Mohamed Sahby Abdelhadi Mehalla, La Ciotat (2026)

🌐 Le Manifest un média en ligne pour les générations connectées et ouvertes sur le monde. 🌍📱 ✨ "Prenez conscience du monde 🌎 si vous voulez le changer." ✊

14/09/2026

Kennedy Center Faces Bankruptcy Risk as Trump Sets Conditions for Financial Rescue

The Kennedy Center in Washington is facing a severe financial crisis that could force the closure of its main building as early as Tuesday, September 15, according to documents reviewed by The Washington Post. The performing arts institution, now controlled by a board closely aligned with President Donald Trump, is reportedly struggling to meet its financial obligations and secure the funding needed to continue operating.

The situation has placed the Kennedy Center at the intersection of an escalating financial emergency and an increasingly politicized battle over the future of one of the United States’ most prominent cultural institutions. According to The Washington Post, the center’s leadership is arguing that public recognition of Trump’s role could be essential to securing additional funding and preventing what it describes as a potentially inevitable financial collapse.

Kennedy Center board to consider emergency closure

The Kennedy Center’s board of trustees is expected to vote Tuesday on whether to close the institution’s principal building because of mounting financial difficulties and the need for major renovation work. The organization had already approved a two-year closure in March to allow renovations to take place.

But the financial situation has apparently deteriorated further. Documents obtained by The Washington Post indicate that Kennedy Center officials fear they may soon be unable to meet basic obligations, including paying employees and fulfilling routine maintenance contracts.

The prospect of an immediate or accelerated closure would represent a significant setback for the institution, which has long served as one of the country's most visible venues for theater, music, dance and other performing arts.

The financial crisis comes months after Trump dramatically reshaped the institution's leadership. At the beginning of his second presidential term, Trump moved to install allies on the Kennedy Center's board, giving his administration much greater influence over the organization.

Trump’s name at the center of the dispute

The controversy intensified after Trump sought to add his name to that of former President John F. Kennedy, effectively turning the institution into what supporters called the “Trump Kennedy Center.” The move has faced legal challenges, and the name change has been blocked by the courts.

Now, according to documents reviewed by The Washington Post, the Kennedy Center's leadership is explicitly linking Trump's public recognition to potential financial support.

A resolution reportedly states that Trump has offered to help raise the funds necessary to prevent the institution from going bankrupt. However, the document also suggests that such assistance may be unlikely without what it calls an “appropriate recognition” of the president's role.

The proposal would reportedly give trustees a choice of several inscriptions that could be displayed on the building's exterior beneath Trump's name, acknowledging his contribution to the renovation and preservation effort.

Among the wording described by The Washington Post and The New York Times are formulations crediting the renovation, restoration and maintenance of the institution to the generosity of President Donald J. Trump.

The proposal has raised questions about the relationship between political power, private philanthropy and cultural institutions in the United States. The Kennedy Center is not simply another performing arts venue: its status as a national cultural institution gives any major change to its leadership, financing or identity broader political significance.

Ticket sales fall to post-pandemic lows

The Kennedy Center's financial problems have also been compounded by declining ticket sales and cancellations by artists.

A number of performers have withdrawn from scheduled appearances since Trump and his allies took control of the institution. According to U.S. media reports, ticket sales have fallen to their lowest levels since the COVID-19 pandemic.

The decline has created an increasingly difficult financial equation for the center. The Washington Post reported that the institution expects to collect roughly $124 million against $220 million in projected revenue under its budget. Even after substantial spending cuts during the latest fiscal year, the center could still face a deficit of approximately $23 million.

For an organization responsible for maintaining a major national cultural complex, such a gap presents an immediate operational challenge.

The institution must also contend with the cost of physical repairs. The building itself was damaged during a powerful storm earlier this month, with part of the ceiling plaster reportedly breaking loose.

That damage comes at an especially difficult moment, as the center is already preparing for extensive renovation work and attempting to stabilize its finances.

Kennedy Center defends its financial strategy

The Kennedy Center declined to comment directly when contacted by AFP, instead referring to remarks made on September 4 by spokesperson Roma Daravi.

