>> Hello and thanks for joining us tonight.

>> Good morning.

A few topics we'll get into later in the broadcast.

As the war in Iran continues, costs are rising here at home.

We'll look at what's happening overseas and the global impact it's having.

Plus, governor Sherrill announced a record spending plan for the state driven in part by cuts from the federal government.

We'll take a look.

And later, school districts got their allocations today, according to the school funding formula.

>> The next election will tell You who gained and who lost.

But first, another big win for The gateway tunnel project after An appeals court sided with new Jersey and new york, rejecting The trump administration's Request to once again halt Payments for the hudson river Tunnel.

This decision came on wednesday After a lengthy legal battle That's played out since early February when construction came To a halt on the $16 billion infrastructure project.

The work stoppage was caused by the Trump administration freezing all federal funds for Gateway in October of 2025.

But last month, a federal judge ordered the release of the funds and nearly $250 million has poured back into the project, allowing work to resume at all five active Gateway construction sites.

But the Gateway Development Commission recently warned that any further funding delays would lead to yet another pause on the project, which could add significant cost to the team.

Total Governor Cheryl responded to this latest decision saying, quote, We won for the fourth time in court.

We will continue to fight and continue to win if Donald Trump tries to illegally stop funding again.

Coming up, the war in the Middle East is putting pressure on global oil prices, and we're all feeling it at the top.

That's next.

Major funding for NJ Spotlight News is provided in part by NJM Insurance Group, serving the insurance needs of residents and businesses for more than 100 years.

The war in Iran has created the greatest oil supply disruption in history, according to the International Energy Agency.

We reported earlier this week that they agreed to release 400 million barrels of oil reserves to help offset the rising costs of petroleum, even as Iran's new supreme leader promised to continue blocking access to the Strait of Hormuz, a passageway that transports one-fifth of the world's oil supply.

I'm joined now by Michael Boyle, professor of political science at Rutgers Camden, to help offer some analysis on the war overseas and its impact here at home.

Michael, thanks so much for being with us today.

Great to talk to you.

The Strait of Hormuz is all but closed right now.

What can you tell us about what happened yesterday with the attack on three commercial ships?

So the Iranians have recognized that one of their leverage points against the U.S.

is to attack commercial ships going through the Straits of Hormuz, which as you said controls roughly 20% of the world's oil supply.

But it also controls a decent number of normal commercial goods go through that, as well as some sort of rare earths that are important.

For example, yellow sulfur that's used in a lot of computer chips.

What the Iranians are doing are launching drones, small drones, often Shaheed drones, that work like one-way missiles into the container ships to damage them in the Straits of Hormuz.

The idea is to produce a real problem so that container shipments and oil shipments are sort of either slowed or stopped in the Straits of Hormuz, therefore pushing the world price of oil up, therefore putting pressure on the United States.

And this is something they can do at relatively low cost, because the kind of drones that they're using to slam into the container ships are really not that expensive.

They're around $20,000 to $50,000 per drone.

So that's a lot of strategic bang for your buck for a relatively small attack on a container ship, and that puts a lot of pressure on the United States.

President Trump has said that Iran has lost most of its military power, he says, from its leadership that was attacked and many, many killed, to its Navy, to its Air Force.

He says they don't have radar.

You're saying they still have these kind of less expensive options.

What do you make of the President's assessment of the impact of the attacks from Israel and the U.S.

against Iran's military force?

The president is being way too optimistic.

It is absolutely true that the United States and Israel's military have essentially knocked out the air defense systems.

They've achieved what we would describe as air superiority, so that U.S.

and Israeli planes can fly over Iran more or less unimpeded.

They have knocked out a lot of the nuclear and ballistic missile infrastructure and some of the small-range missile infrastructure.

Some estimates suggest that they have knocked out even 40 to 50 percent of Iran's total missile infrastructure.

They have also devastated the Navy.

What is lost in this is that Iran is hidden missiles.

So there are still ballistic missiles that they can use, smaller short-range missiles that they can use.

But also Iran is a producer of Shaheed drones, which as I said are relatively small, inexpensive drones that are widely used in the war in Ukraine and that have been sort of spreading around the globe.

