Uncategorized
This Jewish family’s toy company challenged Trump’s tariffs. The Supreme Court agreed.
(JTA) — Stephen Woldenberg was in a meeting with his father last Friday, refreshing the Supreme Court’s website, when the news finally came through: Their company had prevailed in its legal challenge to the Trump administration’s tariffs.
“It’s all a bit surreal, I’ll be honest,” said Woldenberg. “It’s very gratifying, though, to see that our case has had an impact and that the Supreme Court ruled and agreed with our position.”
For Woldenberg, who is the fourth generation of his family’s Illinois-based educational toy company Learning Resources, the decision to challenge President Donald Trump’s sweeping tariffs was rooted in a moral obligation shaped by his family’s Jewish values.
“I think that for us, being Jewish, we felt like we wanted to stand up for what we thought was right, and, you know, not being afraid to take a stand,” said Woldenberg. “I think that that’s part of our identity, and I think that’s a core part of what this case was about. It’s a civil legal challenge, it isn’t political, but we felt like we weren’t going to stand by idly, and I think that’s part of our Jewish identity.”
Learning Resources was founded by Stephen’s grandmother Joan as a spinoff of a company run by her father-in-law Max Woldenberg, who immigrated from Poland as a child in the late 19th century. Joan’s son Rick is CEO, while Stephen and his sister both have high-level executive roles.
The family, longtime members of a Conservative synagogue in the suburbs of Chicago, has a record of Jewish philanthropy. Rick and his wife have donated to local Jewish organizations as well as to the Center for Jewish Life at Princeton University, his alma mater. Elana, who also graduated from Princeton, founded a Jewish philanthropy fellowship there. And Max Woldenberg’s brother Malcolm was a prominent New Orleans philanthropist for whom the Institute of Southern Jewish Life is named.
It was not philanthropy but Learning Resources’ bottom line that got the family fired up by Trump’s tariffs, which raised import costs for businesses that rely on overseas manufacturing. Trump authorized the tariffs using the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, rather than by seeking approval from Congress.
Like many American companies, Learning Resources relies on Chinese factories and workers to make its products, of which perhaps the most widely recognizable are plastic bears used for counting practice that are staples of many preschool classrooms.
Stephen Woldenberg said that in 2025, after the tariffs were imposed, Learning Resources paid over $10 million in tariff-related taxes, compared to $2 million the year before.
“After ‘liberation day,’ tariff rates spiked up to 145%, which effectively was like an embargo on Chinese goods,” said Woldenberg. “We decided to take action. We aren’t really a company that likes to stand by idly. We weren’t willing to let a single politician sink the ship.”
Learning Resources’ legal battle culminated in a decisive Supreme Court victory, and a notable loss for Trump, who heavily criticized the decision during his State of the Union speech Tuesday night.
In his decision, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that the “IEEPA does not authorize the President to impose tariffs.” The Supreme Court agreed 6-3 that the tariffs exceeded the law.
“The president asserts the extraordinary power to unilaterally impose tariffs of unlimited amount, duration, and scope,” Roberts wrote in his opinion. “In light of the breadth, history, and constitutional context of that asserted authority, he must identify clear congressional authorization to exercise it.”
Among the estimated 1,000 lawsuits filed against the tariffs, which ultimately collected over $130 billion for the United States, were others filed by Jewish-owned companies.
Rebecca Melsky, a former a Jewish day school teacher, was among the first to legally challenge the emergency tariffs last April through her children’s apparel brand Princess Awesome, which she co-founded to defy “gender stereotypes” in kids clothing.
In 2025, Melsky said Princess Awesome had paid over $30,000 in additional tariffs, a cost she said had hit her small business hard.
“We’re a very small company — that money came out of our paychecks,” said Melsky. “We pulled back on our production. We did not make as much stuff last year as we normally do, which we are feeling this year, as we start the year with less inventory.”
After Melsky and her co-founder, Eva St. Clair, took to Facebook to explain the costs of Trump’s tariffs to their customers last April, the pair were approached by the Pacific Legal Foundation, which represented them in federal court. (Princess Awesome’s lawsuit was put on hold pending the Learning Resources decision.)
For Melsky, the choice to take on Trump’s tariffs in court was also inspired in part by her own Jewish values.
“Even if something feels scary, even if you don’t necessarily know if it’s going to do something, standing up for what is right, is, like, we have a moral and ethical obligation to do that, even if that means taking a risk,” said Melsky. “And thankfully, my business partner, her Catholic faith brought her to the same place, too.”
Following the Supreme Court’s ruling last Friday, Melsky and St. Clair took to Facebook again, posting a video shouting “we won!”
But the battle is not over for Melsky, Woldenberg or any of the other businesses that have sued the government over Trump’s tariffs. Following the ruling, Trump swiftly vowed to impose more tariffs, including a temporary 10% global import duty.
While the Trump administration said during the Supreme Court battle that suing parties would “assuredly receive payment” if they lost, the court did not stipulate in its decision what would happen to the tariffs that had already been collected.