Daravi attributed some of the institution's current problems to what she described as decades of neglect and postponed maintenance under the previous leadership.

The Kennedy Center has also defended the financial impact of Trump's involvement. In a memorandum outlining its financial decisions, the institution said that adding Trump's name to the building had attracted new donors.

That claim is central to the argument now being presented by the center's leadership: that Trump's political influence and fundraising network could help keep the institution financially viable at a moment when conventional revenue sources appear insufficient.

Yet the strategy carries significant risks. The Kennedy Center has historically attempted to maintain a degree of institutional distance from partisan politics, while its programming has attracted artists and audiences across the political spectrum.

The wave of cancellations following Trump's takeover demonstrates how quickly that balance can become difficult to maintain when a major cultural institution becomes closely associated with a sitting president.

A broader test for American cultural institutions

The Kennedy Center's predicament is therefore about more than a budget shortfall. It raises a larger question about how America's major cultural institutions are financed and governed, and how much political influence can shape their identity.

The immediate issue is financial survival. Trustees must determine whether the center can continue operating while undertaking costly renovations and managing declining revenues. But the longer-term challenge may be even more consequential: whether the Kennedy Center can preserve its reputation as a national arts institution while navigating an increasingly partisan political environment.

If the board approves an emergency closure, the decision would underscore the seriousness of the institution's financial situation. If it instead pursues Trump's proposed support, the center could gain access to potentially crucial funding while further deepening the political association that has already prompted artists to reconsider their relationship with the venue.

For now, the Kennedy Center faces an uncomfortable choice between financial necessity and institutional independence. The board's decision could determine not only when the building closes for renovation, but also what the Kennedy Center represents in the years ahead.

14/09/2026

Trump’s Pardon Brokers Under Scrutiny as 60 Minutes Exposes a Lucrative Clemency Market

A new investigation by CBS’s 60 Minutes is shedding light on an unusual and controversial business operating around the presidency of Donald Trump: so-called “pardon brokers” who claim they can lobby the president or people close to him in exchange for substantial sums of money.

The investigation, broadcast in the United States on Sunday, September 13, 2026, examines individuals who offer to help convicted people obtain presidential pardons, sometimes demanding hundreds of thousands of dollars for their services. The report raises broader questions about access to presidential power, the traditional role of the U.S. Department of Justice and the increasingly unconventional way presidential clemency has been handled during Trump’s second term.

The central question is strikingly simple: Can someone effectively pay $300,000 to secure a presidential pardon from Donald Trump?

The Trump administration insists that the answer is no. The people presenting themselves as “pardon brokers,” however, tell a very different story.

A parallel market around presidential pardons

In the United States, presidents have broad constitutional authority to grant pardons and other forms of clemency for federal offenses. Individuals convicted of federal crimes can submit petitions asking the president to intervene on their behalf.

Traditionally, those requests have gone through the Justice Department. The department reviews petitions and identifies cases it considers worthy of consideration before forwarding recommendations to the president.

As 60 Minutes reported, the Justice Department has historically placed particular emphasis on applicants who demonstrate genuine remorse for their offenses. That process creates a formal channel between people seeking clemency and the White House.

The pardon brokers interviewed in the investigation claim that this system can be bypassed.

According to their pitch to potential clients, money can provide direct access to influential figures around the president and create pressure for a case to reach Trump personally.

To demonstrate how the alleged operation works, 60 Minutes used an undercover investigation.

The $300,000 promise

The program approached two men, Jacob Wohl and Jack Burkman, after a couple sought assistance for the husband's pardon request. The man had been convicted approximately a decade earlier in connection with animal trafficking, and his petition had reportedly been rejected by the Justice Department.

Unaware that they were being recorded, Wohl and Burkman allegedly told the couple that they could help secure Trump's clemency if the couple paid $300,000.

The amount is substantial, but the two men reportedly described it as necessary to finance an aggressive lobbying campaign aimed at reaching the president.

Burkman explained their approach in blunt terms, arguing that the administration required sustained pressure from multiple directions to force the president to act.

According to the undercover recording described by 60 Minutes, the objective was effectively to push the pardon request directly in front of Trump and persuade him to sign it.

