The Morning Sixpack stays free because the news that shapes your life should not be hidden behind a paywall. Paid subscribers are not paying for access. They are helping fund the research, writing, and independent voice that goes into every issue. Become a paid subscriber and help keep smart, honest news analysis free for everyone.
Netanyahu’s Political Survival on the Line as Israelis Flood the Polls in Historic Election
Israel is voting on Benjamin Netanyahu’s political future at a pace not seen in nearly 50 years—and after three years of war, voters have plenty to say.
Israelis turned out in extraordinary numbers Tuesday for their first national election since the October 7, 2023, Hamas-led attacks, putting Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s political future in jeopardy. Within five hours of polls opening, 31.5% of eligible voters had cast ballots, the fastest early turnout since the historic 1977 election that first brought Israel’s political right to power. Long lines formed outside polling stations as voters weighed Netanyahu’s leadership through years of war in Gaza, Lebanon, and Iran. The election has become a referendum on security, accountability, and the direction of a country deeply divided over its future.
Netanyahu, Israel’s longest-serving prime minister with 19 years in office, faces a serious challenge from former military chief Gadi Eisenkot, but neither man has a clear path to victory. Netanyahu has campaigned on his wartime leadership and the endorsement of U.S. President Donald Trump, portraying himself as the only leader capable of confronting Israel’s enemies. Eisenkot, himself a security hawk, has assembled support across the political center and right while promising accountability for the catastrophic security failures of October 7. Opinion polls suggest a close contest, complicated by Israel’s fragmented parliamentary system and the difficulty of assembling a governing majority in the 120-seat Knesset.
For many voters, the election comes down to who should answer for October 7, when Hamas-led attackers killed approximately 1,200 people and kidnapped 251 others. Netanyahu’s government has resisted demands for a national inquiry, while opposition parties have promised one. Eisenkot, who briefly served in Netanyahu’s wartime cabinet before resigning over disagreements with his leadership, voted alongside former hostage Gadi Mozes near the Gaza border. He described the election as an opportunity to correct the course of the past three years. Meanwhile, the war in Gaza has killed more than 74,000 Palestinians, according to health authorities, and Eisenkot argues that Israel’s campaign failed because Hamas remains in power.
Turnout among Israel’s Arab minority could prove decisive, with Palestinian candidate Ahmed Tibi reporting unprecedented participation. Netanyahu has repeatedly warned supporters about high Arab turnout, using the campaign slogan “Right or Palestine” to mobilize his nationalist base. His far-right coalition partner Itamar Ben-Gvir predicted Netanyahu would return to office, while Eisenkot has ruled out formally partnering with Arab parties, citing incompatible values. Nevertheless, some potential coalition arrangements could depend on Arab lawmakers supporting a minority government to remove Netanyahu. The election’s outcome may ultimately hinge less on which party wins the most votes than on who can cobble together enough parliamentary support.
The stakes extend well beyond Israel’s domestic politics. Israeli forces occupy roughly two-thirds of Gaza under a year-old U.S.-brokered ceasefire, while negotiations over Hamas disarmament and Israeli withdrawal remain stalled. Israel also occupies territory in Lebanon following its campaign against Hezbollah, and its confrontations with Iran escalated from a 12-day air war in 2025 to a joint U.S.-Israeli war this year. Eisenkot opposes a Palestinian two-state solution, much like Netanyahu, but has criticized settler violence in the occupied West Bank and Netanyahu’s far-right political allies. Should neither candidate assemble a majority, Netanyahu could remain caretaker prime minister until another election—an outcome that would hardly be unfamiliar for a politician who has repeatedly survived seemingly terminal political crises.
Editor: Nearly half a century since Israel’s last historic electoral upheaval, voters are lining up to deliver another verdict. Whether Netanyahu actually leaves office is another matter. The man has made political survival practically an Olympic sport.
Source: Reuters
Record-Breaking Tides Flood Southern California Streets as Coastal Communities Brace for More
Southern California’s beaches are becoming temporary swimming pools as record-breaking tides push seawater into streets and businesses.
