Reuters is reporting that a senior Israeli official claims Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, was killed in strikes carried out by Israel and the United States against his compound in Tehran. This account comes from an Israeli source and was published by Reuters, but as of now there is no independent confirmation from Iran’s government or neutral observers that Khamenei has died. Such a development, if verified, would mark an unprecedented moment in Middle East geopolitics and could dramatically alter the security landscape across the region.

Earlier in the day Iranian state media reported that Khamenei would speak publicly following the strikes, and there have been conflicting statements about his status. Israeli leaders, including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, said there are “many signs” indicating that Khamenei is no longer alive, but those remarks have not been backed by independent verification. Iran’s government has not issued a clear confirmation of his death, leaving the situation in flux as journalists and analysts await more clarity from Tehran and international sources.

The report’s gravity reflects escalating tensions between Israel, the United States, and Iran, with potential global ramifications. If Khamenei is confirmed dead, Iranian succession dynamics, regional proxy relationships, and ongoing conflicts in Syria, Iraq, Yemen, and Gaza could shift rapidly. For now, the world is watching for authoritative statements from Iranian authorities or independent on-the-ground reporting that conclusively establishes what has happened to Iran’s highest political and religious authority.

Get full access to The TAKE with Jerrod Zisser at jerrodzisser.substack.com/subscribe

ACCORDING TO THE UNIVERSITY

PLEASE SUBSCRIBE TO SUPPORT MY WORK.

This morning around 6:30 a.m., federal immigration agents from the Department of Homeland Security entered a Columbia University residential building and detained a student, Columbia officials confirmed in a message to the university community.

According to Columbia University’s acting president, Claire Shipman, law enforcement told campus security they were entering the building to search for a “missing person.” After gaining access, the agents detained a student and took them into custody.

The university emphasized that federal agents must have a judicial warrant or subpoena to enter non-public areas, including student housing. Columbia officials said they are working to gather more details, reach the student’s family, and provide legal support.

WHAT WE KNOW — FACTS, NOT OPINION

• The detention occurred at about 6:30 a.m. on Feb. 26, 2026, in a Columbia residential building.

• Federal agents stated they were looking for a “missing person” when they entered.

• Columbia officials and city elected leaders have criticized the method used to gain access.

• Columbia says it is gathering more information and coordinating legal support for the student’s family.

WHY THIS MATTERS

This incident comes at a time of heightened scrutiny of federal immigration enforcement on campuses and elsewhere. Columbia has been the center of national attention in recent years due to student protests and earlier immigration enforcement actions.

In 2025, ICE detained a graduate student activist, Mahmoud Khalil, drawing national protests and legal challenges. Khalil was held for more than three months before a federal judge ruled aspects of his detention unconstitutional.

That history has made Columbia students and faculty especially sensitive to federal actions involving immigration authorities. Today’s detainment resurrects those tensions.

REACTIONS FROM THE COMMUNITY

New York City Council Speaker Julie Menin and Majority Leader Shaun Abreu — both Columbia alumni — issued a joint statement condemning the action and saying that immigration enforcement has “no place” on college campuses.

Students and protest groups on campus are expected to mobilize later today, though official statements from student organizations were still pending at the time of this publication.

WHAT’S STILL UNCLEAR

At this moment, official details about the student’s identity, legal status, or reason for detention have not been released by Columbia or federal authorities. It is also not yet confirmed whether agents had a judicial warrant or acted under other legal authority.

Columbia’s letter suggests that the method used to gain access — telling security they were searching for a missing person — may be at the center of dispute over whether normal campus safeguards were respected.

BOTTOM LINE

A student was detained by DHS agents early Thursday at Columbia University under circumstances that the university says involved misrepresentations about why the agents were entering a private residential building. The university is still gathering facts and has pledged to support the student and family as details emerge.

More updates will follow as additional reporting becomes available.

Get full access to The TAKE with Jerrod Zisser at jerrodzisser.substack.com/subscribe

Get full access to The TAKE with Jerrod Zisser at jerrodzisser.substack.com/subscribe

The TAKE with Jerrod Zisser is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

In this full interview, I speak with Congresswoman Mary Gay Scanlon, ranking member on the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution and a former civil rights attorney.

We discuss:

• Constitutional guardrails and executive power• Oversight challenges while in the minority• Prolonged detention and due process concerns• DHS funding debates• A recent ICE whistleblower alleging constitutional training was reduced• The role of independent media and civic engagement

Ryan Schwank, a former ICE instructor, recently testified before Congress that ICE training materials on constitutional limits and use-of-force standards were cut. I asked Congresswoman Scanlon what oversight tools are available and what accountability looks like moving forward.