As companies seek refunds following the decision, they are likely to be met by a lengthy legal process, with Trump already dismissing calls for refunds as a process that would take “years.”
“The government, the administration, did not have a hard time taking the money, they found that to be quite easy, and so they should be able to turn around and send it right back to us,” said Woldenberg. “They know what everybody paid, and they know how to get the money.”
Melsky said that she felt her company was now in “limbo,” awaiting the Trump administration’s next move.
“It feels a little bit less chaotic, but we don’t know exactly what’s going to happen, and certainly we have no idea what will happen with refunds and if they are approved, when that money would come,” said Melsky.
Despite the uncertainty, Woldenberg said he hoped his family’s victory would “inspire” others that they too can make a difference.
“It doesn’t matter the size of the company or the notoriety of the individual,” said Woldenberg. “The American system is set up in a way where anyone can make a difference, anybody can have an impact.”
The post This Jewish family’s toy company challenged Trump’s tariffs. The Supreme Court agreed. appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
War with Iran puts the US-Israel alliance at grave risk
The Iran war is strategically sound yet politically unsupported — an unstable foundation for a gamble that could reshape the Middle East. That creates danger for Israel, which needs the support of an American public that is rapidly drifting away.
For decades, the country’s greatest strategic asset has not been its military technology or intelligence capabilities — spectacular as these are — but rather the political, diplomatic and military backing of the United States. That relationship has not been merely transactional. It was supposed to rest on shared values and deep public support across the American political spectrum.
If that support erodes or disappears, Israel’s strategic environment will fundamentally change. To be blunt: it will not be able to arm its military. This creates a paradox. A campaign that has so far demonstrated extraordinary value for the Jewish state also stands a risk of fundamentally weakening it.
An alliance at its strongest
The conflict has showcased the depth of the current U.S.–Israel alliance. To many observers, and critically to Israel’s enemies, the operation has underscored not only Israel’s capabilities but also the reality that it stands alongside the world’s most powerful state.
The strikes have projected deep into Iranian territory, revealed astonishing intelligence penetration, and destroyed or degraded key threats. Israel’s enemies across the region have already been weakened by previous rounds of fighting since Oct. 7, and the current operation has reinforced the impression that Israel can reach its adversaries wherever they operate.
Moreover, Iran’s regime has managed to isolate itself to the point where most Arab countries are in effect on the side of Israel and the U.S. That projection — of an unbreakable and strong alliance – may ultimately be the most important strategic element of this war.
But therein lies the rub.
The political foundations of American support for Israel are eroding, which means the very element that currently strengthens Israel’s deterrence — American participation — may also be the one most at risk.
A just war, unjustified
Americans do not understand why their country is at war.
A Reuters/Ipsos survey conducted at the start of the conflict found only 27% of Americans supported the U.S. action, while 43% opposed it. Other surveys show similar results, with roughly six in ten Americans against the military intervention.
In modern American history that is highly unusual. Most wars begin with a “rally around the flag” moment when public support surges. Even conflicts that later became controversial — from Afghanistan to Iraq — initially enjoyed majority backing.
This one did not — in part because the case for it has not been made clearly to the public.
That error is compounded by years of polarization in American politics; declining trust in institutions and leadership; and the record of President Donald Trump, who has spent years spreading conspiracy theories and demonstrating a remarkable indifference to factual truth. It is no exaggeration to say that many Americans do not believe a word he says – which is perhaps unprecedented.
When a president with that record launches a war, at least half the country assumes the worst. Even if the strategic logic is sound, the credibility deficit remains.
The tragedy is that the war is, in fact, eminently justifiable. The Islamic Republic has long since forfeited the moral legitimacy that normally shields states from outside force. It brutally suppresses its own population, jailing and killing protesters, policing women’s bodies, and crushing dissent with an apparatus of repression. Its foreign policy is not defensive but revolutionary. Through proxy militias it has destabilized Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Yemen, as well as the Palestinian areas, in some cases for decades.
The regime has pursued nuclear weapons through a series of transparent machinations, deceptions and brinkmanship. Negotiations have repeatedly been used as delaying tactics while enrichment continued. Any deal that relieved sanctions would not simply reduce tensions; it would also inject new resources into a system dedicated both to repression at home and aggression abroad — one that is despised by the vast majority of its own people, as murderous dictatorships inevitably will be.
There is a doctrine in international law known as the Responsibility to Protect — the principle that when a state systematically brutalizes its own population, the international community may have the right, even the obligation, to act. By that standard, the Iranian regime has been skating on thin ice for years.
But with this clear rationale left uncommunicated, the politically dangerous perception has spread that the U.S. was reacting to Israel rather than acting on its own strategic judgment.
A perilous future
If Americans come to believe that Israel caused a costly war that they did not support in the first place, the backlash could be severe.
For centuries, one of the most persistent antisemitic tropes has been the accusation that Jews manipulate powerful states into fighting wars on their behalf. The suggestion that Israel can pull the U.S. into conflict feeds directly into that mythology. Once such perceptions take hold, they can be extremely difficult to reverse.
