Vice President JD Vance delivered a pointed message about one of America’s closest Middle Eastern partners this week, arguing that even longstanding alliances have limits when another country’s priorities diverge from those of the United States.

Speaking by video at the All-In Summit in Los Angeles, Vance said Israel remains an important American partner — particularly in military technology and intelligence — but made clear that partnership does not require Washington to follow the Israeli government’s position on every issue.

“Obviously Israel has been an important partner when it comes to military technology, when it comes to intelligence sharing, but also sometimes the United States doesn’t always agree with Israel,” Vance said.

He then laid out what he described as the guiding principle for the relationship.

“Rooting this relationship, like all relationships, in America’s interest is the way to actually have a rational conversation here.”

Let’s all take a moment to actually watch this exchange in full, where the VP was specifically asked about Israel.

Q: JD, before we wrap here, I want to ask you another hard question. This one about our relationship with the state of Israel and the president’s relationship… https://t.co/mvGI0RFc8A pic.twitter.com/tbHwS0XHpq

— Taylor Van Kirk (@VPCommsDir) September 16, 2026

The vice president’s comments came during a discussion with All-In Podcast co-host Jason Calacanis that touched on the U.S.-Israel alliance, President Donald Trump’s relationship with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and concerns among some on the political right about the degree of American alignment with Israel.

Vance argued that Trump has demonstrated a greater willingness than other recent presidents to break with Netanyahu when the two governments’ interests conflict.

“I think that more than frankly any president in the last 40 years, he has shown a willingness to actually part ways with Bibi Netanyahu when he feels like the interests of the American people are different from the interests of the government of Israel,” the vice president continued.

Vance expanded on that argument, portraying Trump’s approach as one in which cooperation with Israel remains important but does not override decisions the administration believes should be made in America’s interests.

“Donald Trump is the one president of the last 40 years who’s been willing to say, ‘You know what? Yeah, Bibi’s a good partner, but also Bibi and I have a different opinion on this, or Bibi’s wrong about this, or maybe Bibi’s right about this from the perspective of Israel, but the American people need us to go in a different direction.’”

Vance also called it “a little ironic” that some Democrats have criticized Trump’s relationship with Netanyahu, given what Vance characterized as Trump’s willingness to disagree with the Israeli leader.

But Vance’s most striking remarks came when he broadened the discussion beyond Israel and compared the relationship to America’s alliances within NATO.

His argument was straightforward: having an important ally does not mean allowing that ally to determine U.S. foreign policy.

“There are obviously a lot of important relationships, a lot of important partnerships in NATO, but that doesn’t mean that we’re going to completely make our European foreign policy subservient to NATO in the same way that we cannot let our Middle Eastern foreign policy be subservient to the State of Israel,” Vance said.

He then summarized the administration’s approach in unmistakable terms.

“We’re going to work with people when we work with them. We’re going to disagree when we disagree, and we’re going to pursue America’s interests. That’s the only way to have a rational foreign policy.”

The remarks draw a distinction between maintaining the U.S.-Israel alliance and automatically aligning American policy with the Israeli government’s position.

Vance did not argue for ending or downgrading the partnership. Instead, he specifically cited military technology and intelligence sharing as areas in which Israel remains an important U.S. partner.

At the same time, his comments emphasized that disagreements between Washington and Jerusalem are possible — and, in his view, should not be avoided when American and Israeli priorities diverge.

That approach was at the center of Vance’s message throughout the discussion: alliances remain valuable, but decisions made in Washington should ultimately be based on what the administration determines serves American interests.

The federal investigation involving Democratic Rep. Ilhan Omar is drawing renewed attention — but the issue investigators may ultimately focus on could be very different from the explosive allegation that has followed the Minnesota congresswoman for years.

Current and former immigration officials say questions surrounding Omar’s path to U.S. citizenship could present a more consequential legal issue than longstanding accusations involving her former husband, Ahmed Elmi.

White House border czar Tom Homan recently confirmed that Homeland Security Investigations is conducting what he described as an ongoing criminal investigation involving Omar. He stopped short of revealing precisely what investigators are examining or whether authorities have uncovered evidence of wrongdoing.