This conversation focuses on institutional power, civil liberties, and the limits of congressional oversight in today’s political climate.

Let me know your thoughts in the comments.

Subscribe for more in-depth interviews and fact-based political coverage.

The TAKE with Jerrod Zisser is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Get full access to The TAKE with Jerrod Zisser at jerrodzisser.substack.com/subscribe

British police have arrested former ambassador Peter Mandelson as part of an ongoing investigation connected to Jeffrey Epstein.

In this episode of The Take, we break down what authorities in the United Kingdom have confirmed, including property searches in London and Wiltshire, and reporting from the Associated Press regarding the allegations under investigation. We also examine what is known about previously released Epstein-related materials and what remains legally unresolved.

We then turn to new reporting on U.S. immigration enforcement. According to recent coverage, questions are being raised about how enforcement priorities are being described publicly versus how they are being applied in practice. We review DHS data, detention figures, and the broader debate over transparency and oversight.

Finally, we examine recent statements about election integrity and midterm strategy, and what to watch for in terms of congressional oversight and updated federal guidance.

Topics covered in this episode:• Peter Mandelson arrest• UK investigation tied to Jeffrey Epstein• International accountability developments• ICE detention data• DHS enforcement priorities• Immigration transparency questions• Trump midterm messaging• Oversight and election rhetoric

All analysis is based on publicly available reporting and official statements.

Get full access to The TAKE with Jerrod Zisser at jerrodzisser.substack.com/subscribe

Today’s live noon news update covers four major developments shaping national and international headlines.

Mexican authorities killed cartel leader “El Mencho” during a military operation that left at least 25 Mexican National Guard troops dead. The United States confirmed it provided intelligence support. We break down what happened, the violence that followed, and whether this impacts fentanyl trafficking and U.S.–Mexico relations.

The Supreme Court struck down Trump’s tariff orders, ruling them unlawful. Senate Democrats are now pushing legislation to refund approximately $175 billion collected under those tariffs. We explain who paid the tariffs, who could receive refunds, and how this affects businesses and American consumers.

New reporting raises questions about how ICE enforcement priorities are being described. We examine cases cited in recent reports and what DHS has said in response.

In the United Kingdom, police arrested former ambassador Peter Mandelson as part of an ongoing investigation tied to Jeffrey Epstein. We review what authorities confirmed and what remains under investigation.

This episode provides verified reporting based on the Associated Press and other cited outlets, with clear context and no speculation.

Topics covered:El Mencho killedMexico cartel raidSupreme Court tariff rulingTrump tariffs refund debateICE enforcement controversyUK Epstein investigationPeter Mandelson arrest

Get full access to The TAKE with Jerrod Zisser at jerrodzisser.substack.com/subscribe

A major development in the Jeffrey Epstein fallout: Former Prince Andrew — Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor — has reportedly been arrested in connection with his ties to Epstein.

In this episode, we focus on:

What has been reported about the arrest

The official statement from King Charles

The statement from Virginia Giuffre’s family

What accountability looks like in this case

Why this moment matters for survivors

Virginia Giuffre’s family issued a powerful statement saying:“No one is above the law — not even royalty.”

We break down what we know, what we don’t know, and what comes next.

Key Topics Covered

Prince Andrew arrest update

Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor

Jeffrey Epstein investigation

Virginia Giuffre family statement

King Charles response

Legal process in the UK

Accountability and due process

Get full access to The TAKE with Jerrod Zisser at jerrodzisser.substack.com/subscribe

Episode Description

The Supreme Court has ruled that President Trump does not have the constitutional authority to impose certain tariffs without Congress.

In this episode, we break down what the Court actually decided, what it didn’t decide, and why this ruling could reshape the balance of power between the White House and Congress.

We also cover:

What a tariff actually is — and who really pays for it

Why the Court says tariffs count as taxes

The constitutional authority under Article I, Section 8

The dissent from Justices Alito, Thomas, and Kavanaugh

Whether companies can recover billions already paid

Trump’s reaction during his press conference

Growing bipartisan opposition to the tariff strategy

What happens next for trade policy and the economy

This ruling isn’t just about trade. It’s about presidential power, separation of powers, and how economic decisions affect everyday Americans.

Get full access to The TAKE with Jerrod Zisser at jerrodzisser.substack.com/subscribe

The TAKE with Jerrod Zisser is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

In this episode, we examine a growing credibility battle surrounding the Epstein files and what it may mean for federal transparency.