Those are very hard to knock out.

You can make relatively small Shaheed drones, hide them in civilian infrastructure.

There's no way you'd be able to find them.

So Iran can keep up what I would describe as kind of pinprick attacks for a long time.

It can't launch the kind of large missiles that we'd be really afraid of, but it can continue to ram Shekhi drones into shipping in the Straits of Hormuz.

It can do it into sites in Dubai and Oman and other places.

And that can make things in life very difficult for the United States.

So the U.S.

has achieved a lot of military objectives, and obviously we're very good at using force in the way that President Trump has suggested.

But it's a bit too optimistic to suggest that they've knocked out all assets that Iran has to strike back.

If that were true, we wouldn't be seeing what we're seeing When the first attacks against Iran happened, really the goal and the clear mission was to knock out Iran's nuclear capabilities.

And as we learned in the aftermath of that, a lot of it is still protected.

We talked about in the past, you and I, some of that being underground, in underground bunkers that are very hard to penetrate.

What do we know right now about the U.S.

and Israel targeting any of those underground bunkers or really targeting Iran's nuclear capability?

Or has this attack shifted?

It's a really good question.

So the first thing on the nuclear capabilities, the operation that was done in June took out a lot of the nuclear capabilities but not all of them.

It's clear that Iran retained some highly enriched uranium.

There were some elements by which it could reconstruct its missile program, not very quickly.

We're not talking about they could turn it on in a month or two, but they could turn it on in the course of a year relatively effectively.

And most of the estimates that were done after the attacks in June suggested that they had a kind of residual capability that was still there.

If that weren't true, we wouldn't be seeing the attack that we're seeing now.

To some extent, the attack that we've seen this month has really been about knocking out that infrastructure and knocking out the ballistic missiles which would allow them to fire these weapons at a much greater distance.

But it's not clear to me that the airstrikes that have been done have actually knocked out all the highly enriched uranium.

We know that some of this stuff is in underground compounds that are very difficult to reach, absent bunker busters and it's not really clear where those assets are.

And I think that's why you're starting seeing some discussion of ground forces.

That is to say, some suggestion of somebody operating to get access to the nuclear material so that before it winds up being essentially taken to a new location and being able to reconstitute it in a future point.

So the first point is to say I think it's been a devastating blow to the ballistic missile system, not necessarily knocked out the nuclear missile system.

There are still some residual concerns about where that material is.

The second point, though, is about our objectives.

You know, President Trump has been very vague about what the objectives are.

In the beginning, he said this is about the nuclear missile program and the ballistic missile program.

He then immediately shifted to say it was about regime change.

Then he walked that back and said it's not about regime change.

And one problem that the U.S.

is facing at the moment is, if you're unclear about your objectives, if you can't articulate what they are, then you probably will make mistakes.

You probably will also fall out of sync with your allies, who may have, in fact, different objectives.

And it's not clear that Israel's objective is exactly aligned with that of the United States.

Both of them want to see the Iranian regime crippled.

Not quite clear if they want exactly the same thing in the long run.

And of course, we see that there has not been true regime change because the Supreme Leader's son took over.

New data, though, has shown that in the earliest strikes, the U.S.

hit a school, what I believe, according to investigative data, was thought to be a military site but ended up being a school.

More than 100 people were killed.

Many of them were children.

What can you tell us about that investigation and what it's revealed about the U.S.

's strike there?

So, the U.S.

hasn't been forthcoming on this.

So, there were 175 girls in a girls' school, an Iranian girls' school, that were killed in this strike.

Very clearly, a civilian target -- very clearly, if it was intentionally targeted, which we don't think it was, it would have been a war crime.

What's come out from the early investigations is that it looks like that they were using an old map.

In other words, the facility was once a military facility, is no longer a military facility.

It was a civilian facility.

And that's why this strike happened.

I think the Trump administration has been really dropping the ball, at the least, on admitting their culpability for this.

In other words, they've immediately said, "Well, it wasn't us.

We think it was Iran.

We think it was somebody else, but we think it wasn't us."

They had no evidence behind that.