The alleged strategy illustrates how political access can itself become a commodity in Washington, particularly when the person at the center of the process is the president of the United States.

Mar-a-Lago, fundraisers and political influence

The brokers reportedly told the couple that pursuing the pardon would require considerable additional spending.

That could include traveling to Mar-a-Lago, Trump's Florida residence and private club, purchasing tickets costing as much as $10,000 for fundraising events attended by the president, and paying influential intermediaries who could potentially bring a case to Trump's attention.

Wohl and Burkman also allegedly claimed in written communications that they had recruited several prominent figures from Trump's political and media orbit.

Among the names mentioned were MAGA influencer Laura Loomer, the wife of conservative activist Charlie Kirk, House Speaker Mike Johnson and Natalie Harp, a Trump aide and close associate who has attracted significant media attention.

60 Minutes reported that all four individuals denied any involvement in the alleged operation.

Their denials are significant because the brokers' business model appears to depend heavily on the perception that they have privileged access to the president and his inner circle.

In other words, the value of the service may depend not simply on what the brokers can actually accomplish, but on what potential clients believe they can accomplish.

A Justice Department increasingly bypassed

The Trump administration strongly rejects the idea that presidential pardons can simply be purchased.

Ed Martin, a Trump ally who until recently headed the Justice Department's pardon office, told CBS that he had never encountered evidence of such practices.

When confronted with claims that individuals were openly boasting about bypassing the Justice Department, Martin appeared uncomfortable but maintained that there was no evidence of “magic pardon brokers.” He characterized the people making such promises primarily as frauds or charlatans.

The White House offered a similar response.

According to 60 Minutes, the administration said Trump carries out his constitutional responsibilities ethically and suggested that anyone spending money in the belief that it could guarantee a pardon was simply wasting it.

But CBS argues that the broader picture is more complicated.

The investigation points to a significant shift in how clemency has been handled during Trump's second term, with many pardon decisions reportedly taking place outside the traditional Justice Department process.

According to 60 Minutes, approximately 70 percent of the pardons issued by Trump during his second term did not go through the Justice Department. When pardons involving people convicted in connection with the January 6 Capitol riot are included, the figure reportedly rises as high as 92 percent.

Those numbers help explain why an industry promising direct access to the president could emerge in the first place.

The Paul Walczak case

The investigation also recalls previous cases that have fueled concerns about the relationship between political access, money and presidential clemency.

One example is Paul Walczak, whose case was reported by The New York Times in May 2025.

Walczak had been sentenced to 18 months in prison for tax fraud. His mother reportedly paid $1 million to attend an event at Mar-a-Lago where participants had an opportunity to meet Trump.

The payment was significant, although it represented less than the $4.4 million Walczak was ordered to repay.

Walczak was subsequently pardoned. The circumstances attracted attention, although reporting on the case did not establish that the payment directly caused the pardon.

The distinction is crucial. A political donation, event payment or personal meeting does not by itself prove that a pardon was purchased. But such cases can nevertheless raise questions about how wealthy individuals obtain access to presidential decision-makers.

A changing philosophy of presidential clemency

Mark Osler, a law professor at the University of St. Thomas in Minnesota, told CBS that lawyers have long been paid to assist clients with pardon applications.

What appears different, he argued, is the scale and nature of the practice under the current administration.

Historically, applicants seeking presidential clemency were often advised to acknowledge wrongdoing and demonstrate remorse. Under Trump's presidency, however, that strategy may not necessarily be the most effective one.

Osler told CBS that some applicants have appeared to achieve greater success by adopting an argument closer to Trump's own political rhetoric: portraying their prosecution or conviction as fundamentally unjust, politically motivated or the product of a system that had itself acted improperly.

That represents a potentially profound change in the culture surrounding presidential pardons.

Rather than simply asking for forgiveness, some applicants may increasingly frame their cases as political battles against institutions they believe acted against them.

What the pardon market says about Trump's America

The controversy surrounding alleged pardon brokers ultimately goes beyond the individuals offering their services.

It raises a broader question about how power operates when traditional institutional channels become less important.