Attorney General Pam Bondi sent a letter to Congress under the Epstein Transparency Act that included a broad list of individuals associated with Jeffrey Epstein. The list has sparked controversy because it appears to mix convicted offenders, public officials, deceased celebrities, and individuals who may have only appeared in emails — without clear distinctions.

Representative Ro Khanna criticized the Department of Justice, saying the release appears to “muddy the waters” rather than clarify who was accused of criminal conduct and who was merely mentioned in documents.

At the same time:

• Podcast host Joe Rogan questioned why some names remain redacted while others are disclosed.• Kash Patel is facing renewed scrutiny over prior sworn testimony regarding Epstein trafficking.• Protests continue to grow nationwide over immigration enforcement actions.• A judge has ordered the return of deported migrants sent to SEACOT.• Congressman Thomas Massie posted publicly that he is not suicidal, citing threats — an unusual and serious development.

Taken together, these developments raise broader questions about institutional transparency, consistency, and public trust.

The central issue is not just which names appear in a file — but whether the public believes the full truth is being presented clearly and accurately.

The TAKE with Jerrod Zisser is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Get full access to The TAKE with Jerrod Zisser at jerrodzisser.substack.com/subscribe

The TAKE with Jerrod Zisser is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Members of Congress say the Department of Justice is once again obscuring key details in the Epstein files. But that’s only part of the story.

In this episode, we examine the new list released under the Epstein Transparency Act, reactions from lawmakers, growing scrutiny of sworn testimony, protests across the country, and rising concerns about political threats.

WHAT HAPPENED

Attorney General Pam Bondi sent a letter to Congress, as required under the Epstein Transparency Act, that included a broad list of individuals associated with Jeffrey Epstein.

The list includes a wide range of names from public officials to deceased celebrities without distinction between individuals accused of crimes and those who may have only appeared in emails or contact lists.

Representative Ro Khanna criticized the approach, saying the Department of Justice appears to be “muddying the waters” by combining potential predators with people who were merely mentioned in correspondence.

The concern is not simply about the names themselves. It is about clarity. If victims are to receive justice, and the public is to have confidence in the process, the information must be precise.

WHY IT MATTERS

Transparency is not just about releasing documents. It is about how they are released.

When a list mixes individuals convicted of serious crimes with celebrities who died decades ago, it raises questions about whether the intent is disclosure or confusion.

Joe Rogan, in a recent discussion, questioned why some names remain redacted while others are disclosed. His concern echoed a broader frustration: if individuals are not victims, and not accused of crimes, why are some identities shielded while others are not?

At the same time, Kash Patel is facing renewed scrutiny over prior sworn testimony related to Epstein trafficking. Critics argue that previous statements conflict with the volume of documentation that now exists.

These developments are unfolding while public trust in federal institutions is already fragile.

WHAT ELSE IS UNFOLDING

This credibility debate is happening alongside several other developments:

• A judge has ordered the return of deported migrants sent to SEACOT, the same detention facility previously at the center of controversy.• Protests continue to grow nationwide, many driven by concerns over ICE enforcement actions.• Congressman Thomas Massie recently posted publicly that he is not suicidal, citing threats a rare and troubling development in American politics.

Each story stands alone. But together, they form a pattern: rising pressure on institutions to prove they are operating transparently and within the bounds of the law.

FULL STORY

The release of the list under the Epstein Transparency Act was supposed to provide clarity.

Instead, it has sparked a new wave of questions.

When names like Janis Joplin — who died long before Epstein’s crimes came to light appear alongside individuals convicted of sexual abuse, it blurs distinctions that matter deeply.

The central issue is not whether someone’s name appears in a file. It is what that inclusion means.

Was the individual accused of wrongdoing?Was the person a witness?Was the name pulled from an email chain?

Without context, disclosure can create more confusion than resolution.

Lawmakers who reviewed unredacted materials in person have signaled that additional information exists. Some have suggested they may release further details themselves if the DOJ does not act.

That sets up a potential institutional confrontation between Congress and the Department of Justice.

At the same time, broader concerns about enforcement actions, deportations, and threats against elected officials are feeding a sense of instability.

Political credibility does not collapse in one moment. It erodes when transparency feels inconsistent.

The Epstein files have long represented a symbol of elite accountability. How they are handled now will likely shape public trust going forward.

BOTTOM LINE

The question is not simply who appears in a document.

The question is whether the public believes the full truth is being presented clearly and honestly.

If confidence continues to decline, pressure will grow — from lawmakers, from media voices, and from the public itself.

Transparency is not optional in a democracy. It is foundational.

The TAKE with Jerrod Zisser is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Get full access to The TAKE with Jerrod Zisser at jerrodzisser.substack.com/subscribe