no violence, verbal or physical, toward any person," show "openness and respect toward all people we encounter in our actions," and neither "destroy any property" nor carry weapons. "We will exercise personal and collective responsibility to ensure all participants adhere to these commitments."That's not the narrative told in First Liberty's lawsuit against Daniel Brunner, Aimee Magda Werth, Kristina Turner-Brown, Patrick Hartley, Sasha Spite Miller, Jacob Pagaduan, Esmat “Essie” Baradar, Jonathan Provance, Maya Karalius and 40 unknown defendants. Just the News asked Code Pink, which is not itself named, whether it considers any of the defendants to be affiliates or to legitimately organize in its name, and if so, what responsibility it has over them. The docket shows no defendant has a listed lawyer as of Friday."We do not comment on any ongoing or pending litigation" but will reach out if Code Pink issues a statement, media relations manager Melissa Garriga told Just the News.Various configurations of the defendants illegally interfered with the plaintiffs' events March 19, Easter Sunday and Sept. 7, 2025, the last event of which drew the most named defendants, the suit says, claiming Brunner and Hartley participated in all three. Several photos purportedly identify various defendants in the act of protest or arrest.It specifies that Brunner, Miller and Werth hold themselves out publicly as Code Pink leaders in the San Diego area, "which has a pattern of organizing disruptive protests against Jews and their supporters," and that Brunner also led a disruptive protest Oct. 20, 2024, against the alliance and church and against a different church Aug. 25, 2025.The defendants' actions have "created a culture of anxiety and fear within both the Church and the Alliance, causing both to cancel religious events and expend additional resources to ensure the safety of their members," the suit says, with the church losing members and the alliance struggling to "secure safe locations to host interfaith worship and prayer events."Mastron suffers "severe stress and lingering anxiety" whenever she's in "public in her own community" because of ongoing threats by Code Pink affiliates, whose stated "war" against the "abomination" of Zionism considers her a legitimate target, the suit says.The March event at the church featured former Israeli Knesset member Einat Wilf, with about half the audience of 400 composed of Jewish community members, who gathered to "worship together and learn about religious persecution in Israel," First Liberty claims. "Posing as guests" under fake names, "disruptors infiltrated the sanctuary, yelling epithets until they were escorted out," while others "lined up inches outside the door, calling church members 'Nazis' and yelling 'Mission Church, you can’t hide! We charge you with genocide!'" the firm said. (This event includes 20 unnamed defendants, the most of any.) Those inside the sanctuary disrupted the event "in staggered intervals –screaming, threatening congregants, and physically resisting removal," then all the defendants at that event "blockaded egress from the Church to the parking lot, intentionally creating a chaotic and violent environment for hundreds of guests seeking to leave," the suit says.They came back on Easter Sunday, "holding signs with grotesque images of dead babies and yelling at the children of the church when they saw them outside," using bullhorns to scream "obscenities and slurs at the children" even after police told protesters to go across the street. The suit says "safety officers" escorted several attendees back to their cars, and those parked in overflow had to walk "directly past" protesters and their "vitriolic chants and graphic signs."Ignored cease-and-desist, police refused to stop 'ear-splitting sirens'The disruptions reached a head at the September event at the Legacy International Center's amphitheater, with an Orthodox rabbi opening prayer and several pastors and rabbis speaking and leading worship, according to the suit.The church's counsel had sent Brunner a cease-and-desist letter in May to prevent further disruptions, but he and six other named defendants, the most yet, and 15 unknown defendants showed up to the September event and created mayhem, First Liberty claims.Defendants arrived long before, "intentionally occupied the road to block both entrances to the venue" and funneled all vehicles into the only remaining entrance, slowing everyone to a crawl as disruptors walked in front of and behind cars with bullhorns shouting "Zionism is Naziism!" and "Go back to Israel!" among other epithets, the suit says.In addition to Doe 26, a "pink-haired woman wearing a full black face mask" carrying the sign "Only C---s Support Israel" who jumped on Mastron's car, others physically intruded into the cars of other attendees to yell at them, hit their vehicles or surround them so they couldn't move, the plaintiffs allege.The threatening behavior on the ground prompted several cars to turn around, and the actual attendance that day was "far less than the number of pre-registered guests."Those who made it in endured "ear-splitting sirens for three hours," and senior citizens had to remove their hearing aids, staying "only to show solidarity at the event." Wearing earplugs themselves, the defendants caused "ongoing physical harm" to attendees' ears, yet police told organizers they "'don't enforce noise ordinances,'" the suit says.

WORLD TERRORISM

GENESIS 6:11-13
11 The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence.(WORLD TERRORISM,MURDERS)(HAMAS IN HEBREW IS VIOLENCE)
12 And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth.
13 And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence (TERRORISM)(HAMAS) through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.

MARK 13:8
8 For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom:(ETHNIC GROUP AGAINST ETHNIC GROUP) and there shall be earthquakes in divers places, and there shall be famines and troubles: these are the beginnings of sorrows.

LUKE 21:11
11 And great earthquakes shall be in divers places,(DIFFERNT PLACES AT THE SAME TIME) and famines, and pestilences; and fearful sights and great signs shall there be from heaven.

2 Peter 3:6-7 Amplified Bible (AMP) (HOT SUN, NUKES ETC)
6 By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed. 
7 By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly.

LUKE 21:25-26
25 And there shall be signs in the sun,(HEATING UP-SOLAR ECLIPSES) and in the moon,(MAN ON THE MOON-LUNAR ECLIPSES) and in the stars;(ASTEROIDS-PROPHECY SIGNS) and upon the earth distress of nations, with perplexity;(MASS CONFUSION) the sea and the waves roaring;(FIERCE WINDS)
26 Men’s hearts failing them for fear,(TORNADOES,HURRICANES,STORMS) and for looking after those things which are coming on the earth:(DESTRUCTION) for the powers of heaven shall be shaken.(FROM QUAKES,NUKES ETC)

GENESIS 16:11-12
11 And the angel of the LORD said unto her,(HAGAR) Behold, thou art with child, and shalt bear a son, and shalt call his name Ishmael;(FATHER OF THE ARAB/MUSLIMS) because the LORD hath heard thy affliction.
12 And he (ISHMAEL-FATHER OF THE ARAB-MUSLIMS) will be a wild (DONKEY-JACKASS) man;(ISLAM IS A FAKE AND DANGEROUS SEX FOR MURDER CULT) his hand will be against every man,(ISLAM HATES EVERYONE) and every man's hand against him;(PROTECTING THEMSELVES FROM BEING BEHEADED) and he (ISHMAEL ARAB/MUSLIM) shall dwell in the presence of all his brethren.(LITERAL-THE ARABS LIVE WITH THEIR BRETHERN JEWS)

ISAIAH 14:12-14
12  How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer,(SATAN) son of the morning!(HEBREW-CRECENT MOON-ISLAM) how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!
13  For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:
14  I (SATAN HAS EYE TROUBLES) will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.(AND 1/3RD OF THE ANGELS OF HEAVEN FELL WITH SATAN AND BECAME DEMONS)

JOHN 16:2
2 They shall put you out of the synagogues: yea, the time cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service.(ISLAM MURDERS IN THE NAME OF MOON GOD ALLAH OF ISLAM)

And here are the bounderies of the land that Israel will inherit either through war or peace or God in the future. God says its Israels land and only Israels land. They will have every inch God promised them of this land in the future.
Egypt east of the Nile River, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, The southern part of Turkey and the Western Half of Iraq west of the Euphrates. Gen 13:14-15, Psm 105:9,11, Gen 15:18, Exe 23:31, Num 34:1-12, Josh 1:4.ALL THIS LAND ISRAEL WILL DEFINATELY OWN IN THE FUTURE, ITS ISRAELS NOT ISHMAELS LAND.12 TRIBES INHERIT LAND IN THE FUTURE.