And the early Pentagon evaluation is that it was, in fact, the U.S., and that it was a mistake about an old map.

And if that's the case, then the U.S.

is accountable.

And I'm not confident, from what I'm seeing from the Trump administration, that they're going to take full responsibility for this, which really is the kind of mistake that does happen in war, but should not happen.

So they really haven't been forthcoming about this, despite the fact that the evidence is more and more pointing that, in fact, the U.S.

is actually responsible for this.

Just in the short time that we have left, some have raised concern about sleeper cells being awoken around the country, the risk of domestic terrorism here at home.

The president says he's not concerned about that at all.

Is that something that here in New Jersey or across the country we should be concerned about?

I wouldn't be unduly concerned inside the United States.

It is true that Iran is a state sponsor of terrorism.

It is true that Iran has traditionally sort of turned on terrorism, almost like a tap that it turns on when it wants to use it strategically.

I would be more concerned about those kind of attacks sponsored by Iran being used against U.S.

embassies abroad, being used against U.S.

military bases abroad, being used against U.S.

commercial bases.

Just over the last few days, Iran has said that American and Israeli banks are fair targets, American and Israeli businesses are fair targets.

So this is where I would be worried about, you know, if I were an American bank operating in one of the Gulf countries, or if I was an American military base, I think you're far more likely to see terrorism.

There's not a lot of evidence that Iran has assets in the United States to target specific sites in the United States.

So I wouldn't be unduly concerned in the domestic United States, but that Iran will turn to terrorism as a kind of asymmetric way of getting back to the United States makes intuitive sense and I think is likely.

All right, Michael Boyle, professor of political science at Rutgers and Camden.

We have to leave it there, but thank you so much.

Thank you.

Governor Sherrill's spending plan includes billions in funding to offset Medicaid cuts that New Jersey's facing from the federal government.

There is a fund created by Congress that restores a fraction of those losses, but New Jersey gets the least amount of any state.

Here to break down why is our Washington, D.C.

correspondent, Ben Hulak.

Ben.

Great to talk to you nationally.

About a trillion dollars was cut from Medicaid.

There's some discrepancy in terms of the numbers of what we've seen that New Jersey has lost.

But what did you get from the Department of Human Services here in the state.

So their best ballpark figure is that because of this federal law that became law last summer New Jersey will lose three point three billion annually in Medicaid cuts.

And that's really just a blow that the state cannot make up on its own.

No state even even enormous states Texas California New York cannot cover that sort of loss.

And what Congress did is they created driven by some rural Republicans in the Senate were worried about Medicaid cuts.

They created a rural health care fund and New Jersey is getting some of that money like every state.

But they are dead last in the amount they will be getting back.

So they get New Jersey as a state.

This year we'll get about one hundred and forty seven million.

That is a pittance compared to the overall cuts heading New Jersey's way.

I'm curious why rural communities only.

Does this just have to do with which legislators sponsored this really.

Is that what that's about.

Pretty much every state got all 50 states got out of half of the funds.

There was a there was one half that was divided evenly among all 50 states.

The other half was divvied up by a according to a rural sort of data metric set that the Centers for Medicaid and Medicare and Medicaid services CMS which is controlling this fund made up basically on its own.

So what happened is Lisa Murkowski in particular.

She's a Republican from Alaska Alaska massive state rural state was worried about the overall language in this bill before it became law last summer.

And she held out held out and got some concessions chief of which was this fund.

So not surprisingly Alaska gets a high number.

I think they're number two overall in the number of all states that will receive funding from this new rural health care fund.

So you just you did reach out though right.

And ask why New Jersey got the amount that it was given.

Did you get a clear answer on how that decision was made.

No I did reach out of course to CMS and they didn't want to comment on the record.

They provided really a technical answer on background which means for those who don't do this reporting work means that they don't want a name attached to it.

So basically CMF sort of CMF sort of move some data around and doled out money accordingly.

Now this is this money will be flowing out over several years to come.

So this isn't the only money in New Jersey will be getting.

But I'd also point out Rhode Island and Connecticut also very small states are at the bottom of this list too.

So it does seem to be a clear pattern.

Small states big states.

Yeah.