“I know things are going on, but I can’t give specifics of what’s happening,” Homan said.

Homan said investigators would pursue immigration violations or marriage fraud regardless of the person involved, adding that “no one’s above the law.”

Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin has separately made allegations concerning Omar’s marriage and suggested federal officials are examining her family’s broader immigration history.

“Something’s going to happen,” Mullin said.

But despite the escalating rhetoric from administration officials, federal authorities have publicly announced no charges or findings against Omar.

The Marriage Allegation Faces Major Legal Questions

For years, critics have alleged that Omar’s 2009 marriage to British national Ahmed Elmi was fraudulent and that Elmi was actually her brother.

Omar has repeatedly and emphatically denied those accusations.

The allegation has circulated through political circles and portions of Minnesota’s Somali community for years, but it has never been established by a criminal conviction, civil judgment or publicly released government finding.

And according to immigration attorneys and former officials cited in recent reporting, even proving wrongdoing connected to that marriage would not necessarily create a straightforward route toward removing Omar from the country.

Omar was already a U.S. citizen when she married Elmi.

There is another major complication: time.

The marriage legally ended in divorce in 2017, potentially creating substantial statute-of-limitations problems for any criminal prosecution based solely upon alleged marriage fraud.

That has pushed attention toward a different question — one reaching much further back into Omar’s history.

Investigators Could Examine How Omar Became a Citizen

Omar has said she arrived in the United States as a refugee after her family fled Somalia and later became an American citizen at 17 through her naturalized father, Nur Said Mohamed.

That timeline could prove important.

Under the citizenship rules applicable at the time, derivative citizenship for a child depended on several legal requirements, including age, parental citizenship, custody and permanent-residency circumstances.

Omar says she obtained citizenship in 2000 while she was still 17.

Some critics have challenged her reported birth year, claiming she may have been older when she became a citizen. The New York Post reported that archived versions of a Minnesota legislative biography listed her birth year as 1981 before later identifying it as 1982.

Those claims, however, have not been publicly proven.

Current congressional records identify Omar’s birth date as October 4, 1982.

Omar has previously said that original documentation from Somalia was destroyed during the country’s civil war.

Questions Also Surround Her Father’s Immigration History

Former officials cited in the reporting raised another avenue investigators could potentially examine: information supplied by Omar’s father during the family’s immigration process.

Nur Said Mohamed, who died in 2020, was publicly described as an educator. Other accounts, including Somali reporting and statements attributed to a former Somali prime minister, have described him as a former colonel in the Somali National Army.

That distinction alone would not establish immigration fraud.

For it to become legally significant, investigators would need evidence showing that material information was knowingly concealed or falsely represented during the immigration process.

The stakes would be substantially different if authorities could establish that Omar’s citizenship was obtained through a material misrepresentation during the naturalization process.

Federal law provides a process for denaturalization in certain circumstances when citizenship was illegally procured or obtained through concealment or willful misrepresentation of a material fact.

But such an outcome would require a formal legal proceeding and admissible evidence — not political accusations or unresolved suspicions.

DNA Testing Has Also Been Raised

One former official told the Post that investigators could potentially seek DNA samples from Omar and Elmi as part of an effort to determine whether they are biologically related.

Neither would ordinarily be required to provide a sample voluntarily.

Even a biological relationship, standing alone, would not prove why the marriage occurred or establish that immigration fraud took place.

Omar and Elmi did not respond to the Post’s requests for comment. Omar and her representatives have repeatedly rejected allegations surrounding her marriage and citizenship, characterizing them as false and politically motivated.

For now, the most important distinction remains between allegations and established facts.

Federal officials have publicly acknowledged an investigation involving the Minnesota congresswoman, but they have not disclosed its full scope, announced charges or presented public evidence establishing immigration or naturalization fraud.

What happens next will depend on what investigators can actually prove — and whether any evidence uncovered can withstand scrutiny in court.