Joel 3:2-King James Version (YOU DIVIDE JERUSALEM IN HALF - YOUR POKING GOD IN THE EYE - GOD SAYS AN EYE FOR AN EYE AND A TOOTH FOR A TOOTH- YOU WANNA DIVIDE JERUSALEM IN HALF -  HALF OF EARTHS POPULATION 4 BILLION DIE ON EARTH.
2 I will also gather all nations, and will bring them down into the valley of Jehoshaphat, and will plead with them there for my people and for my heritage Israel, whom they have scattered among the nations, and parted my land.

Mamdani wins NYC mayoral race, as Jewish leaders say historic civic engagement-“When the final numbers are in, we expect record Jewish voter turnout,” Sydney Altfield, of Teach Coalition, told JNS.-Anna Rahmanan, JNS Staff-(Nov. 4, 2025 / JNS)

Zohran Mamdani, the Democratic Socialist nominee who has a history of anti-Israel rhetoric, has won the New York City mayoral race, the Associated Press reported shortly after 9:30 p.m.At press time, with 75% of the votes counted, Mamdani had 860,327 votes (50.4%), followed by 704,866 (41.3%) for former Democratic state governor Andrew Cuomo, running as an independent, and 128,400 (7.5%) for the Republican candidate, Curtis Sliwa, founder of the Guardian Angels.The Republican Jewish Coalition stated that “it’s official. Zohran Mamdani is the face of the Democratic Party now.”“Democratic ‘leaders,’ including House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries and Gov. Kathy Hochul, have handed their party over to what was once the radical left-wing fringe,” the RJC said. “This is a deeply distressing result for New Yorkers, particularly Jewish New Yorkers, but in fact this election will affect all of us.”The Democratic Party “owns this election and all its results, and voters across the country will hold them accountable when they vote in 2026 and 2028,” the RJC said.

It added that New Yorkers now have “a mayor who will ruin their economy, their education system and their transportation system with communist fantasy policies.”“They will have a mayor who took money from terror-supporting Islamist organizations for his campaign, who is virulently anti-capitalism, anti-police and anti-Israel, and who will not lift a finger to protect Jewish New Yorkers from the ‘globalize the intifada’ crowd,” the RJC said. “This is a dark day for the City of New York, and the Democrats own all of it.”Jonathan Greenblatt, CEO and national director of the Anti-Defamation League, stated that in light of the mayor-elect’s “long, disturbing record on issues of deep concern to the Jewish community, we will approach the next four years with resolve.”“We expect the mayor of the city with the largest Jewish population in the world to stand unequivocally against antisemitism in all its varied forms and support all of its Jewish residents just as he would all other constituents,” the ADL leader said.“In the months ahead, we will hold the Mamdani administration to this basic standard, and ADL will be relentless and unyielding in our work to ensure the safety and security of all Jewish New Yorkers,” he said. “We will neither compromise nor relent in our pursuit of our core purpose, to protect the Jewish people.”“The exit poll shows Mamdani up by about 7. Roughly 47% of the vote. Sliwa dropped a lot, but not enough for Cuomo,” wrote Henry Olsen, senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center and host of the Beyond the Polls podcast, shortly before AP called the race.“Mamdani wins every racial and ethnic group, but really wins on the college-plus vote. He beats Cuomo among them by 20% while losing the non-college vote by only 5,” Olsen wrote. “He loses white non-college voters big, but carries non-white non-college voters by 7.” Olsen added that Cuomo “wins the Jewish vote by only 60-31.Jewish community leaders told JNS that civic engagement among their constituencies has reached unprecedented levels.Sydney Altfield, national director at Teach Coalition, an Orthodox Union program that pushes for government funding of nonpublic schools, told JNS that her sense, after visiting polling sites in Jewish neighborhoods in four boroughs on Tuesday, was that the election had “accelerated the progress of the last several years in the Jewish community understanding the importance of voting for our interests.”“Tens of thousands of new Jewish voters have been registered, and we’ve seen engagement in all segments of the community,” Altfield said. “When the final numbers are in, we expect record Jewish voter turnout. The lasting impact transcends a single election. It’s a movement, not a moment.”Scott Feldman, executive vice president of the One Israel Fund, which supports Israelis in Judea and Samaria, told JNS that Orthodox Jews in New York City have been motivated by concerns about a Mamdani victory.Mamdani has accused Israel of “genocide” and said that he would have Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu arrested if the premier came to the Big Apple.“Mamdani is very dangerous to the Jewish community,” Feldman said. “He is a wolf in sheep’s clothing. Unfortunately, there are plenty of Jews who have fallen for his rhetoric, but he is really an existential threat to our community.”“Everybody that I talk to in my part of the city, in Far Rockaway, are very, very concerned,” he told JNS. “The turnout at our local precinct is almost at the point, and I think by the end of the night it will exceed the amount of votes that were cast last year in the presidential election.”Jewish organizations have spent months registering voters and on get-out-the-vote campaigns. “We all realize the potential problems of a Mamdani mayoral election,” he said. “It’s not just about the Jewish community. We all feel that he would be a terrible mayor for the city of New York, for quality of life, for safety and security, for the police, for the real estate and housing industry, for the stock market and everyone who works in the financial industry.”Although Cuomo had a nearly 30-point lead on Mamdani in the Jewish vote, Jews are just 15% of the electorate, according to Olsen, the polling expert. “No religions are 23% and Mamdani won them by 52,” he wrote. “He also won the 14% who practice non-Judeo-Christian religions (14%) by 43%.”“The only income group Mamdani loses are those making $200,000 or more, and that by only 11%,” he said. “He barely wins among straight voters by 43-42. But among the 14% who are LGBTQ? He wins by 64.”

Jewish NYC vote breakdown: 63% for Cuomo, 33% for Mamdani in mayoral race-Mamdani became the first Muslim to be elected as New York CIty's mayor. Still, he did so by capitalizing on support from voters with no religious affiliation.ByJERUSALEM POST STAFF-NOVEMBER 5, 2025 14:19

A large majority of New York City Jews voted for Andrew Cuomo for mayor, with 63% of the Jewish population voting for him and 33% for Zohran Mamdani, a Wednesday CNN poll found following Mamdani's mayoral victory. Republican candidate Curtis Sliwa received support from 3% of the Jewish population.Mamdani became the first Muslim to be elected as the city's mayor on Tuesday night. According to the poll, however, he did so by capitalizing on support from voters with no religious affiliation, while falling short of a majority among the city's three largest religious groups.Jewish voters comprised 15% of the religious voter blocs-The election results highlight a contrast in priorities among New York’s diverse religious blocs. Overall, Catholic voters accounted for the largest share of the electorate at 27%, followed by those with no religious affiliation (24%), and Protestant/other Christian voters (21%). Jewish voters comprised 15% of the total.In addition to the Jewish vote, Mamdani lost the Catholic vote by a significant margin: 53% supported Cuomo and 14% backed Sliwa, against 33% for Mamdani.A decisive 75% of voters with no religious affiliation supported Mamdani.

RJC: Dems elected an antisemite; Trump: 'AND SO IT BEGINS!' Far-left, anti-Israel candidate Zohran Mamdani wins New York City mayoral race-Promises he won’t waver in fight against antisemitism in city with world’s largest Jewish population, says NYC will be ‘the light’ against Trump’s darkness; NY Jewish federation vows to hold him accountable-By Luke Tress-5 November 2025, 8:23 am

