‘Living on pins and needles.' Second rescue flight from Israel lands in Florida
'There are going to be more folks that are going to be rescued,' said DeSantis, calling the evacuation missions the 'most logistically challenging rescues' the state has done during his time as governor. This is 'an ongoing effort.'
The state is working with several groups, including Tampa-based and veteran-led Grey Bull Rescue, to coordinate evacuation and rescue efforts as commercial flights to and from Israel are halted. Florida Sen. Jay Collins from Tampa, a retired Green Beret, is in Israel assisting the rescue group with the evacuation efforts.
So far, Florida has flown over 300 people and 'we have put on a passenger ferry over 1,000 more,' said Kevin Guthrie, executive director of Florida's Division of Emergency Management, which oversees the state's response to hurricanes and other disasters.
The people rescued have included families, veterans and college students. Guthrie said state officials and the rescue groups would not discuss logistic details of the rescue operations, citing safety issues for the people being evacuated and the rescuers.
What a Broward man says about the rescue
Broward County resident Josh Hammer, a Newsweek senior editor-at-large and host of 'The Josh Hammer Show' podcast, was one of many who arrived early Friday to Tampa.
Hammer, who lives in Hallandale Beach, went to Israel about a week and half ago with his family and 6-month old baby girl to attend a family wedding. Then the airstrikes began.
We were 'living on pins and needles for the sirens to go off,' with just '90 seconds to two minutes' to run into a bomb shelter, he said.
'The whole week has just been a total blur,' Hammer said at a Friday news conference. 'I feel like I'm not even here right now, physically.'
Hammer shared more of his family's harrowing experience on the social media site X, which included crossing the border into Jordan and flying to Cyprus, an island nation in the Mediterranean Sea, before finally boarding a flight to Florida.
'Suffice it to say this was not the trip we had in mind. The past week has been absolutely crazy — especially with a six-month-old baby girl,' he said his post. 'None of this has been easy, to put it mildly. We will have some crazy stories for our daughter one day. Her first official passport stamp, humorously, is Jordan, since Israel doesn't stamp passports anymore.'
Earlier this week, the U.S. State Department raised its travel advisory for Israel to Level 4, its highest level, and is warning U.S. citizens to not travel to the country 'due to armed conflict, terrorism, and civil unrest.' The West Bank and Gaza are also under the 'Do Not Travel' Level 4 advisory.
This is the second time the DeSantis administration has helped get stranded Floridians out of Israel during conflict in the Middle East. In 2023, during the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the state helped fly out nearly 700 Americans from Israel.
Florida is directing Americans who need help to get out of Israel to fill out a form at FloridaDisaster.org/IsraelRescue.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Fox News
11 minutes ago
- Fox News
Violent criminal gangs have 'near-total control' of world nation's capital, UN says
Haiti's criminal gangs have exerted "near-total control" over the capital, as escalating violence pushes the Caribbean nation "closer to the brink," senior U.N. officials warned Wednesday. Gangs control an estimated 90% of Port-au-Prince, Ghada Fathy Waly, executive director of the U.N. Office on Drugs and Crime, told the U.N. Security Council. Waly noted that gangs are expanding into previously peaceful areas. "Southern Haiti, which until recently was insulated from the violence, has seen a sharp increase in gang-related incidents," she said. "And in the east, criminal groups are exploiting land routes, including key crossings like Belladere and Malpasse, where attacks against police and customs officials have been reported." U.N. Assistant Secretary-General Miroslav Jenca informed the council that "the ongoing gang encirclement of Port-au-Prince" and their strengthened foothold in the capital and beyond is "pushing the situation closer to the brink." "Without increased action by the international community, the total collapse of state presence in the capital could become a very real scenario," he warned. Gangs have gained power since President Jovenel Moïse's assassination in July 2021, previously controlling 85% of the capital. Haiti has not had a president since the assassination. A new U.N. report covering last October through February highlights that gangs have exploited political turmoil and Haiti's disorganized security response, saying competing political ambitions and corruption allegations within transitional governing bodies have hindered action. "While the expansion of territorial control brings gangs additional sources of revenue and bargaining power," the U.N. experts said in the report, "these attacks are also backed by individuals trying to destabilize the political transition for their own political goals." The U.S. State Department issued a travel advisory for Haiti in September 2024, warning Americans against visiting due to kidnapping, crime, civil unrest and limited healthcare. In May, the Trump administration designated two of Haiti's most powerful gang networks, Viv Ansanm and Gran Grif, as foreign terrorist organizations and specially designated global terrorists.