The constitutional authority to grant pardons belongs to the president. But when intermediaries begin selling access to that authority, even without any guarantee that they can deliver results, the perception of a two-tiered justice system can become difficult to avoid.

For critics, the emergence of a lucrative pardon-broker industry reflects a presidency in which personal relationships, political loyalty and direct access increasingly compete with established bureaucratic procedures.

For Trump's supporters, meanwhile, bypassing traditional institutions can be presented as a way to correct what they view as an excessively politicized justice system.

That tension lies at the heart of the debate.

The 60 Minutes investigation does not establish that paying a broker guarantees a pardon from Donald Trump. What it does reveal is the existence of people willing to sell the promise of influence — and clients apparently willing to pay enormous sums for that promise.

In an administration where presidential clemency has increasingly bypassed the conventional Justice Department process, that market may say as much about perceptions of political power as it does about the pardons themselves.

14/09/2026

B’Tselem accuses Israel of pursuing a project to erase Palestinians in the West Bank

Israeli human rights organization B’Tselem has accused Israel of carrying out what it describes as a systematic “project of erasure” against Palestinians in the occupied West Bank, arguing that a combination of policies is making it increasingly difficult for Palestinians to remain on their land and maintain their collective life.

In a detailed report published Monday, B’Tselem said the process goes far beyond killing or forced displacement. According to the organization, “erasure” also involves dismantling the conditions that allow Palestinians to live on their land, including restricting access to farmland and sources of income, limiting freedom of movement, weakening social and political institutions, and reducing Palestinians’ ability to plan for their future.

The organization argues that these measures are interconnected rather than isolated incidents. In its assessment, restrictions on movement, economic pressure, settlement expansion, violence and land seizures reinforce one another, creating an environment in which remaining in Palestinian communities becomes increasingly difficult.

B’Tselem said it identifies five main mechanisms through which the alleged policy is being implemented in the West Bank: violence and intimidation, restrictions on movement, attacks on livelihoods and the Palestinian economy, the weakening of social and political life, and the takeover of Palestinian land.

The organization says these mechanisms should be understood as parts of a broader political process rather than as a series of unrelated violations. Its report describes the development as a continuing process based on what it calls a “logic of erasure.”

Yuli Novak, B’Tselem’s executive director, described the situation as part of a single political project affecting virtually every aspect of Palestinian life. She said Palestinian communities were being displaced, the economy was being pushed toward collapse, and millions of Palestinians were living under persistent fear of violence by Israeli forces or settlers.

B’Tselem argues that a new phase in Israeli policy toward the West Bank began toward the end of 2022, with what it characterizes as a more explicit and accelerated reliance on control, violence and dispossession. The organization says the process intensified further after October 7, 2023, as settlement expansion, settler violence and restrictions on Palestinian movement and livelihoods increased.

Recent developments have added to international concern over the situation. The Guardian reported on September 14 that B’Tselem’s new report accuses Israel of systematically undermining Palestinian living conditions in the West Bank, including through restrictions on movement, economic pressure, the dismantling of social structures and settlement expansion.

The report comes amid continuing violence and displacement across the territory. Earlier this month, the Guardian reported that Israeli forces demolished homes and other structures belonging to Palestinian families in the South Hebron Hills, while B’Tselem said the destruction contributed to the disappearance of another Palestinian community. The organization described the developments as part of an accelerating process of displacement.

B’Tselem also maintains that Israel operates a system of apartheid in the West Bank. It further describes Israel’s actions in Gaza as genocide, arguing that the circumstances in Gaza and the West Bank reflect what it considers to be a broader “logic of erasure,” although the mechanisms and conditions differ between the two territories.

The organization’s report claims that between October 7, 2023, and August 31, 2026, Israeli forces killed 1,107 Palestinians in the West Bank, including 245 children. B’Tselem also says Israel has displaced 75 Palestinian communities, while settlement outposts and farms have taken control of approximately 1.07 million dunams of land, which the organization estimates represents around 18 percent of the West Bank.

B’Tselem further says that approximately 33,000 Palestinians have been forcibly displaced from refugee camps in the northern West Bank.