NEW YORK — Democratic candidate Zohran Mamdani on Tuesday was elected mayor of New York City, capping a stunning rise for the far-left anti-Israel activist and state assemblymember who, at 34, will be the city’s youngest mayor in over a century.Mamdani’s win marks a sea change for Jews in New York City, home to the Diaspora’s largest Jewish community, which has enjoyed the support of City Hall for generations. It was long taken for granted that mayoral candidates needed to be pro-Israel to win office, but no longer.He defeated former governor Andrew Cuomo and Republican Curtis Sliwa. He will replace Mayor Eric Adams, who dropped his reelection bid in September but remained on the ballot. More than 2 million New Yorkers cast ballots in the contest, the largest turnout in a mayoral race in more than 50 years, according to the city’s Board of Elections. With roughly 90 percent of the votes counted, Mamdani held an approximately 9-point lead over Cuomo.He entered the general election as the favorite following a 12-point victory in the ranked-choice Democratic primary earlier this year.Addressing concerns among many Jewish New Yorkers, Mamdani stated in his acceptance speech that he will “not waver” in combating antisemitism as the mayor.“We will build a city hall that stands steadfast alongside Jewish New Yorkers and does not waver in the fight against the scourge of antisemitism,” he said. “Where the more than one million Muslims know that they belong — not just in the five boroughs of this city, but in the halls of power. No more will New York be a city where you can traffic in Islamophobia and win an election.”“The conventional wisdom would tell you that I am far from the perfect candidate. I am young, despite my best efforts to grow older. I am Muslim. I am a democratic socialist. And most damning of all, I refuse to apologize for any of this,” Mamdani declared.He cast his win as a victory for blue-collar workers struggling to get by. “New York, tonight you have delivered a mandate for change,” he said, vowing to “wake up each morning with a singular purpose: to make this city better for you than it was the day before.”Mamdani’s victory came in the face of fierce attacks on his policies and Muslim heritage from business elites, conservative media commentators, and US President Donald Trump, a prominent New Yorker.“If anyone can show a nation betrayed by Donald Trump how to defeat him, it is the city that gave rise to him,” Mamdani said in his victory speech. “In this moment of political darkness, New York will be the light.”Trump appeared to acknowledge Mamdani’s challenge, posting ”…AND SO IT BEGINS!” on his Truth Social site.Conceding to Mamdani, Cuomo vowed to continue to oppose antisemitism.“We will not make the NYPD the enemy,” Cuomo told a crowd of several hundred supporters, referring to Mamdani’s past opposition to the police.“We cherish our diversity and we have no tolerance for discrimination of any kind,” he said. “We will not tolerate any behavior that fans the flames of antisemitism.”The crowd cheered in approval.Cuomo made combating antisemitism a central plank of his campaign, winning the support of mainstream Jewish groups.US Jewish groups concerned, vow to hold Mamdani ‘accountable’ Reacting to Mamdani’s victory, mainstream American Jewish organizations mostly withheld congratulations.The UJA-Federation of New York, in a rare political statement, said it will hold the mayor-elect “accountable” after his victory.“We recognize that voters are animated by a range of issues, but we cannot ignore that the mayor-elect holds core beliefs fundamentally at odds with our community’s deepest convictions and most cherished values,” UJA said in a statement.“We will continue to work across every level of government to ensure that our city remains a place where our Jewish community, and all communities, feel safe and respected,” the statement said. “We call on Mayor-elect Mamdani and all elected officials to govern with humility, inclusivity, and a deep respect for the diversity of views and experiences that define our city.”“We will hold all elected officials, including Mayor-elect Mamdani, fully accountable for ensuring that New York remains a place where Jewish life and support for Israel are protected and can thrive,” the statement said.Citing Mamdani’s “disturbing record on issues of deep concern to the Jewish community,” the Anti-Defamation League said it “will approach the next four years with resolve.”“We expect the mayor of the city with the largest Jewish population in the world to stand unequivocally against antisemitism in all its varied forms and support all of its Jewish residents just as he would all other constituents,” the ADL said. “In the months ahead, we will hold the Mamdani administration to this basic standard, and ADL will be relentless and unyielding in our work to ensure the safety and security of all Jewish New Yorkers. We will neither compromise nor relent in our pursuit of our core purpose, to protect the Jewish people.”The Republican Jewish Coalition lamented Mamdani’s win as “a deeply distressing result for New Yorkers, particularly Jewish New Yorkers, but in fact this election will affect all of us.”“Democrats have shamefully endorsed and elected an antisemite to run the largest city in America with the largest number of Jews in the country,” the RJC charged.Mamdani, when he takes office at the start of next year, will become the city’s first Muslim mayor and its youngest leader in generations.His energetic, optimistic, media-savvy campaign galvanized young progressives, including Jews, while his vitriol toward Israel sparked fear in mainstream Jewish communities, who worry his anti-Israel platform will feed into hostility against Jews.Cuomo, Sliwa, and other critics assailed him over his vehement criticism of Israel’s military actions in Gaza. Mamdani, a longtime advocate of Palestinian rights, has accused Israel of committing genocide and said he would honor an arrest warrant the International Criminal Court issued for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.Mamdani has acknowledged that many Jews disagree with his stances on Israel and has vowed to fight antisemitism as mayor.The race was divisive for New Yorkers, and the Jewish community, from Manhattan’s Reform synagogues to Hasidim in Brooklyn. Rabbi Angela Buchdahl, one of the city’s leading Reform rabbis, said this week that Mamdani has contributed to “abhorrent antisemitism,” but added that the “true danger” was a “fracture in our Jewish family.”More than 1,000 rabbis from across the US, including New York City community leaders, signed an open letter last month warning against the threat. Jews are disproportionately targeted in hate crimes in the city; last month, 62% of all hate incidents were antisemitic.Mamdani’s unlikely rise gives credence to Democrats who have urged the party to embrace more progressive candidates instead of rallying behind centrists in hopes of winning back swing voters who have abandoned the party.And his far-reaching policy proposals — free buses and childcare, new approaches to community safety, and government-run grocery stores among them — coupled with his political inexperience, herald an uncertain future for the city.Times of Israel staff and agencies contributed to this report.

Three killed in new US strike on alleged drug boat, toll at 70.

Washington, Nov 7 (AFP) Nov 07, 2025-US forces on Thursday struck another alleged drug trafficking boat in the Caribbean, killing three people, Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth said, bringing the death toll from Washington's controversial anti-narcotics campaign to at least 70.The United States began carrying out such strikes -- which experts say amount to extrajudicial killings even if they target known traffickers -- in early September, taking aim at vessels in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific.The US strikes have destroyed at least 18 vessels so far -- 17 boats and a semi-submersible -- but Washington has yet to make public any concrete evidence that its targets were smuggling narcotics or posed a threat to the United States.Hegseth released aerial footage on X of the latest strike, which he said took place in international waters like the previous strikes and targeted "a vessel operated by a Designated Terrorist Organization."The video showed a boat traveling through the water before exploding into flames."Three male narco-terrorists -- who were aboard the vessel -- were killed," Hegseth said, without any further identifying information."To all narco-terrorists who threaten our homeland: if you want to stay alive, stop trafficking drugs. If you keep trafficking deadly drugs -- we will kill you," he wrote.Like some previous videos released by the US government, a section of the boat is obfuscated for unspecified reasons.President Donald Trump's administration has built up significant forces in Latin America, in what it says is its campaign to stamp out drug trafficking.So far it has deployed six Navy ships in the Caribbean, sent F-35 stealth warplanes to Puerto Rico, and ordered the USS Gerald R Ford carrier strike group to the region.The governments and families of those killed in the US strikes have said many of the dead were civilians -- primarily fishermen.Venezuela's President Nicolas Maduro has repeatedly accused Trump of seeking to oust him.US bombers have also conducted shows of force near Venezuela, flying over the Caribbean Sea off the country's coast on at least four occasions since mid-October.Maduro -- who has been indicted on drug charges in the United States -- insists there is no drug cultivation in his country, which he says is used as a trafficking route for Colombian cocaine against its will.The Trump administration has said in a notice to Congress that the United States is engaged in "armed conflict" with Latin American drug cartels, describing them as terrorist groups as part of its justification for the strikes.The United Nations has asked the United States to cease its campaign, with rights chief Volker Turk saying the killings have taken place "in circumstances that find no justification in international law."

Settler attacks on Palestinians in West Bank hit all-time high in October — UN-Humanitarian office reports 264 violent incidents last month, averaging eight a day; also says roughly 15% of the over 9,600 attacks it has recorded since 2006 occurred this year By Agencies and ToI Staff Today, 6:01 am-NOV 8,25

Israeli settlers carried out at least 264 attacks against Palestinians in the West Bank during October, marking the biggest monthly total since United Nations officials began tracking such incidents in 2006, the UN said on Friday.In a statement warning against the sharp rise in violence, the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs said the attacks, which resulted in casualties and property damage, amounted to an average of eight incidents per day.“Since 2006, OCHA has documented over 9,600 such attacks. About 1,500 of them took place just this year, roughly 15 per cent of the total,” the UN body said in a statement.Home to 2.7 million Palestinians, the West Bank has long been at the heart of plans for a future Palestinian state existing alongside Israel. Over half a million Israeli settlers live in the territory. The United Nations, Palestinians and most countries regard settlements as illegal under international law, which Israel disputes.OCHA also said that according to OCHA-confirmed data as of Wednesday, 42 Palestinian children had been killed by Israeli forces in the West Bank so far this year.“That means one in every five Palestinians killed by Israeli forces in the West Bank in 2025 has been a child,” OCHA said.Israel’s mission to the United Nations did not immediately respond to a request for comment.Violence against Palestinian often rises during olive picking season, which began in early October. There have been a string of attacks by settlers and soldiers on olive pickers, who sometimes include Israeli, Jewish and other volunteers from abroad.The latest attacks have been met with little to no police enforcement against perpetrators, and come amid a larger spike in settler violence since the Hamas onslaught of October 7, 2023, which sparked the Gaza war.

Trump ally Stefanik launches bid for NY governor, blasts Mamdami as ‘antisemitic communist’-Video declaring US House member’s campaign notes her questioning of college presidents over campus antisemitism, as she looks to bolster her profile as a supporter of American Jews-By Andrew Lapin Today, 3:58 am-NOV 8,25

JTA –US Representative Elise Stefanik announced a run for New York governor Friday, as the Republican seeks to leverage her elevated profile as a vocal supporter of the American Jewish community to a role in higher office.She aims to challenge the Democratic incumbent Kathy Hochul, who angered many Jews in New York with her endorsement of New York City’s mayor-elect, Zohran Mamdani, despite his track record of Israel criticism.In an announcement video for Stefanik’s gubernatorial run, a narrator notes that she “fought woke insanity in our schools,” as a headline referring to her campus antisemitism hearings fills the screen.Stefanik, who is not Jewish, has been one of the loudest voices on Capitol Hill condemning antisemitism since the October 7, 2023, Hamas attacks and war in Gaza. Her relentless questioning of university presidents about the campus climate for Jews was credited with leading to the resignations of the top posts at Harvard, the University of Pennsylvania and others.Many invitations to address Jewish groups followed, including the Anti-Defamation League and Yeshiva University (which awarded her the Modern Orthodox school’s highest honor over the objections of many faculty). Her newfound allyships came despite Stefanik’s past platforming of the antisemitic “Great Replacement” theory, and other troublesome aspects of her history that confounded liberal Jews.Stefanik, who seeks to become the first Republican since George Pataki to move into the governor’s mansion in Albany, seems likely to make antisemitism a main flank of her campaign. Her video attacks Hochul for the governor’s Mamdani endorsement, saying Hochul “cozied up to a defund-the-police, tax hiking, antisemitic Communist.” Hochul is facing a primary challenge from her top lieutenant, who had endorsed Mamdani much earlier in the election cycle and who is married to a Jewish filmmaker.Among the Republican endorsements of Stefanik’s campaign the candidate retweeted Friday morning were Leo Terrell, who heads an antisemitism task force within the Trump administration, and New York City Councilwoman Inna Vernikov, who is Jewish and vocally pro-Israel.“Elise Stefanik will clean up our college campuses from the rot they have become and will confront antisemitism head on!” Vernikov wrote.A staunch ally of US President Donald Trump, Stefanik had been in line to become his ambassador to the United Nations, where she had promised to be a vocal defender of Israel. Her nomination was withdrawn in order to keep her in the House of Representatives to help protect the chamber’s slim GOP majority, but Stefanik has been eyeing a bigger platform ever since.Her announcement comes as the GOP is facing an internal civil war over right-wing antisemitism, with pundit Tucker Carlson, the head of the Heritage Foundation, and Vice President JD Vance among the figures taking criticism for embracing or failing to condemn antisemitic viewpoints. Stefanik was absent from this year’s Republican Jewish Coalition summit, where various speakers denounced antisemitism on the right.
Analysis-Hamas is afraid Gaza will become Lebanon. So is Israel-As the two enemies try to shape the next phase of the ceasefire, Hamas aims to limit IDF freedom of action, while Jerusalem seeks to end Hamas’s veto over the Strip’s governance-By Lazar Berman-6 November 2025, 12:15 pm

After much excitement around the ceasefire in Gaza last month, plus no small measure of pomp and circumstance, US President Donald Trump’s 20-point peace plan has lost much of its momentum.A string of senior US officials making the pilgrimage to Kiryat Gat — a phrase no journalist ever thought they would write — injected some energy into the process, but even the ongoing visits can’t hide the fact that Trump’s vision is encountering friction at every turn.Still, the process is crawling forward, much of it the result of Trump’s stubborn determination.Hamas has stretched out the handover process of slain hostages across the four weeks since the ceasefire went into effect, but now, only 6 of the 28 bodies the terror group held on October 10 remain in Gaza.With phase one still incomplete, no talks have been held on phase two of the deal.Yet the Trump administration is making sure things are moving in the right direction. A draft United Nations Security Council resolution has been circulating, aiming to create a mandate for peacekeeping forces that would make potential contributing states feel comfortable with the mission.There are also attempts by Arab mediators, especially Egypt, to cobble together an interim administration to run Gaza until a permanent solution is found.Amid the slow jostling of the parties as the truce shambles toward the second phase, both Israel and Hamas are trying to ensure that Gaza doesn’t become another Lebanon — but for very different reasons.Hamas’s fear – IDF freedom of action-The only document Hamas has signed — the October  9 ceasefire-hostage release agreement ratified in Sharm El-Sheikh —  says “the war will immediately end.”“All military operations, including aerial and artillery bombardment and targeting operations, will be suspended,” it reads.That clause is the reason Hamas accepted the deal, even at the price of releasing all 20 of the living hostages in its hands. It was facing a resolute IDF push into Gaza City, with no prospect of the international community or Israeli protestors stopping it without a comprehensive deal.That ceasefire has largely held, giving the terror group room to reassert its dominance in the 47% of Gaza under its control. Its fighters have put their uniforms back on and are out patrolling the streets, rifles on full display. Operatives have carried out executions of rivals and alleged collaborators in broad daylight.Even with that space to breathe and regroup, there are signs of potential danger for Hamas. Twice, Hamas terrorists have managed to kill Israeli forces in Rafah. In response to last week’s attack, Israel carried out airstrikes across the Strip, killing dozens of terrorists, including commanders in Hamas and other terror groups. Gaza health authorities reported more than 100 dead in the strikes.That is exactly what Hamas wants to avoid — Israel enjoying the freedom to decide when and where to strike, whereas any minor Hamas attack invites a massive IDF response.That reality, which would be quite comfortable for Israel, is what abides in Lebanon.Hezbollah was pounded into approving a humiliating ceasefire officially signed by Lebanon in November of last year, which set in motion the mechanism for its own disarmament.A “side letter” of guarantees from the US reportedly affirmed and detailed Israel’s right to defend itself against renewed threats.Israel has made enthusiastic use of that right. Since the ceasefire, the IDF says it has killed over 330 Hezbollah operatives in strikes, hit hundreds of Hezbollah sites, and conducted over 1,000 raids and other small operations in southern Lebanon in response to violations by the terror group.Those strikes have targeted important commanders in the field. The IDF carried out two deadly attacks on Hezbollah figures on Monday, one of them killing Muhammad Ali Hadid, who the IDF said was a commander in Hezbollah’s elite Radwan Force. Israel took out another Radwan fighter on Wednesday.As Israel steps up its strikes on Hezbollah, with no response from the once-fearsome Shiite force, Hamas has a clear vision of what the ceasefire can morph into if it doesn’t find a way to drastically limit Israel’s ability to target its commanders and its weapons.Israel’s concern – Hamas as kingmaker-It remains unclear how Gaza will be run in the coming years, and Israeli leaders and diplomats are working overtime to ensure that two of its war aims are met.Per Trump’s vision, Hamas is meant to disarm and step away from any governance of the Strip.But the terror group is doing everything it can to avoid giving up its weapons. Senior Hamas officials have made clear in interviews that they don’t intend to comply.Maintaining its arms will enable Hamas to prevent Israel from achieving the latter aim of keeping Hamas away from governance.Hamas seems to have concluded that it can’t formally rule Gaza for the foreseeable future. But it has already started playing kingmaker. On Tuesday, top Hamas leader Moussa Abu Marzouk said that the terror group and the Palestinian Authority came to an agreement on the makeup of the temporary committee that will manage the Gaza Strip on behalf of the PA.And it intends to remain the strongest force in Gaza for years, with no compunction about killing fellow Gazans. So long as it retains its arms, Hamas can meet any attempt to install an administration that would threaten it and its weapons with intimidation, and if necessary, assassinations.This would mirror Hezbollah’s hold over Lebanon until it was defeated by Israel in 2024. As the most powerful player in a weak Lebanese state, the Iran-backed terror group monitored government institutions, universities, airports, banks and private companies. It had operatives at border crossings and ports, and installed allies and party members into key ministries to guarantee budgets and divert funds into its own coffers.“Hezbollah’s use of weapons to intimidate its opponents paved the way for it to entrench – by force – its special status within the Lebanese state and thus increase its political influence,” according to Chatham House’s Lina Khatib.The arrangement provided convenient cover for Hezbollah. Israel was limited in its military options in Lebanon, since the Lebanese state had international legitimacy and Israel’s allies wanted to see it strengthened. Yet that state was controlled by Hezbollah, which was able to build its military arsenal to threaten Israel while hiding behind Lebanese institutions, which posed no threat at all to the Shiite force.As long as Hamas remains armed and organized in Gaza, it will be operating in a Gaza ruled by a technocratic administration that it has some veto power over, and that enjoys the backing of Washington, Cairo, Riyadh, Abu Dhabi, Ankara, and other key players.The struggle after the war-Though Israel declared victory in Gaza shortly after Trump announced his plan, the outcome of the two-year war against Hamas is far from assured.The month since the ceasefire went into effect has seen the sides jockeying to create facts on the ground and shift the terms of the truce to meet their own interests. That struggle will continue, sometimes through diplomacy, often through violence, and occasionally by slow-walking implementation of the deal, including the return of hostage bodies.Israel might want to think it won, but Hamas doesn’t believe it has lost. If the terror group manages to retain its weapons and its control over who runs Gaza, Israel’s ostensible victory will dissipate, and Hamas will have been proven right.

US includes entirety of Trump’s 20-point peace plan in UN resolution establishing Gaza security force-By Jacob Magid-Today, 2:07 am-NOV 8,25

The US has added the entire text of US President Donald Trump’s 20-point plan for ending the Gaza war to the UN Security Council Resolution its looking to pass in order to establish an International Stabilization Force in Gaza, according to a copy obtained and verified by The Times of Israel.The 20-point plan was added as an annex to the resolution, which would effectively enshrine the Trump proposal into international law.The addition was made over the last 48 hours, a European diplomat tells The Times of Israel.While the US has held consultations on the resolution this week with other Security Council members along with the delegations of Egypt, Qatar, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and the Palestine Liberation Organization, it hasn’t been open to making any significant changes, the diplomat says, confirming reporting in The New York Times.One of the few changes that was made over the past several days was pertaining to the handover of Gaza’s administration from the US-envisioned Board of Peace to the Palestinian Authority.Initial versions of the US-sponsored resolution said the transfer will not take place until the PA “has satisfactorily completed its reform program, the satisfaction of which shall be acceptable to the [Board of Peace].”But the latest version obtained by The Times of Israel says the handover will occur when the PA “has satisfactorily completed its reform program as outlined in” Trump’s 20-point plan.The 20-point plan offers little detail regarding the reform plan, referring to “various proposals, including President Trump’s peace plan in 2020 and the Saudi-French proposal from earlier this year.The 2020 plan doesn’t include an explicit reform program but does have a long list of tasks that the PA is required to meet in order to be granted a state, including recognizing Israel as a Jewish state — something that Ramallah has long refused, arguing that it’s 1993 recognition of Israel as part of the Oslo Accords is sufficient.The French-Saudi plan lists out the reform criteria as the abolishment of the PA’s controversial pay-to-slay program, removing incitement from Ramallah’s textbooks and school curriculum, and the holding of elections.PA President Mahmoud Abbas signed legislation in February scrapping Ramallah’s old welfare program that included payments to prisoners based on the length of their sentence, and has pledged to hold elections within a year of the war ending. He also said in September that the PA is in the midst of developing educational curricula in accordance with UNESCO standards and that the reform will be completed within two years.

Mexico denies knowledge of alleged Iranian plot to assassinate Israeli ambassador-By Agencies Today, 2:01 am-NOV 8,25

Mexico’s foreign relations and security ministries issues a brief joint statement saying that “they have no report with respect to a supposed attempt against the ambassador of Israel in Mexico,” after the US and Israel accused Iran of plotting to assassinate the Israeli envoy to Mexico City.The foreign ministry “reiterates its willingness to maintain fluid communication with all accredited diplomatic representations in our country,” the statement says. The security ministry “reaffirms its respectful and coordinated collaboration, always within the framework of national sovereignty, with all security agencies that request it.”Iran’s embassy in Mexico meanwhile denies the Islamic Republic plotted to assassinate the Israeli ambassador.“It is a media invention, a great big lie, whose objective is to damage the friendly and historic relations between both countries (Mexico and Iran), which we categorically reject,” Tehran’s embassy in Mexico posts on X.Times of Israel staff contributed to this report.

Turkey issues arrest warrants for Netanyahu, other Israeli leaders over ‘genocide’ in Gaza-FM Sa’ar says Israel ‘firmly rejects’ the charges, notes same Istanbul prosecutor’s office ‘recently orchestrated the arrest of Istanbul’s mayor merely for daring to run against Erdogan’By Agencies and ToI Staff Today, 1:11 am-NOV 8,25

Turkey announced Friday that it had issued arrest warrants for alleged genocide against Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and senior officials in his government over the war in Gaza against Hamas.The announcement was met with a firm rebuttal from Israel. Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar said Israel “firmly rejects, with contempt” the charges, calling them “the latest PR stunt by the tyrant (Turkish President Recep Tayyip) Erdogan.”The Istanbul prosecutor’s office said in a statement that a total of 37 suspects were targeted by the arrest warrants, without providing a full list.They include Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz, National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir and IDF Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Eyal Zamir.Turkey has accused the officials of “genocide and crimes against humanity” that Israel has “perpetrated systematically” in Gaza. Israel has repeatedly rejected claims of genocide as false and antisemitic.The statement also refers to the “Turkish-Palestinian Friendship Hospital,” built by Turkey in the Gaza Strip and bombed by Israel in March. The Israel Defense Force said at the time that the facility was being used by Hamas operatives and had “not been used as an active hospital for over a year.”Turkey, which has been one of the most vocal critics of the war in Gaza and whose leader Erdogan is a longtime supporter of Hamas, last year joined South Africa’s case accusing Israel of genocide at the International Court of Justice (ICJ).A fragile ceasefire has been in force in the devastated territory since October 10 as part of US President Donald Trump’s regional peace plan, after two years of war sparked by the Hamas-led atrocities in southern Israel on October 7, 2023.The Islamist terror group Hamas welcomed Turkey’s announcement, calling it a “commendable measure (confirming) the sincere positions of the Turkish people and their leaders, who are committed to the values of justice, humanity and fraternity that bind them to our oppressed Palestinian people.”Stabilization force-Sa’ar said in his post in English on the social media platform X that “in Erdogan’s Turkey, the judiciary has long since become a tool for silencing political rivals and detaining journalists, judges and mayors.”He added that the Istanbul prosecutor’s office “recently orchestrated the arrest of the mayor of Istanbul merely for daring to run against Erdogan,” referring to Ekrem Imamoglu, who was detained in March.Former foreign minister Avigdor Lieberman wrote on X that the arrest warrants for senior Israeli officials “clearly explain why Turkey should not be present in the Gaza Strip — directly or indirectly.”Turkey wants to take part in the international stabilization force intended to play a role in post-war Gaza, according to Trump’s plan.But Ankara’s efforts, which include increasing diplomatic contacts in the region and seeking to influence the pro-Israel stance of the United States, are viewed unfavorably in Israel due to Turkey’s ties with Hamas.Israeli leaders have repeatedly expressed their opposition to any Turkish participation in the international stabilization force in Gaza.