Record-breaking high tides sent seawater surging into Southern California coastal communities Monday, flooding streets, businesses, and neighborhoods from Newport Beach to Long Beach. The flooding came as the region prepared for several days of exceptionally high sea levels, with some locations approaching or exceeding historical records. Water spilled out of Newport Harbor and onto the Balboa Peninsula, inundating portions of the popular Balboa Fun Zone. In Long Beach, residents reported flooding along Bayshore Beach, Naples, and the Peninsula, highlighting the vulnerability of low-lying coastal neighborhoods.
The flooding wasn’t entirely unexpected, but the sheer volume of water put local preparations to the test. Officials in Newport Beach and Long Beach spent days moving sand, reinforcing beaches, distributing sandbags, and warning residents to protect vulnerable properties. Residents were encouraged to move vehicles to higher ground and secure homes and businesses before the tides peaked. Despite those preparations, seawater still reached knee-high levels in parts of Newport Beach, forcing crews to deploy pumps and reinforce barriers along the harbor.
The most dramatic measurement came from the San Pedro tide gauge, which recorded a water level of 8.02 feet Monday morning, breaking the previous record of 7.93 feet set in January 2005. That new mark underscores the exceptional conditions affecting Southern California’s coastline this week. San Diego County also experienced unusually high water levels, prompting coastal flood warnings and concerns about additional inundation. With elevated tides expected to continue for several days, local officials remained focused on protecting vulnerable neighborhoods from further flooding.
Newport Beach officials credited residents with helping limit the damage by taking warnings seriously and preparing their properties ahead of time. City spokesperson Georgia Rios reported that approximately 25,000 sandbags were distributed over the weekend as homeowners and businesses rushed to protect themselves. “We really saw the community come out,” Rios said, crediting public participation for helping prevent more extensive damage. Although some businesses and streets flooded, officials had received no reports of significant widespread damage as of Monday.
The flooding serves as another reminder of how quickly extreme coastal water levels can disrupt communities built directly along the shoreline. Even with sandbags, pumps, and emergency preparations, neighborhoods surrounding harbors, beaches, and low-lying waterfront areas remain particularly exposed when unusually high tides arrive. Officials are continuing their efforts to reinforce vulnerable locations as the region faces additional days of elevated water levels. For residents, the immediate priority is protecting property and avoiding flooded streets while waiting for the unusually high tides to subside.
Editor: Southern California residents spent the weekend filling 25,000 sandbags, only to watch the Pacific Ocean stroll into town anyway. At least the ocean hasn’t figured out how to charge beachfront property taxes—yet.
Source: Los Angeles Times via MSN
Measles Makes a Deadly Comeback as America’s Public Health Defenses Crumble
America has managed to bring back measles, a disease it eliminated more than 25 years ago. Under Robert F. Kennedy, Jr’s “leadership, decades of medical progress have been pissed away.
The United States is experiencing its worst measles outbreak in more than three decades, with over 4,400 reported cases and at least three federally counted deaths in 2026. That follows nearly 2,300 cases in 2025, raising fears that a disease officially eliminated from the country in 2000 is becoming a permanent problem again. Public health experts warn that the resurgence reveals something more troubling than falling vaccination rates: America’s growing inability to contain infectious diseases it already knows how to prevent. The Pan American Health Organization is expected to review the nation’s measles elimination status in November, and the United States is on track to lose that designation.
The numbers reveal a troubling breakdown in childhood vaccination coverage, even though the measles vaccine remains approximately 97% effective after two doses. During the 2025–2026 school year, just 92.4% of American kindergarteners had received the recommended MMR vaccinations, below the 95% coverage level generally needed to prevent sustained transmission. Approximately 280,000 kindergarteners had not completed their MMR series, while vaccination exemptions reached a record 4.2%. An investigation found that 67% of counties and jurisdictions reporting vaccination data had fallen below the recommended threshold. Although most American parents continue vaccinating their children, concentrated pockets of low immunization leave entire communities vulnerable, including infants too young for vaccination and people who cannot receive vaccines for medical reasons.
The crisis is unfolding as the Trump administration reshapes federal vaccine policy and public health institutions. President Donald Trump signed an executive order in August suggesting the combined MMR vaccine be separated into individual shots while repeating false claims about its safety. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has also overhauled a key federal vaccine advisory committee, although those changes remain frozen amid litigation. Several experts interviewed by CNBC warned that these actions could further undermine public confidence in vaccination. Meanwhile, experienced scientists and physicians have departed the CDC, and changes in how measles-related deaths are reported have complicated efforts to track the outbreak. Pennsylvania has reported at least five measles-associated deaths, even as the CDC’s published national count stands at three.