The figures and conclusions are part of B’Tselem’s assessment and should be understood as such. They come amid a wider body of reporting and documentation concerning settlement expansion, settler violence and Palestinian displacement. Human Rights Watch, for example, reported in August that attacks by Israeli settlers were increasingly driving the forced displacement of Palestinian communities, while accusing Israeli authorities of providing support and impunity to violent settlers.

The escalation has also become an increasingly prominent international diplomatic issue. In September, British Foreign Secretary Ed Miliband described the forced displacement of Palestinians by settler groups in parts of the West Bank as “ethnic cleansing,” while the British government announced measures targeting trade connected to Israeli settlements. The move followed growing international concern over settlement expansion and settler violence.

Israel has rejected international criticism of its settlement policy and security operations, while Israeli authorities frequently describe military actions in the West Bank in terms of security, law enforcement or preventing illegal construction. The Israeli government has also strongly opposed the characterization of its policies as ethnic cleansing or apartheid.

The dispute over terminology reflects a much broader political and legal struggle over the future of the West Bank. For Palestinians and human rights organizations such as B’Tselem, the central issue is whether current policies are progressively making Palestinian territorial continuity and political self-determination impossible. For Israel, security concerns and the prevention of attacks remain central justifications for military operations and restrictions.

The situation has nevertheless created growing concern over the viability of a future Palestinian state. Settlement expansion, the fragmentation of Palestinian communities, restrictions on movement and the displacement of residents are increasingly being examined together rather than as separate developments.

B’Tselem’s report therefore presents the West Bank not simply as a territory experiencing periodic violence, but as the site of what it considers a sustained political transformation. Its central argument is that the cumulative effect of land seizures, restrictions, economic pressure, violence and displacement is to weaken Palestinian society and make continued collective life on the land increasingly difficult.

The report adds another stark assessment to an already intensifying international debate over the future of the West Bank. As settlement expansion and settler violence continue to draw international scrutiny, the question is no longer limited to individual incidents, but increasingly concerns the broader structure of policies shaping who can remain, move, work and build a future in the territory.

14/09/2026

An Unusual Alliance, Tucker Carlson Backs Abdul El-Sayed in Michigan Senate Race

An unexpected political alliance is emerging in Michigan, where conservative commentator Tucker Carlson has publicly thrown his support behind Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Abdulrahman “Abdul” El-Sayed, creating an unusual convergence between a prominent right-wing media figure and a progressive Democratic contender.

According to the British newspaper The Independent, Carlson announced his support for El-Sayed in his newsletter published Friday. The conservative commentator argued that Republican candidate Mike Rogers is not qualified to serve in the Senate and defended El-Sayed against criticism over his views on the U.S. “war on terror.”

Carlson’s intervention came after a wave of criticism targeting El-Sayed and Zohran Mamdani, the first Muslim elected mayor of New York City, around the anniversary of the September 11 attacks. Both men have faced accusations from media organizations and political figures who have questioned their patriotism and linked their political positions to their Muslim faith.

The controversy surrounding El-Sayed has focused in particular on his previous criticism of the war on terror. Critics accused him of showing insufficient concern for American victims of the September 11 attacks. El-Sayed, however, has explained that he observes September 11 as a day of mourning for those killed in the attacks, while reserving the following day to remember victims of the wars that followed.

The Rogers campaign described El-Sayed’s position as “disgusting.” Carlson sharply rejected that characterization.

“Disgusting?” Carlson asked, arguing that recognizing the Bush administration’s responsibility for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people and the expenditure of trillions of dollars in Iraq should not itself be considered offensive. He also emphasized a point central to El-Sayed’s argument: Iraq was not responsible for the September 11 attacks.

Carlson went further in his newsletter, insisting that El-Sayed had not celebrated the hijackings or supported al-Qaeda.

“El-Sayed didn’t celebrate the hijackings or encourage al-Qaeda,” Carlson argued. Instead, he said, the Democratic candidate had simply maintained that the United States’ use of force in response to September 11 could itself be characterized as terrorism and was therefore not an appropriate response.

Carlson added that El-Sayed’s assessment was justified.

Carlson’s Opposition to the Iran War

The endorsement is particularly significant because Carlson has increasingly positioned himself as a critic of U.S. military intervention, including the war in Iran.