Hamas hands over body of presumed hostage to Israel, as 6 families await ID process-Body apparently held by PIJ, which was 1st to announce handover of remains that Israel hopes belong to one of Hadar Goldin, Meny Godard, Ran Gvili, Dror Or, Sudthisak Rinthala or Lior Rudaeff-By Emanuel Fabian-and ToI Staff 7 November 2025, 11:40 pm

The Red Cross transferred the body of a presumed hostage from Hamas to Israeli security forces in Gaza on Friday night.The casket was then brought into Israeli territory and taken to the Abu Kabir forensic institute in Tel Aviv for identification.Hamas said earlier Friday that it would return a deceased hostage whose remains were discovered in Khan Younis in the southern Gaza Strip.The Hamas statement came after its smaller ally, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, announced it would hand over the body of a hostage. The remains were ostensibly first held by PIJ before being transferred to Hamas for the handover to the Red Cross.Until Friday, there were six deceased hostages still being held in Gaza.They include Lt. Hadar Goldin, who was killed fighting in the 2014 Gaza war, and five hostages whose bodies were snatched to Gaza after they were murdered on October 7, 2023, when thousands of Hamas-led terrorists stormed southern Israel to kill some 1,200 people and take 251 hostages.The five October 7 hostages are Meny Godard, 73, who was murdered in Kibbutz Be’eri by Palestinian Islamic Jihad terrorists alongside his wife, Ayelet; Master Sgt. Ran Gvili, 24, who was killed battling Hamas terrorists in Kibbutz Alumim; Dror Or, 48, who was murdered by Hamas terrorists at his home in Kibbutz Be’eri; Sudthisak Rinthalak, 43, who was murdered at Be’eri, where he was an agricultural worker; and Lior Rudaeff, 61, who was killed near his home in Kibbutz Nir Yitzhak while aiding the local rapid response team in its battle against Hamas terrorists.As part of the October 9 ceasefire with Israel, Hamas has released the last 20 living hostages and the remains of 22 deceased hostages.The terror group has also returned remains that turned out not to belong to any hostage, and in one case, remains of a deceased hostage whose remains had already been partially retrieved by the IDF in December 2023.

Why the Gaza ceasefire will not last-By Susan Michael, Op-ed contributor Thursday, November 06, 2025

In mid-October, we witnessed the return of the remaining 20 live hostages after 738 days of pure horror in Gaza, following a 20-point deal crafted by President Trump together with Prime Minister Netanyahu. Though the excitement was palpable throughout Israel, it was tempered by distrust.As Israel celebrated life and homecoming, several questions stirred beneath the joy: Will the ceasefire hold? Will Hamas honor its word — or exploit the moment for its own gain? Signs of trouble-Almost immediately, cracks began to show. Hamas has been dragging out the return of the remaining deceased hostages, claiming they are too deeply buried in rubble to be recovered quickly — a clear violation of the ceasefire agreement. And Hamas's recent statements indicate they have no intention of disarming, contrary to point three of Trump’s plan.On top of that, no sooner had the peace deal been accepted and the IDF withdrawn past the yellow line than reports emerged that Hamas was executing innocent Gazans who spoke against the terror organization, including women and children. By late October, Hamas had crossed the yellow line, killing two IDF soldiers — breaching the ceasefire again.But where is the outrage? Hamas’ brutality to its own people is ignored, and the media remains largely silent about the deaths of Israelis. Obviously, the world couldn’t care less about the Palestinian people. Its sole interest is in demonizing Israel.Threat of further war.In response to Hamas’ executions of dissenting Gazans and the apparent move of Hamas away from its commitment to disarm, President Trump has continued to threaten the complete eradication of the terrorist group. In addition, the governments of Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) have similarly threatened to pull out of the deal if Hamas is not disarmed.While the ceasefire agreement calls for an international coalition to monitor and maintain the calm, there is only one force with the capability and intelligence required to disarm Hamas, and that is Israel. International and Arab forces are ill-equipped to do the job. Therefore, Israel will have to sacrifice any improvement in the court of public opinion she has enjoyed after the ceasefire to return to war with Hamas and complete the job.Hamas is the obstacle to peace-A terrorist group like Hamas cannot be trusted, no matter what they may say or sign in English. They are a terrorist organization driven by a jihadist ideology that views peace agreements as temporary and only for the purpose of rearming and rebuilding strength before returning to the mission of jihad. And even if the US-led international coalition actually succeeds in disarming the group, the leopard will not change its spots. It will go underground (quite literally, as much of their tunnel complex is still in place) and quietly work from within society to build resistance and opposition to a peaceful Gaza. This is why the group needs to be completely removed and not just disarmed.So, with the return of the hostages and God’s mercy in keeping those 20 men alive for two years, we celebrate with all of Israel — but with caution. The psalmist’s words in 55:21 capture Hamas’ true intent: “The words of his mouth were smoother than butter, but war was in his heart.”A call to discernment-The Bible reminds us that not all who promise peace mean it. Ezekiel and Jeremiah, who prophesied before and during the Babylonian exile, used almost identical language to expose those who sought to deceive Israel — saying, “‘Peace!’ when there is no peace” (see Ezekiel 13:10 and Jeremiah 6:14). Ezekiel prefaced his warning with God’s words, “They have seduced My people,” while Jeremiah wrote, “They have also healed the hurt of My people slightly.”Though originally addressed to false prophets, their warnings apply to us. We must discern carefully between genuine peace from God and false assurances from men. Political agreements may create a sense of calm, but true peace can only come from Him.Although the days ahead are uncertain, God calls us to be watchful and prepared, to stay awake and be clear-minded, discerning, and shrewd. Jesus warned His disciples that He was sending them out as “sheep in the midst of wolves” so they must be “wise as serpents and innocent as doves” (Matthew 10:16) and guard against deception (Matthew 24:4).His message is just as urgent today.A call for prayer-Hamas is just one in a long line of evil men who sought to wipe out the Jewish people throughout history. The persistence and mutating nature of this evil have allowed it to crop up with a new face for new generations. In today’s context, it has taken on the face of anti-Zionism, and its goal is the eradication of Israel. To do so, it uses lies and propaganda to demonize the people of Israel and turn the nations against the Jewish State.This in itself should cause us to pause and reflect upon the true nature of Hamas and Israel’s need for robust and proactive self-defense. On October 6, 2023, Israel had a strong border and a ceasefire agreement with Hamas. That did not stop the attack on October 7, which Hamas thought would be so successful that it would be the end of Israel.This time around, Israel needs more than a border and a ceasefire. It needs the removal of Hamas and the jihadist brainwashing that has gone on for decades in order to rebuild schools and a society in Gaza that cherishes peace.This requires much prayer for the miraculous levels of courage, wisdom, innovation, and international collaboration needed for Gaza and Israel to be secured and freed from this evil.Conclusion-To navigate these days wisely, we must be rooted in Scripture — anchored in truth and comforted by His promises — and remain steadfast in our defense of Israel and His people.Yes, the hostages are home. But the fight for truth continues.

STORMS HURRICANES-TORNADOES

OZONE DEPLETION JUDGEMENT ON THE EARTH DUE TO SIN

ISAIAH 30:26-27
26 Moreover the light of the moon shall be as the light of the sun, and the light of the sun shall be sevenfold,(7X OR 7-DEGREES HOTTER) as the light of seven days, in the day that the LORD bindeth up the breach of his people,(ISRAEL) and healeth the stroke of their wound.
27 Behold, the name of the LORD cometh from far, burning with his anger, and the burden thereof is heavy: his lips are full of indignation, and his tongue as a devouring fire:

MATTHEW 24:21-22,29
21 For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.
22 And except those days should be shortened,(DAY LIGHT HOURS SHORTENED) there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect’s sake (ISRAELS SAKE) those days shall be shortened (Daylight hours shortened)(THE ASTEROID HITS EARTH HERE)
29 Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:

REVELATION 16:7-9
7 And I heard another out of the altar say, Even so, Lord God Almighty, true and righteous are thy judgments.
8 And the fourth angel poured out his vial upon the sun; and power was given unto him to scorch men with fire.
9 And men were scorched with great heat, and blasphemed the name of God, which hath power over these plagues: and they repented not to give him glory.