Even people who reject antisemitism outright can absorb a softer version of the same idea: that American interests are being subordinated to Israeli ones. In a political environment already marked by growing skepticism toward Israel, that perception risks deepening the erosion of support that has been underway for years.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio seemed to inadvertently feed such notions by suggesting in recent days that the U.S. had to attack Iran because Israel was going to do so “anyway,” and then America would have been a target. It was a short path from that to conspiracy theorists like Tucker Carlson blaming Chabad for the war.
A future Democratic president, facing a base that appears to have abandoned Israel, may feel far less obligation to defend it diplomatically or militarily. Even a Republican successor could prove unreliable if the party continues its drift toward isolationism.
That likelihood is compounded by studies showing that a large part of the U.S. Jewish community itself no longer backs Zionism. That process is driven by Israel’s own policies, including the West Bank occupation and the deadly brutality of the war in Gaza.
So the very war that is showcasing the best the U.S.-Israel alliance has to offer is also at risk of fundamentally damaging that partnership. Particularly if Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu — the rightful object of much American ire — manipulates the Iran campaign into an electoral victory this year, the alliance’s greatest success could also be its undoing.
The post War with Iran puts the US-Israel alliance at grave risk appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
Report: Iran’s New Military Plan Is Regime Survival Through Regional Escalation
Members of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) attend an IRGC ground forces military drill in the Aras area, East Azerbaijan province, Iran, Oct. 17, 2022. Photo: IRGC/WANA (West Asia News Agency)/Handout via REUTERS
i24 News – After last year’s devastating conflict with the United States and Israel, Iranian leaders have reportedly adopted a major strategic shift aimed at expanding the war across the Middle East to secure the regime’s survival, according to the Wall Street Journal.
Previously, Iran responded to foreign strikes with limited, targeted reprisals. The new doctrine abandons that approach, aiming instead to escalate the conflict regionally, particularly against Gulf Arab states and critical economic infrastructure. The goal is to disrupt the global economy and pressure Washington into shortening the war.
This decision followed the twelve-day war with Israel in June 2025, during which Israeli and US strikes eliminated senior Iranian military leaders, destroyed key air defense systems, and severely damaged nuclear facilities. In response, Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei—before his elimination early in the current conflict—activated a strategy designed to maintain continuity even if top commanders were neutralized.
Central to this approach is the so-called “mosaic defense” doctrine: a decentralized military structure in which the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) operates through multiple regional command centers. Each center can conduct operations independently, allowing local commanders to continue fighting even if national leadership is incapacitated. This makes the military apparatus more resilient to targeted strikes.
Analysts cited by the Wall Street Journal suggest that Tehran’s calculation is to make the conflict costly enough for all parties to force the US and its allies into a diplomatic resolution.
However, the plan carries enormous risks. By escalating attacks on regional states and international economic interests, Iran could provoke a broader coalition against itself. Despite prior military losses, Iranian forces retain the capability to launch drone and missile strikes, maintaining their influence over the ongoing conflict.
For Iranian leaders, the immediate priority remains unchanged: the survival of the regime, even if it requires a major regional escalation.
Uncategorized
Katz Warns Lebanon to Disarm Hezbollah or ‘Pay a Heavy Price’
Israel’s Defense Minister Israel Katz and his Greek counterpart Nikos Dendias make statements to the press, at the Ministry of Defense in Athens Greece, Jan. 20, 2026. Photo: REUTERS/Louisa Gouliamaki
i24 News – Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz on Saturday warned Lebanon’s leadership that it must act to disarm Hezbollah and enforce existing agreements, cautioning that failure to do so could lead to severe consequences for the Lebanese state.
Speaking after a high-level security assessment with senior military officials, Katz directed a message to Lebanese President Joseph Aoun, saying Beirut had committed to enforcing an agreement requiring Hezbollah’s disarmament but had failed to follow through.
“You pledged to uphold the agreement and disarm Hezbollah — and this is not happening,” Katz said. “Act and enforce it before we do even more.”
The meeting took place in Israel’s military command center and included Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Eyal Zamir and other senior defense officials, as Israel continues operations on multiple fronts.
Katz emphasized that Israel would not tolerate attacks on its communities or soldiers from Lebanese territory.
“We will not allow harm to our communities or to our soldiers,” he said. “If the choice is between protecting our citizens and soldiers or protecting the State of Lebanon, we will choose our citizens and soldiers — and the Lebanese government and Lebanon will pay a very heavy price.”
The defense minister also referenced Hezbollah’s leadership, warning that the group’s current chief could lead Lebanon into further destruction.
“If Hassan Nasrallah destroyed Lebanon, then Naim Qassem will destroy it as well,” Katz said.
Katz stressed that Israel has no territorial ambitions in Lebanon but said it would not accept a return to the years in which Hezbollah launched repeated attacks on Israel from Lebanese territory.
“We have no territorial claims against Lebanon,” he said. “But we will not allow Lebanese territory to again become a platform for attacks against the State of Israel.”
He concluded with a warning to Lebanese authorities to take action against Hezbollah before Israel escalates its response.
“Do and act before we do even more,” Katz said.