A federal criminal investigation involving California Gov. Gavin Newsom has taken a significant new turn, with prosecutors issuing subpoenas demanding six years of records tied to an organization that has helped cover expenses connected to the governor.

Federal prosecutors in California’s Eastern District issued subpoenas earlier this month targeting the California State Protocol Foundation, according to documents reviewed by the San Francisco Standard.

And the scope of the records being sought is extensive.

Prosecutors are demanding information involving the foundation’s donors and fundraising activities, Newsom’s international travel and events, and money potentially used toward the governor’s residence, living costs or other personal expenses.

The subpoenas also seek communications involving Newsom himself, current and former aides, foundation board members and chief protocol officer Rebecca Prowda, who oversees the governor’s overseas travel.

The documents were signed by Assistant U.S. Attorney Michael D. Anderson and state that the records are being sought as part of a pending criminal investigation in the Eastern District of California.

The records are expected to be presented to a grand jury.

Prowda, a central figure in managing Newsom’s international travel, is married to San Francisco Mayor Daniel Lurie. Individuals identified in reporting as foundation board members include longtime Newsom associates Steve Kawa and Jason Elliott.

The subpoenas add another layer to federal scrutiny that Newsom himself publicly acknowledged months ago.

On June 15, Newsom said that he and First Partner Jennifer Siebel Newsom were facing scrutiny from the Department of Justice. According to Newsom, federal agents had contacted relatives, friends and former employees.

Newsom portrayed the investigation as an attempt to search for possible offenses rather than one launched in response to crimes authorities had already identified.

Sources familiar with the matter have reportedly said investigations touching Newsom’s circle have been underway for roughly a year.

Those sources said the inquiries originated with whistleblower complaints handled by the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Sacramento rather than from directives issued in Washington.

The Justice Department has declined to publicly confirm or discuss the existence of the probe.

Another reported area of scrutiny involves Siebel Newsom’s tax filings and nonprofit organizations connected to the couple, including the California Partners Project.

But the California State Protocol Foundation could prove particularly significant because of the substantial sums of private money that have flowed through the organization.

Established in 2001, the foundation accepts private donations to pay certain expenses associated with gubernatorial travel, hosting and protocol — costs that could otherwise fall on taxpayers.

Since taking office in 2019, Newsom has directed more than $7.5 million in outside contributions to the foundation, according to the supplied reporting.

Approximately $5.1 million of that came from leftover inaugural funds.

The foundation has also paid other expenses, including costs associated with travel.

Some of its donors have included corporations and organizations with interests before California state government, adding another dimension to questions surrounding the relationship between private donors and organizations connected to the governor.

California law allows elected officials to solicit so-called “behested payments” — contributions directed toward charitable or governmental purposes. Payments exceeding certain thresholds are subject to disclosure requirements.

Newsom has reported hundreds of millions of dollars in behested payments to numerous organizations since becoming governor.

The existence of those payments is not itself evidence of criminal activity. Behested payments are legal when handled and disclosed in accordance with California law.

Still, reporting about donors to Newsom-linked nonprofits has raised questions about situations in which contributors also have business before state government, with critics sometimes describing the overlap as potential “pay-to-play.”

Newsom has previously been fined by California’s Fair Political Practices Commission over the late reporting of certain behested payments.

The widening scrutiny also comes against the backdrop of an entirely separate criminal case involving one of Newsom’s former top aides.

Dana Williamson, Newsom’s former chief of staff, pleaded guilty in May 2026 to conspiracy to commit fraud, filing a false tax return and making false statements in a scheme involving diverted campaign funds.

Newsom was not named in the charging documents in that case.

His office has said the governor cooperated with that investigation, which began before the current developments.

For now, the newly revealed subpoenas do not establish that Newsom committed a crime, nor does a grand jury investigation itself amount to a finding of wrongdoing.

But the latest development shows that federal prosecutors are doing more than making preliminary inquiries.

They are seeking years of financial records, donor information, communications and details surrounding Newsom’s travel and expenses for use in a pending criminal investigation — records that the subpoenas say will ultimately be placed before a federal grand jury.