EZEKIEL 32:6-9
6  I will also water with thy blood the land wherein thou swimmest, even to the mountains; and the rivers shall be full of thee.
7  And when I shall put thee out, I will cover the heaven, and make the stars thereof dark; I will cover the sun with a cloud, and the moon shall not give her light.
8  All the bright lights of heaven will I make dark over thee, and set darkness upon thy land, saith the Lord GOD.
9  I will also vex the hearts of many people, when I shall bring thy destruction among the nations, into the countries which thou hast not known.

REVELATION 16:3-7
3 And the second angel poured out his vial upon the sea; and it became as the blood of a dead man: and every living soul died in the sea.(enviromentalists won't like this result)
4 And the third angel poured out his vial upon the rivers and fountains of waters; and they became blood.
5 And I heard the angel of the waters say, Thou art righteous, O Lord, which art, and wast, and shalt be, because thou hast judged thus.
6 For they(False World Church and Dictator and baby murderers by abortion) have shed the blood of saints and prophets, and thou hast given them blood to drink; for they are worthy.

ISAIAH 30:26-27
26 Moreover the light of the moon shall be as the light of the sun, and the light of the sun shall be sevenfold,(7X OR 7-DEGREES HOTTER) as the light of seven days, in the day that the LORD bindeth up the breach of his people,(ISRAEL) and healeth the stroke of their wound.
27 Behold, the name of the LORD cometh from far, burning with his anger, and the burden thereof is heavy: his lips are full of indignation, and his tongue as a devouring fire:

MARK 13:8
8 For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom:(ETHNIC GROUP AGAINST ETHNIC GROUP) and there shall be earthquakes in divers places, and there shall be famines and troubles: these are the beginnings of sorrows.

LUKE 21:11
11 And great earthquakes shall be in divers places,(DIFFERNT PLACES AT THE SAME TIME) and famines, and pestilences; and fearful sights and great signs shall there be from heaven.

2 Peter 3:6-7 Amplified Bible (AMP) (HOT SUN, NUKES ETC)
6 By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed. 
7 By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly.

LUKE 21:25-26
25 And there shall be signs in the sun,(HEATING UP-SOLAR ECLIPSES) and in the moon,(MAN ON THE MOON-LUNAR ECLIPSES) and in the stars;(ASTEROIDS-PROPHECY SIGNS) and upon the earth distress of nations, with perplexity;(MASS CONFUSION) the sea and the waves roaring;(FIERCE WINDS)
26 Men’s hearts failing them for fear,(TORNADOES,HURRICANES,STORMS) and for looking after those things which are coming on the earth:(DESTRUCTION) for the powers of heaven shall be shaken.(FROM QUAKES,NUKES ETC)

Typhoon which killed almost 200 in Philippines and Vietnam weakens-NOV 6,25-Jonathan Head,South East Asia correspondent and Sen Nguyen.

Typhoon Kalmaegi has killed at least 188 people in the Philippines and five in Vietnam, according to the latest figures from the two countries.The storm is now headed west to Cambodia and Laos after it barrelled through central Vietnam on Thursday with winds of up to 149km/h (92mph).Towns along Vietnam's central coast were littered with debris this morning after taking the full brunt of the storm overnight.The strong winds uprooted trees, tore off roofs, and smashed large windows. Thousands of people sought shelter in schools and other public buildings as the army was deployed to help deal with the damage.Vietnamese authorities have warned of possible flooding in low-lying areas. Central Vietnam has already seen record rainfall in the past week which has killed 50 people.Earlier this week the same storm devastated parts of the Philippines when heavy rainfall sent torrents of mud down hillsides and into residential areas. Some poorer neighbourhoods were obliterated by the fast-moving flash floods.The death toll reported on Friday was a jump from the 114 reported the previous day. Another 135 people are listed as missing.The Philippines government has declared a state of calamity across the country as it prepares for another typhoon which is building up in the Pacific Ocean.Ahead of Typhoon Kalmaegi, Vietnam's military on Thursday deployed more than 260,000 soldiers and personnel for relief efforts, along with more than 6,700 vehicles and six aircraft.Some airports and expressways in the country were closed and hundreds of thousands were evacuated.Shortly after the typhoon made landfall at 19:29 local time (12:29 GMT), hundreds of residents in Dak Lak province called for help, local media reported.Dak Lak province is approximately 350km (215 miles) north-east of Ho Chi Minh City.Many people said their homes had collapsed or been flooded, while strong winds and heavy rain continued to batter the area.Trees came down in high winds near Quy Nhon beach in Gia Lai, central Vietnam, as Kalmaegi approached on ThursdayAccording to local media reports, Prime Minister of Vietnam Pham Minh Chinh held an online meeting to direct the emergency response."We must reach isolated areas and ensure people have food, drinking water, and essential supplies," he was quoted as saying."No one should be left hungry or cold."Before making landfall in Vietnam, the typhoon, known locally as Tino, left a trail of devastation in the Philippines.At least 188 people were killed and tens of thousands were evacuated, particularly from central areas including the populous island and tourist hotspot of Cebu, where cars were swept through the streets.Kalmaegi dumped the equivalent of a month's worth of rain on the island in just 24 hours, sending torrents of mud and debris down mountainsides and into urban areas.Stunned survivors who had made it to higher ground watched as buses and shipping containers were tossed about in the raging floodwaters.The storm has wiped out entire neighbourhoods in poorer districts, where building materials are flimsier.In Talisay City, which suffered some of the worst destruction, Mely Saberon looked on in despair at the pile of debris that had once been her home."We don't have any home anymore," she told the BBC. "We weren't able to salvage anything from our house."We didn't expect the surge of rain and wind. We've experienced many typhoons before, but this one was different."Residents have now started the backbreaking task of cleaning away the thick layer of mud, and picking through the wreckage for anything that can be used.Early on Thursday, Philippines President Ferdinand Marcos Jr declared a state of emergency, the threshold of which involves mass casualty, major damage to property, and disruption to means of livelihoods and the normal way of life for people in the affected areas.EPA Lots of families sleep on the floor in what looks like a large hall, with other families gathered around with rugs and posessions on the floor.EPA-People have been sheltering in evacuation centres after flooding destroyed homes in Cebu, Philippines this week

How do hurricanes or typhoons form and are they getting stronger?-NOV 5,25-Mark PoyntingClimate reporter