Researchers warn that the consequences could extend far beyond the current outbreak. A Stanford-led modeling study published in JAMA projected that, if existing vaccination conditions persist, the United States could experience approximately 851,300 measles cases, 170,200 hospitalizations, and 2,550 deaths over 25 years. Those figures are projections, not predictions, but they illustrate the potential cost of declining immunization. Canada already lost its measles elimination status after recording more than 5,400 cases in 2025, and epidemiologist Michael Osterholm warned that a comparable outbreak scaled to America’s population could produce as many as 50,000 U.S. cases. Vaccination coverage for other childhood diseases is also slipping, including polio and whooping cough, raising concerns about the possible return of illnesses once largely controlled through immunization.
Perhaps the most alarming implication is what the measles resurgence says about America’s readiness for the next major infectious disease emergency. Epidemiologists describe measles as a warning signal because it spreads exceptionally easily, yet an effective vaccine and established prevention strategies have existed for decades. If the country struggles to contain a familiar, preventable virus, experts question how effectively it could respond to an unfamiliar pathogen requiring rapid detection, coordinated action, and public trust. Some researchers have even raised concerns about vulnerabilities to deliberate biological attacks, although others caution that measles outbreaks alone cannot establish how Americans would respond to a different emergency. The broader message from public health specialists is clear: Preventing disease requires sustained vaccination, reliable surveillance, experienced health professionals, and institutions the public can trust.
Editor: We put people on the moon, mapped the human genome, and developed vaccines that virtually eliminated deadly childhood diseases. Now we’re conducting a nationwide experiment to see what happens when we stop listening to the scientists. Spoiler alert: The viruses are winning.
Source: CNBC
Federal Appeals Court Rejects Trump’s Emergency Bid to Set Aside 20,000 California Ballots
The Trump administration wants California to set aside 20,000 ballots belonging to supposedly ineligible voters. There’s just one problem: Some of those alleged noncitizens appear to have been born in the United States.
A federal appeals court dealt the Trump administration another election-related legal setback Monday, declining to intervene in its effort to prevent California from counting approximately 20,000 ballots allegedly connected to noncitizen voters. The 2-1 decision by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals leaves the dispute with a federal district judge, who is scheduled to hear arguments Tuesday, just one week before the November 3 midterm elections. The Justice Department wants California to separate the disputed ballots until officials can verify the voters’ citizenship. But the appeals court concluded that the administration had moved prematurely, without giving the lower court sufficient opportunity to consider its request.
The administration’s case rests on a list of 20,000 people it claims are likely noncitizens, but California officials have raised serious questions about the list’s accuracy. The Justice Department sued state election officials in mid-October, alleging they failed to meet a 48-hour deadline to investigate the names. However, Los Angeles election officials reported that a majority of voters in a random sample of those flagged by federal authorities appeared to have been born in the United States. Both federal and California law already prohibit noncitizens from voting, and available evidence indicates such voting is exceedingly rare. State officials argue that separating ballots based on an unverified list could prevent eligible American citizens from having their votes counted.
The appeals court’s majority questioned both the administration’s legal arguments and its last-minute timing. Judge Gabriel Sanchez, appointed by President Joe Biden, noted that the government’s claimed emergency was partly the result of its own decisions to pursue legal action so close to Election Day. He warned that changing ballot-processing procedures after voting had begun could create electoral chaos. Judge Mark Bennett, a Trump appointee, separately questioned whether the Constitution gives the federal government authority to force California to segregate the ballots. Their opinions made clear that concerns about election integrity do not automatically justify disrupting established state election procedures without sufficient legal grounds.
Judge Patrick Bumatay, another Trump appointee, dissented, arguing that federal law requires California to prevent potentially illegal ballots from being mixed with legitimate votes. He maintained that the government has a compelling interest in stopping unlawful voting before it occurs rather than relying solely on prosecutions afterward. The disagreement highlights a broader conflict between the administration’s efforts to increase federal oversight of elections and states’ traditional authority to administer them. The Justice Department has also made similar demands in Washington state, where congressional races could help determine control of the House and Senate. The administration’s campaign against alleged noncitizen voting has become a central part of Trump’s political messaging despite the limited evidence of widespread violations.