Los Angeles Times
30 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
L.A. activist indicted after handing out face shields to anti-ICE protesters
A local activist who handed out protective face shields to protesters last month during demonstrations against the Trump administration's chaotic immigration raids was indicted by a federal grand jury Wednesday. Alejandro Orellana, a 29-year-old member of the Boyle Heights-based community organization Centro CSO, faces charges of conspiracy and aiding and abetting civil disorder, court records show. According to the indictment, Orellana and at least two others drove around downtown L.A. in a pickup truck distributing Uvex Bionic face shields and other items to a crowd engaged in a protest near the federal building on Los Angeles Street on June 9. Prosecutors allege Orellana was helping protesters withstand less-lethal munitions being deployed by Los Angeles police officers and Los Angeles County sheriff's deputies after an unlawful assembly had been declared. . Orellana is due in court on Thursday morning. An e-mail to his federal public defender seeking comment was not immediately returned. U.S. Atty. Bill Essayli, a former California Assemblyman appointed by President Trump, has promised to aggressively prosecute anyone who interferes with immigration enforcement operations or harms police during protests. Federal prosecutors have brought at least 14 cases related to last month's demonstrations and Essayli promised more people will be charged. Asked how handing out defensive equipment was a crime during a news conference last month, Essayli insisted Orellana was specifically handing out supplies to violent demonstrators. 'He wasn't handing masks out at the beach. ... They're covering their faces. They're wearing backpacks. These weren't peaceful protesters,' he said. 'They weren't holding up signs, with a political message. They came to do violence.' Essayli described anyone who remained at a protest scene after an unlawful assembly as a 'rioter' and said peaceful protesters 'don't need a face shield.' Orellana, who works for United Parcel Service, has no criminal record and previously served in the U.S. Marines, according to Carlos Montes, a fellow member of Centro CSO. Montes said he believes Essayli is specifically targeting Centro CSO for its pro-immigrant activism, noting FBI agents seized another member's cellphone last week as part of their investigation into Orellana. 'It's ridiculous charges. We're demanding they drop the charges now. They're insignificant, ridiculous,' Montes said. 'The most it amounts to is that he was passing out personal protective equipment, which includes boxes of water, hand sanitizer and snacks.' A spokesperson for the U.S. Marine Corps did not immediately respond to a request for Orellana's service record. Montes also challenged Essayli's argument that peaceful protesters have no need for protective equipment, pointing to myriad instances in which people have been seriously injured by Los Angeles police and county sheriff's deputies in recent years. A Times investigation last month highlighted incidents where protesters allege LAPD officers fired rubber rounds and other crowd control munitions without warning in recent weeks, causing demonstrators and members of the media to suffer broken bones, concussions and other forms of severe harm. Times staff writer Brittny Mejia contributed to this report.
Vox
34 minutes ago
- Vox
Why Trump's big legislative win could be short-lived
is a senior politics reporter at Vox, where he covers the Democratic Party. He joined Vox in 2022 after reporting on national and international politics for the Atlantic's politics, global, and ideas teams, including the role of Latino voters in the 2020 election. President Donald Trump speaks during an address to a joint session of Congress at the US Capitol on March 4, 2025. Allison Robbert/AFP via Getty Images President Donald Trump is about to achieve his biggest legislative victory yet: His 'big, beautiful bill' — the massive tax- and Medicaid-cutting, immigration and border spending bill passed the Senate on Tuesday — is on the verge of passing the House of Representatives. It's a massive piece of legislation, likely to increase the national debt by at least $3 trillion, mostly through tax cuts, and leave 17 million Americans without health coverage — and it's really unpopular. Majorities in nearly every reputable poll taken this month disapprove of the bill, ranging from 42 percent who oppose the bill in an Ipsos poll (compared to 23 percent who support) to 64 percent who oppose it in a KFF poll. Today, Explained Understand the world with a daily explainer, plus the most compelling stories of the day. Email (required) Sign Up By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms and Privacy Notice . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. And if history is any indication, it's not going to get any better for Trump and the Republicans from here on out. In modern American politics, few things are more unpopular with the public than big, messy bills forged under a bright spotlight. That's especially true of bills passed through a Senate mechanism called 'budget reconciliation,' a Senate procedure that allows the governing party to bypass filibuster rules with a simple majority vote. They tend to have a negative effect on presidents and their political parties in the following months as policies are implemented and campaign seasons begin. Part of that effect is due to the public's general tendency to dislike any kind of legislation as it gets more publicity and becomes better understood. But reconciliation bills in the modern era seem to create a self-fulfilling prophecy: forcing presidents to be maximally ambitious at the outset, before they lose popular support for the legislation and eventually lose the congressional majorities that delivered passage. Presidents and their parties tend to be punished after passing big spending bills The budget reconciliation process, created in 1974, has gradually been used to accomplish broader and bigger policy goals. Because it offers a workaround for a Senate filibuster, which requires 60 votes to break, it has become the primary way that presidents and their parties implement their economic and social welfare visions. The public, however, doesn't tend to reward the governing party after these bills are passed. As political writer and analyst Ron Brownstein recently pointed out, presidents who successfully pass a major reconciliation bill in the first year of their presidency lose control of Congress, usually the House, the following year. In 1982, Ronald Reagan lost his governing majority in the House after using reconciliation to pass large spending cuts as part of his Reaganomics vision (the original 'big, beautiful' bill). And the pattern would repeat itself for George H.W. Bush (whose reconciliation bill contradicted his campaign promise not to raise taxes), for Bill Clinton in 1994 (deficit reductions and tax reform), for Barack Obama in 2010 (after the passage of the Affordable Care Act), for Trump in 2018 (tax cuts), and for Biden in 2022 (the American Rescue Plan and the Inflation Reduction Act). The exception in this list of modern presidents is George W. Bush, who did pass a set of tax cuts in a reconciliation bill, but whose approval rating rose after the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Increasing polarization, and the general anti-incumbent party energy that tends to run through midterm elections, of course, explains part of this overall popular and electoral backlash. But reconciliation bills themselves seem to intensify this effect. Why reconciliation bills do so much political damage First, there's the actual substance of these bills, which has been growing in scope over time. Because they tend to be the first, and likely only, major piece of domestic legislation that can execute a president's agenda, they are often highly ideological, partisan projects that try to implement as much of a governing party's vision as possible. These highly ideological pieces of legislation, Matt Grossman, the director of Michigan State University's Institute for Public Policy and Social Research, and his partners have found, tend to kick into gear a 'thermostatic' response from the public — that is, that public opinion moves in the opposite direction of policymaking when the public perceives one side is going too far to the right or left. Because these bills have actually been growing in reach, from mere tax code adjustments to massive tax-and-spend, program-creating bills, and becoming more ideological projects, the public, in turn, seems to be reacting more harshly. These big reconciliation bills also run into an issue that afflicts all kinds of legislation: It has a PR problem. Media coverage of proposed legislation tends to emphasize its partisanship, portraying the party in power as pursuing its domestic agenda at all costs and emphasizing that parties are fighting against each other. This elevates process over policy substance. Political scientist Mary Layton Atkinson has found that just like campaign reporting is inclined to focus on the horse race, coverage of legislation in Congress and policy debates often focuses on conflict and procedure, adding to a sense in the public mind that Congress is extreme, dysfunctional, and hyperpartisan. Adding to this dynamic is a quirk of public opinion toward legislation and referenda: Proposals tend to get less popular, and lose public support, between proposal and passage, as the public learns more about the actual content of initiatives and as they hear more about the political negotiations and struggles taking place behind the scenes as these bills are ironed out. Lawmakers and key political figures also 'tend to highlight the benefits less than the things that they are upset about in the course of negotiations,' Grossman told me. 'That [also] occurs when a bill passes: You have the people who are against it saying all the terrible things about it, and actually the people who are for it are often saying, 'I didn't get all that I wanted, I would have liked it to be slightly different.' So the message that comes out of it is actually pretty negative on the whole, because no one is out there saying this is the greatest thing and exactly what they wanted.' Even with the current One Big Beautiful Bill, polling analysis shows that the public tends not to be very knowledgeable about what is in the legislative package, but gets even more hostile to it once they learn or are provided more information about specific policy details. Big reconciliation bills exist at the intersection of all three of these public image problems: They tend to be the first major legislative challenge a new president and Congress take on, they suck up all the media's attention, they direct the public's attention to one major piece of legislation, and they take a pretty long time to iron out — further extending the timeline in which the bill can get more unpopular.