Typhoon Kalmaegi - one of the strongest of 2025 - has caused severe flooding in the Philippines, where it left at least 114 dead, before heading for Vietnam.Climate change is not thought to increase the number of hurricanes, typhoons and cyclones worldwide.But warmer oceans coupled with a warmer atmosphere - fuelled by climate change - have the potential to make those that do form even more intense. That can potentially lead to higher wind speeds, heavier rainfall, and a greater risk of coastal flooding.What are hurricanes and where do they happen? Hurricanes are powerful storms which develop in warm tropical ocean waters.In some parts of the world, they are known as cyclones or typhoons. Collectively, these storms are referred to as "tropical cyclones".Graphic showing storm tracks of tropical cyclones from 1842-2024. These storms are called hurricanes in the Atlantic and north-east Pacific, typhoons in the north-west Pacific, and a cyclone in the south-west Pacific and Indian Ocean.Tropical cyclones are characterised by very high wind speeds, heavy rainfall, and storm surges - short-term rises to sea-levels. This often causes widespread damage and flooding.Hurricanes can be categorised by their peak sustained wind speed.Major hurricanes are rated category three and above, meaning they reach at least 111mph (178km/h).Graphic explaining the Saffir-Simpson scale of hurricane categories. Category 1 has peak sustained wind speeds of 74 miles per hour and can cause minor damage and potential power outages; category 2 above 96 miles per hour and can cause extensive damage to property; category 3 above 111 miles per hour and even well-built homes will sustain major damage; category 4 above 130 miles per hour and will cause severe damage to well-build homes; and category 5 has wind speeds above 157 miles per hour and will destroy many buildings as well as cutting off communities.How do hurricanes form? Hurricanes, typhoons and cyclones begin as atmospheric disturbances - such as, for example, a tropical wave, an area of low pressure where thunderstorms and clouds develop.As warm, moist air rises from the ocean surface, winds begin to spin. The process is linked to how the Earth's rotation affects winds in tropical regions just away from the equator.For a hurricane to develop and keep spinning, the sea surface generally needs to be at least 27C to provide enough energy, and the winds need to not vary much with height.If all these factors come together, an intense hurricane can form, although the exact causes of individual storms are complex.Graphic of ingredients typically needed for a hurricane. Ocean surface waters warmer than 27 degrees celsius, cause hot and humid air to rise, leading to a low pressure zone. Out in the ocean this can result in winds beginning to spin around the depression.Have hurricanes been getting worse? Globally, the frequency of tropical cyclones has not increased over the past century, and in fact the number may have fallen - although long-term data is limited in some regions.But it is "likely" that a higher proportion of tropical cyclones across the globe have reached category three or above over the past four decades, meaning they reach the highest wind speeds, according to the UN's climate body, the IPCC.Graphic showing the increasing number of category three, four and five hurricanes in the North Atlantic. Each hurricane is displayed as a red dot, organised by year and category. The hurricanes of 2025 - Melissa, Humberto, Erin and Gabrielle - are marked on the right.The IPCC quotes "medium confidence" that there has been an increase in the average and peak rainfall rates associated with tropical cyclones.The frequency and magnitude of "rapid intensification events" in the Atlantic has also likely increased. This is where maximum wind speeds increase very quickly, which can be especially dangerous.There also seems to have been a slowdown in the speed at which tropical cyclones move across the Earth's surface. This typically brings more rainfall for a given location. For example, in 2017 Hurricane Harvey "stalled" over Houston, releasing 100cm of rain in three days.In some places, the average location where tropical cyclones reach their peak intensity has shifted poleward - for example the western North Pacific. This can expose new communities to these hazards.And there is some evidence the increased intensity of US hurricanes means they are causing more damage.Assessing the precise influence of climate change on individual tropical cyclones can be challenging due to the complexity of these storm systems.But rising temperatures can affect these storms in several ways.Firstly, warmer ocean waters mean storms can pick up more energy, leading to higher wind speeds.Maximum wind speeds of hurricanes between 2019 and 2023 were boosted by an estimated 19mph (30km/h) on average as a result of human-driven ocean warming, according to a recent study.Secondly, a warmer atmosphere can hold more moisture, leading to more intense rainfall.Climate change made the extreme rainfall from Hurricane Harvey in 2017 around three times more likely, according to one estimate.The winds and rain from Hurricane Helene in 2024 were likely worsened by climate change, scientists at the World Weather Attribution group found-Finally, sea-levels are rising, mainly due to a combination of melting glaciers and ice sheets, and the fact that warmer water takes up more space. Local factors can also play a part. This means storm surges happen on top of already elevated sea levels, worsening coastal flooding.For example, it is estimated that flood heights from Hurricane Katrina in 2005 - one of America's deadliest storms - were 15-60% higher than they would have been in the climate conditions of 1900.Overall, the IPCC concludes that there is "high confidence" that humans have contributed to increases in precipitation associated with tropical cyclones, and "medium confidence" that humans have contributed to the higher probability of a tropical cyclone being more intense.How might hurricanes change in the future? The number of tropical cyclones globally is unlikely to increase, according to the IPCC.But as the world warms, it says it is "very likely" they will have higher rates of rainfall and reach higher top wind speeds. This means a higher proportion would reach the most intense categories, four and five.The more global temperatures rise, the more extreme these changes will tend to be.The proportion of tropical cyclones reaching category four and five may increase by around 10% if global temperature rises are limited to 1.5C, increasing to 13% at 2C and 20% at 4C, the IPCC says - although the exact numbers are uncertain.

'We had to create a human chain to evacuate' - Jamaican hospital rebuilds after hurricane-NOV 7,25-Nick Davisin Falmouth, Jamaica

As you drive into Falmouth, there's still a moat of dirty looking standing water surrounding the town.On the coastal road, as you slowly push forward in the car, the bow wave breaks and you are hit by the smell of sewage.Passing cars drive slowly so as to not send the spray through the window.This part of the historic town was hit badly by Hurricane Melissa. The regional hospital is on the low-lying road that is the western route into its centre.It was flooded as the water swept across the mangrove and into the facility.Donna-Marie Hamilton-Wallace, the head of nursing at the hospital, was on duty at the time."It was devastating for the patients and the staff, the lower level was flooded because of the storm surge and we had to create a human chain to evacuate them to the higher level," she said. "It was frightening but I'm glad patients and staff are all okay."I first visited the hospital the morning after the storm hit.Orderlies were clearing rubble from buildings, without sleep for days facing an insurmountable challenge.The high winds had ripped off the roof of wards and left infrastructure, like its boiler room, under four feet (1.2m) of water.Now, 10 days later, I'm back and things are slowly improving.At least 32 people have died since the storm ravaged Jamaica, causing some $7bn (£5.3bn) in damage, Jamaican Prime Minister Andrew Holness said.Haiti and other parts of the Caribbean were also destroyed when the Category 5 storm pummelled through the region.The heaps of twisted building material and water-damaged equipment is being cleared by men and women from the Royal Navy and Commandos from the Army's Crisis Response Troop.There are helping hands, too, from a Spanish team who are here to build a field hospital.Essential for getting scrubs clean and bedding washed, the laundry is still in a terrible state, its roof now just exposed beams. That is the next job for a group of the Commandos, working out how to fix problems with few options that desperately need a solution.The team inside the boiler room includes local workers and Naomi Pearmine, a Marine Engineer.Her job as a technician is normally to look after the fuel system, the engines and propulsion of HMS Trent, the Royal Navy offshore patrol vessel that is tasked with helping here in Jamaica.She normally would not take part in missions like this, but getting the ignition going is key to getting the hospital operational.Machelle Stubbs, the chief medical officer at the hospital, explained how important it is to get help at this point."Many of our staff are still here, working," she said. "Not getting a chance to look after their own personal challenges, that compounds the problems even more. Fortunately we're getting relief from other parts of the island and other international agencies."Clean-up teams from Jamaica's health ministry came in last weekend, carried in on Jamaica's bright yellow public buses to help their colleagues in need.But today it is help from abroad that is essential.HMS Trent was sent to the Caribbean to provide assistance to British Overseas Territories and Commonwealth Nations during hurricane season.First Lt Jacob Mikurenda is the second in command. He said that for sailors on this deployment it is a chance to put all their skills together in a situation that's different from their normal duty.For many sailors, this deployment - to provide humanitarian aid and disaster relief - was the first land operation of their careers."It's been amazing to see the resilience and the community of the people to recover after the hurricane," Mr Mikurenda said.The scale of the disaster can be seen in the little details as well as the big ones.The staff hung sheets on make-shift washing lines running along the walkways to the wards. There are crumpled signs for hospital departments strewn on the ground and medical records drying on a tarpaulin between the admin offices.Keriesa Bell Cummings the hospital's CEO summed it up: "It's traumatising it really is but as the leader here I have to stay strong."She has been organising people from around the world - diplomats, helpers from hospitals in other less affected parts of the island and the country's health ministry - to help with the efforts.Initially she said she was too busy to be interviewed, but then she wanted to express that things were coming back to normal."A lot of material support, relief, tools, labour, food, we asked for it and it's now coming," Ms Cummings said.Communications are still an issue here in Falmouth and our region, but there is hope it gets better in the days to come.WhatsApp and phone are still patchy, making calls difficult and co-ordination almost impossible.But this week is better than last, a feeling most Jamaicans are clinging on to.