California Attorney General Rob Bonta welcomed Monday’s ruling, describing it as a “welcome speed bump” against what he characterized as Trump’s attacks on democracy and the Constitution. He encouraged Californians to vote early rather than become discouraged by the legal battle. The ruling does not resolve the underlying dispute over the 20,000 names, and the Justice Department will have another opportunity to argue its case before a federal judge Tuesday afternoon. With ballots already being processed and Election Day rapidly approaching, the government faces a narrowing window to obtain the restrictions it wants. The central question remains whether federal officials can demonstrate that the disputed voters are actually ineligible before potentially interfering with thousands of ballots.
Editor: When your list of supposed illegal immigrant voters includes people who appear to have been born in America, perhaps the problem isn’t voter fraud. Perhaps it’s your list. But why let pesky things like evidence and constitutional rights interfere with a perfectly good election conspiracy?
Source: Associated Press
Private Equity Faces $300 Billion Debt Reckoning as Higher Rates Threaten Corporate Defaults
Private-equity firms borrowed billions when money was practically free. Now $300 billion in debt is coming due, interest rates are higher, and the companies they bought aren’t looking quite so irresistible.
America’s private-equity industry is racing to prevent a potential wave of corporate defaults as approximately $300 billion in risky loans approaches repayment deadlines in 2028 and 2029. According to PitchBook, roughly $140 billion matures in 2028, followed by another $160 billion in 2029, an unusually large concentration of debt compared with recent years. Higher interest rates have made refinancing significantly more expensive, leaving investment firms scrambling to negotiate extensions before creditors can seize struggling businesses. About one-quarter of the outstanding loans carry credit ratings of CCC-plus or lower, indicating substantial financial risk. Some private-equity owners could lose their entire investments if lenders take control of companies unable to repay their obligations.
The looming debt crisis traces back to 2021, when historically low borrowing costs encouraged private-equity firms to finance enormous corporate acquisitions with cheap loans. Many of those deals relied on seven-year debt arrangements, based on the expectation that the acquired businesses could be sold profitably before repayment deadlines arrived. But the Federal Reserve began raising interest rates in 2022, and another surge in Treasury yields this year made borrowing even more expensive. Software companies account for roughly one-third of the loans coming due in 2028 and 2029, creating an additional headache as artificial intelligence threatens to disrupt established technology businesses. Firms that once expected profitable exits now face the prospect of refinancing expensive debt against businesses whose future earnings are increasingly uncertain.
One example is Solera, a vehicle-maintenance software company acquired by Vista Equity Partners in 2016, which has approximately $8 billion in loans maturing in 2028 and 2029. A planned 2024 public offering that could have helped eliminate its debt never materialized, and S&P Global Ratings subsequently downgraded its loans to CCC-plus, citing weak earnings and heavy borrowing. Investors holding that debt include major financial institutions such as Apollo Global Management, Ares Management, Fidelity Investments, and Pimco. Some of Solera’s loans have traded for as little as 77 cents on the dollar, reflecting doubts about full repayment. Bank of America has warned that corporate loan maturities are approaching levels not seen since 2013 and predicts the default rate for below-investment-grade loans will double to 4% next year.
The consequences could extend beyond private-equity executives and the companies they control. Pension funds, insurance companies, and wealthy investors have committed substantial capital to private-equity funds, making them vulnerable to declining returns and investment losses. According to PitchBook, annual private-equity returns have slipped below 10% in recent years, compared with approximately 15% during the era of near-zero interest rates. Private-credit lenders also face potential losses if struggling companies cannot meet their obligations. With borrowing costs remaining elevated, firms increasingly face difficult choices between injecting additional capital, negotiating concessions with creditors, selling assets, or surrendering control of businesses that can no longer support their debt.
Some investment firms are already resorting to financial restructuring to buy themselves more time. Clearlake Capital, for example, negotiated extensions on approximately $2.2 billion in loans owed by healthcare software company symplr after major lenders demanded additional financial support. A continuation fund supplied $175 million in exchange for preferred shares, helping secure extensions into 2030 and 2031, along with additional financing and permission to defer certain interest payments. Such arrangements can prevent immediate defaults, but they also demonstrate how much additional money and negotiation may be required to keep heavily indebted companies operating. As the 2028 and 2029 deadlines approach, private-equity firms must determine which investments are worth rescuing and which may ultimately have to be handed over to creditors.