Premiums rose by about 16 percent since the funding began to drop off in January.

What does that mean in terms of enrollment here in New Jersey.

Kind of contributing to those added costs of health care here in the state.

Right.

This this is sort of a separate but related issue.

This is enrollment under the Affordable Care Act also known as Obamacare.

This these what happened at the end of 20 25 was Congress did not renew tax subsidies for the ACA that had come in during Covid several years ago and then subsequently been renewed by Congress during the Biden administration.

And there wasn't a deal to be had.

Congress let them lapse.

And in turn premiums are going up massively across the country.

New Jersey at 16 percent is not as high as some states.

But this is also an average.

So some people within New Jersey who are on the ACA certainly have seen their premiums higher some lower.

And at this point there likely isn't a funding patch.

Congress could work on right now and retroactively install these credits.

We know somewhere between 300 to 350 thousand have dropped off.

Is that correct.

The Department of Banking Insurance which oversees this really looks at the numbers and takes a hard look at them within the state has said generically tens of thousands.

But that likely is number that that estimate is likely low.

It's relatively early still in the year and more people will likely drop off as I should have said likely to drop off.

I think I misspoke when I said that.

Let's shift gears.

Department of Homeland Security right now is still unfunded.

We are seeing the effects that we've seen time and time again whenever there's an impasse in passing a spending bill.

This one specifically focused on DHS but it's playing out in the airports.

Just add some color into what's happening behind the scenes in Congress.

There is there is no deal in sight.

We are about a month into this partial government shutdown.

This is the one funding bill out of all 12 federal funding bills that Congress cannot get over the finish line.

Basically this comes down to a massive difference in opinion and approach from Democrats and Republicans especially in the Senate.

Congress has to get through the Senate to pass this.

And right now Democrats in the Senate are using their leverage on funding bills to say we're not going to fund DHS because we don't want to give another penny to ICE and CBP.

Those are the two chief immigration and deportation agencies within the broader DHS family.

So they're fine with funding TSA and cybersecurity Coast Guard all agencies within DHS.

But they don't want more funding for immigration detention.

And Republicans are using this leverage saying hey let's let's fix the problems of long TSA lines.

Let's not let funding for national defense and homeland security lapse.

Right now there's an interesting wrinkle here.

The man nominated to lead this department has a confirmation hearing next week.

And Senator Andy Kim will surely have some questions for him.

He's on the committee that oversees that nomination.

But this certainly does seem to be a pressure point that has brought folks to the table in the past.

We'll have to see if there's any movement in any of those future discussions.

But you also recently wrote about the fact that ice is expanding its footprint here along the East Coast.

What have you seen in terms of the hiring of more individuals under ice.

Yeah I've been looking through a lot of federal contracts and trying to get a sense of where money is going and I guess sort of open open spaces within the DHS network nationwide.

DHS is building a deportation apparatus.

Massive hubs of ICE detention centers some for families some for single individuals which I think is a point that often gets overlooked.

And then within New Jersey and up and down the eastern seaboard DHS is looking to sign a new contract for armed guards and unarmed guards for that matter to transport people they've attained basically nonstop 24/7 under lock and key to deportation hearings to medical appointments.

And interestingly in the contract that I've the description of the bid I should say for this contract.

They they make a point.

CHS makes a point to prevent public contact.

Keep this sort of keep this work out of the eyes of the public.

So obviously that perked my eyes up.

But that's that's what there are so many moving parts here.

There is a nice attention warehouse as we reported on in Roxbury.

Roxbury thank you.

And we still don't have a clear picture of what the Trump administration might do with the joint base.

We wired X Lakers down in South Jersey that last last year had a green light to be used to detain and deport immigrants as well.

That's all the time we have.

We have to leave it there.

But thank you Ben.

You lack for us down in appreciate it.

Of course.

While the numbers are out, the winners and losers are declared.

Today, school districts received their state allocation numbers indicating who would be on the receiving end, who would be on the losing end of state aid under the school funding formula.

The governor announced that the state will spend a record $12.4 billion on K-12 education and our education and child welfare writer, Kat Carrera, joins us now with more info on how it of our Under the Dome series.

Kat, great to talk to you.

There are 574 districts as I can see laid out here.

It's a whole lot to cull through, but you did that today.

With this record, 12.4 billion, who stands to gain the most this year?

>> Who stands to gain the most in terms of dollar amount would be Newark, the largest school district in the state.

about 401 districts that will be seeing increases and those are of course capped to 6% but Newark Patterson Trenton are definitely seeing the largest in terms of dollar amount Camden and Passaic City are also in there so looks like the major cities New Jersey's three largest.

Well I shouldn't say I should say three of the four largest cities because Jersey City once again it looks like is on the losing end yes?

Yeah they are estimated to lose about or see a deduction of almost four million and so is a couple other towns West New York and Bridgeton they're also seeing in the millions reduction in aid.

Yeah those are or in for the most part single-digit million-dollar losses reductions in state aid that they're going to see for many of the districts these are year-over-year losses we know that we've heard from many municipalities and districts that they've they've been struggling to kind of make sense of all of those losses you mentioned the guardrails that the state put on can you help us understand school funding is a really complicated issue here in the state after years of gains and losses in significant amounts what did the state do last year to kind of temper that yeah so the state has been moving toward moving some aid from overfunded school districts to those that have been historically underfunded based on the school funding formula which is based on enrollment right it's a lot of this is based on enrollment and how many kids are moving into district versus moving out among other calculations that the formula uses but go ahead I'm sorry I interrupted you.

Exactly and so in order school districts as you mentioned earlier were seeing steep fluctuations in as the state has been moving toward funding the school districts per the formula and so in order to reel in some of this instability that districts have been seeing and trying to balance their budgets with, last year under the Murphy administration, he put into place a one-year temporary guardrail, so 3% cap on cuts in aid and a 6% cap on increases in aid.

And so school districts were nervous that, you know, those were just temporary and we weren't sure if we were going to see that this coming year.

But Cheryl seems to be going ahead with continuing those guardrails.

And it comes as we're seeing school districts really try to grapple with balancing their budgets amid rising costs in health care, in transportation costs, special education costs.

So I think, from the advocates that I've talked to, there is a sort of a sigh of relief, but it's very short-lived because the increases that some districts are seeing still won't cover some of these holes in their budget.

Yeah, because of those high rising health insurance costs, especially rising salaries, inflationary costs, transportation, a big driver there as well.

Some districts have pushed back on these caps while they do create the guardrails where no one's losing too much or gaining too much as some have alleged the too much part.

Some say look we lost for years and years and then when it was finally time for us to to gain based on enrollment and other factors.

All of a sudden there's a guardrail and we can't gain more than 6 percent.

That's where I've heard the most pushback.

Have you heard anything else.

Yeah for sure.

So even as grateful as districts are to get an increase in aid it's just not enough.

And so you know on the other end of the spectrum seeing really steep cuts in state aid would be even more detrimental to school districts and so that's sort of where the advocates tell me there is a sigh of relief that it's limited to 3%.

But yeah, certainly issues with the budget, especially where in March and so school districts are getting ready to to submit their their budgets for the upcoming school year.

And with just a few seconds left, of course, as much as we say there are those guardrails, there are a few caveats in this outline where Cape May City, for example, got a 22% increase and three districts got more than 8%.

So there are on average, though, I think you said about 400 got 6%.

So a couple caveats there.

But of course, districts now need to go and digest this and make sense of their budgets as they comes next.

But Kat Carrera, our education and child welfare writer, thank you as always for giving us some great insight there.

Thank you.

Under the Dome is made possible in part by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, a private corporation funded by the American people.

All right, that's going to do it for us tonight.

I'm Joanna Gaggis for the entire team here at NJ Spotlight News.

Thanks for being with us.

We will see you right back here tomorrow.

[music] New Jersey Education Association.

Making public schools great for every child.

NJM Insurance Group has been part of New Jersey for over a century.

We support our communities through NJM's corporate giving program, supporting arts and culture related and non-profit organizations that serve to improve the lives of children, rebuild communities, and help to create a new generation of safe drivers.

We're proud to be part of New Jersey.

We've got New Jersey covered.

[music playing]