The Independent reported that Carlson, who has strongly opposed the Iran conflict, previously described the U.S. and Israeli strikes that launched the war in February as “disgusting” and “evil.” In June, he warned that the conflict could ultimately damage Donald Trump’s presidency and weaken the MAGA movement.

Carlson also recalled warning Trump about the political consequences of becoming associated with another major war. In an interview with Sky News, he compared the potential consequences to those that defined George W. Bush’s presidency, particularly the Iraq War and the 2008 financial crisis.

His argument was straightforward: if Trump became responsible for a major war with Iran, the conflict could come to define his presidency regardless of his other achievements.

Carlson said Trump understood the potential consequences but proceeded nonetheless.

The conservative commentator’s intervention could therefore have consequences for the Michigan Senate race. Rogers and his campaign have sought to portray El-Sayed as an extremist candidate, but Carlson’s endorsement complicates that narrative by giving El-Sayed support from an influential figure on the American right.

Abdul El-Sayed Gains Momentum in Michigan

Polling cited by The Independent indicates that El-Sayed has gained ground since winning the Democratic primary in Michigan. His momentum comes as public opposition to the Iran war has grown and Trump’s approval ratings have fallen into the 30 percent range amid concerns about the economic consequences of the conflict.

Michigan is expected to be a critical battleground in the fight for control of the U.S. Senate. Democrats are seeking to retain the seat currently held by retiring Senator Gary Peters. To regain a Senate majority, Democrats would need to hold Michigan while winning four additional seats elsewhere.

El-Sayed’s primary victory itself represented a significant political challenge. His campaign faced opposition from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, commonly known as AIPAC, as well as Democratic figures and organizations with close ties to Israel.

The political battle surrounding El-Sayed has drawn comparisons with the campaign against Mamdani during New York City’s mayoral election. Mamdani was similarly targeted by critics who accused him of supporting extremist groups, while some media figures and conservative Democrats went as far as describing him as a “jihadist.”

For El-Sayed, the challenge has been to prevent the campaign from becoming exclusively focused on his religion or his comments about September 11. Instead, his campaign has attempted to concentrate attention on domestic political issues and the broader policy questions shaping Michigan’s future.

Another source of controversy has been his reported support from Hasan Piker, the anti-Zionist livestream commentator. Piker has himself faced intense criticism over comments concerning September 11 and his opposition to the war on terror.

The result is an increasingly unconventional Senate contest in which traditional political alliances are being tested. Carlson’s support for El-Sayed does not necessarily indicate an ideological convergence between the two men across the political spectrum. Rather, it highlights an increasingly visible divide over U.S. foreign policy, military intervention and the political legacy of the post-September 11 era.

For El-Sayed, the endorsement could provide an important counterweight to Republican attacks portraying him as politically extreme. For Carlson, meanwhile, backing a Democratic Senate candidate represents another example of his willingness to challenge established positions within the conservative movement, particularly on foreign policy and war.

The Michigan Senate race is consequently becoming about more than party labels. It is increasingly reflecting a broader debate inside American politics over the costs of military intervention, the legacy of the war on terror and the direction of U.S. foreign policy.

With the November midterm elections approaching, Michigan is likely to remain one of the most closely watched Senate contests in the country. And Carlson’s intervention has added another unexpected dimension to a race already shaped by questions of war, identity, political polarization and the future of the Democratic Party.

Adresse

La Ciotat

Téléphone

+33756756913

Site Web

https://solo.to/sahbymehalla, https://grokipedia.com/page/Sahby_Mehalla, https://muckrack.com/sahbymehalla, https://ar.w

Notifications

Soyez le premier à savoir et laissez-nous vous envoyer un courriel lorsque Mohamed Sahby Abdelhadi Mehalla publie des nouvelles et des promotions. Votre adresse e-mail ne sera pas utilisée à d'autres fins, et vous pouvez vous désabonner à tout moment.

Mohamed Sahby Abdelhadi Mehalla

14/09/2026

14/09/2026

14/09/2026

14/09/2026

Adresse

Téléphone

Site Web

Notifications

Raccourcis

Partager

Demande de retrait de la fiche