Editor: Private equity spent years borrowing cheap money, buying companies, and collecting handsome returns. Now the loans are coming due, the refinancing window is narrowing, and suddenly everyone’s discovering the downside of leverage. Funny how capitalism gets a lot less exciting when the bill arrives.
Source: The Wall Street Journal
Trump Justice Department Charges James Comey for Third Time as Legal Deadline Expires
The Trump administration has charged former FBI Director James Comey for the third time, this time over alleged leaks from 2016. After a decade, two previous criminal cases, and a ticking legal deadline, apparently the third time’s the charm—or at least that’s what prosecutors are hoping.
The Justice Department has filed a third criminal case against former FBI Director James Comey, accusing him of illegally leaking sensitive government information to the media in 2016. Federal prosecutors filed two felony counts in Washington, D.C., alleging that Comey directed staff members to share classified information with a New York Times reporter while he was running the FBI. The allegations concern an October 2016 article about U.S. email surveillance that prosecutors say contained information closely resembling details from an internal intelligence community email. Comey, who was fired by President Donald Trump in 2017 and has since become a prominent critic of the president, denies the charges and calls the prosecution an abuse of the Justice Department.
The latest case faces an immediate legal obstacle because prosecutors bypassed a grand jury as the 10-year statute of limitations was about to expire. Instead of obtaining an indictment, the Justice Department filed a criminal information, a charging document based solely on prosecutors’ allegations. Because Comey has not waived his right to a grand jury, prosecutors will ultimately need an indictment to pursue the felony charges. His attorneys argue that the maneuver improperly attempted to circumvent the statute of limitations and have asked the court to dismiss the case. The Justice Department maintains that filing a criminal information to stop the limitations clock is an established and legally permissible practice. U.S. District Judge Trevor McFadden, a Trump appointee, has not yet ruled on the dismissal request.
The allegations became public Monday after McFadden ordered the previously sealed court documents released, citing the significant public interest in prosecuting a former FBI director. Comey’s lawyers contend that the alleged 2016 leak was investigated twice during Trump’s first administration without prosecutors recommending criminal charges. The latest filings were signed by specially appointed assistant U.S. attorneys rather than career federal prosecutors in Washington, along with senior Justice Department officials closely associated with Attorney General Todd Blanche. Comey responded with a video statement condemning the prosecution, saying, “It would almost be funny if it weren’t such an appalling abuse of the Department of Justice — one that we cannot become numb to.” He added that he remains innocent and intends to fight the allegations in court.
The new charges add to an increasingly complicated series of criminal proceedings against Comey during Trump’s second presidency. In April, prosecutors in North Carolina indicted him over a 2025 social media photograph that authorities alleged constituted a threat against Trump. Comey has sought dismissal of that case, arguing that the prosecution is politically motivated and vindictive, with a potential trial expected next year if the charges survive. In September 2025, federal prosecutors in Virginia also charged Comey with lying to Congress about whether he had authorized leaks to the media. A federal judge dismissed that case after finding that the prosecutor overseeing it, former interim U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan, had been unlawfully appointed. The Justice Department is appealing that dismissal, with a federal appeals court expected to rule soon.
The latest prosecution comes amid broader concerns about the Trump administration’s use of federal law enforcement against perceived political opponents. Its timing was particularly notable because the charges became public just hours after a federal judge in New York ruled that the Justice Department had unlawfully fired Comey’s daughter, Maurene Comey, a former federal prosecutor. She had sued the department, alleging that her dismissal was connected to her father’s identity and her perceived political beliefs. Although the criminal allegations against James Comey remain unresolved, the repeated prosecutions, procedural disputes, and involvement of senior political appointees have placed the Justice Department’s independence under scrutiny. With three separate cases now in various stories of litigation, the administration continues pursuing a longtime presidential adversary while courts determine whether its prosecutions can legally proceed.
Editor: Three criminal cases against the same former FBI director, one already dismissed over an illegally appointed prosecutor, and another filed just as the statute of limitations ran out. At some point, you have to wonder whether the Justice Department is pursuing justice or running a very expensive personal grudge match on the taxpayers’ dime.
Source: The Washington Post
Read The Morning Sixpack here: