News Desk

May 2 (UPI) — The Pentagon announced Friday that the United States would draw down 5,000 troops from Germany, and Germany responded Saturday that the move was anticipated.

The decision came after Chancellor Friederick Merz made comments criticizing the war with Iran, saying the United States has been “humiliated” by the war.

“The Secretary of War has ordered the withdrawal of approximately 5,000 troops from Germany,” Pentagon spokesperson Sean Parnell said in a statement. “This decision follows a thorough review of the Department’s force posture in Europe and is in recognition of theater requirements and conditions on the ground. We expect the withdrawal to be completed over the next six to 12 months.”

President Donald Trump lashed out at Germany on Truth Social Thursday after Merz made the comments.

“The Chancellor of Germany should spend more time on ending the war with Russia/Ukraine (Where he has been totally ineffective!), and fixing his broken Country, especially Immigration and Energy, and less time on interfering with those that are getting rid of the Iran Nuclear threat, thereby making the World, including Germany, a safer place!” the president said.

At a visit to a school in Germany on Monday, Merz said U.S. officials had entered a war without a clear strategy, saying the “whole affair is ill-considered to say the least.”

“The Iranians are obviously very skilled at negotiating, or rather, very skillful at not negotiating, letting the Americans travel to Islamabad and then leave again without any result,” CNN reported Merz said. “An entire nation is being humiliated by the Iranian leadership, especially by these so-called Revolutionary Guards. And so I hope that this ends as quickly as possible.”

On Tuesday, Trump said that Merz “doesn’t know what he’s talking about.”

In response to the announcement of the drawdown, German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius downplayed the news and called it “foreseeable.”

He said it illustrated the need for Germany to take more responsibility for its own security and said the country is “on the right track.”

As of December 2025, there were 36,436 active-duty U.S. military personnel permanently stationed in Germany, according to the U.S. Defense Manpower Data Center.

After the removal of 5,000 troops, Germany will still host more than 30,000 U.S. personnel.

Trump also threatened to remove troops in 2020 when Angela Merkel was the chancellor.

On Friday, Trump told reporters in the White House that Italy had “not been of any help to us,” and accused Spain of being “absolutely horrible.” He said he may remove troops from those countries, too. Italy and Spain have denied any U.S. military planes that are used in the war against Iran from using their bases.

Germany has allowed limited use of its military infrastructure, though it hasn’t allowed its use as staging grounds for strikes.

Merz has said Germany will help if the war moves to a post-war stage, such as a stabilization mission, CNN reported. Berlin recently announced it was sending a naval minesweeper to the Strait of Hormuz once a lasting cease-fire deal is in place.

Lawmakers of both parties have opposed the decision to remove personnel from Europe.

Sen. Roger Wicker, R-Miss., and Rep. Mike D. Rogers, R-Ala., chairs of the Senate and House Armed Services committees, issued a joint statement Saturday against the decision and telling the Department of Defense to work with the oversight committees. They said they were “very concerned” about the move.

“Rather than withdrawing forces from the continent altogether, it is in America’s interest to maintain a strong deterrent in Europe by moving these 5,000 U.S. forces to the east,” the statement said. “Allies there have made substantial investments to host U.S. troops, reducing costs for the U.S. taxpayer while strengthening NATO’s front line to help deter a far more costly conflict from ever beginning.

“Any significant change to the U.S. force posture in Europe warrants a deliberate review process and close coordination with Congress and our allies. We expect the Department to engage with its oversight committees in the days and weeks ahead on this decision.”

House Armed Services Committee member Rep. Adam Smith, D-Wash., said that pulling the troops isn’t “grounded in any coherent U.S. national security policy, strategy, or even analysis.”

“It is counter to what is needed and will embolden Russia,” Smith said in a statement Friday. “It doesn’t matter that our presence in Germany is essential to our national security. … It doesn’t matter that withdrawing a brigade combat team from Europe runs counter to the intent of the law that Congress passed overwhelmingly last year. All that matters are the hurt feelings of a president who is seeking political vengeance.”

Sen. Jack Reed, D-Rhode Island, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee, asked Trump to reverse the decision.

“Weakening our military footprint in Europe at a time when Russian forces continue to mercilessly attack Ukraine and harass our NATO allies is a priceless gift to [Russian President] Vladimir Putin and suggests American commitments to our allies are dependent on the president’s mood,” Reed said in a statement Friday.

In August 2026, Kazakhstan will hold an unusual election. The newly established unicameral parliament—the “Kurultai”—will, for the first time, be formed entirely through party lists. Independent candidates and regional representatives will no longer enter the core of state power. As a representative institution of so-called “steppe democracy,” the Kurultai has undergone multiple transformations throughout history, both in its functions and in the composition of its participants. According to recent constitutional arrangements, this mechanism has been elevated to an unprecedented level. This raises a key question: what direction does this transformation reveal in the current round of political modernization?

Historically, the Kurultai functioned as an important mechanism of consultation in steppe society, not as a system of mass participation, but as a platform composed of multiple layers of elite actors. Its participants included khans and sultans who held political authority, biys who were responsible for adjudication and governance, military leaders who organized mobilization in times of war, as well as tribal elders and influential akyns and zhyrau who shaped public discourse. In addressing critical issues such as succession, warfare, and internal conflict, the Kurultai did not rely on formalized procedures or fixed institutional rules. Instead, decisions were reached through authority, negotiation, and consensus. Although ordinary people did not possess direct institutional channels of participation, their interests and attitudes indirectly constrained decision-making through tribal structures, public opinion, and their willingness to comply with and implement decisions.

During the Soviet period and the early years of Kazakhstan’s independence, the Kurultai gradually lost its function as an operative political institution and became a symbol of historical memory and cultural identity. It was not until 2022, amid a serious crisis of political trust, that this traditional symbol was revived and institutionalized as the “National Kurultai,” reintroduced as a new format of public dialogue within the framework of state governance. Its declared purpose is to strengthen interaction between the government and society. In terms of composition, the National Kurultai formally continues the tradition of “broad participation,” including regional representatives, members of parliament, professionals from various sectors, and leaders of social organizations with a degree of public influence. However, this diversity is largely structural rather than functional. It reflects broad inclusion, but does not necessarily translate into a substantive mechanism for reconciling competing interests. The institution lacks the capacity to independently coordinate diverse social demands.

Moreover, the agenda-setting process and operational logic of the National Kurultai remain distinctly top-down. Key issues are primarily defined by the state, while participants tend to act as interpreters and endorsers of pre-established policy directions. In this sense, “consultation” often takes the form of explaining and legitimizing the state agenda. Through the participation and symbolic endorsement of elite actors, the state is able to construct an image of “broad public dialogue,” thereby reinforcing the legitimacy of its reform agenda. In this respect, the National Kurultai should not be seen as a simple continuation of a traditional consultative institution, but rather as an institutionalized platform for political communication and discursive integration. Its core function lies not in generating genuinely competitive policy alternatives, but in organizing a process of “consensus production” aimed at shaping values, mobilizing society, and reproducing the legitimacy of ongoing reforms.

In 2026, President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev announced a major reform of Kazakhstan’s parliamentary system, proposing the transition to a unicameral “Kurultai Parliament.” Its members will be elected entirely through proportional representation based on party lists. The reform abolishes both the presidential quota and the special quota previously allocated to the Assembly of the People of Kazakhstan. At the same time, quota guarantees for women, youth, and persons with disabilities will be retained, but incorporated into party list mechanisms rather than being directly allocated by the state.

From the perspective of institutional design, this reform strengthens the role of political parties as key intermediaries within the political system, positioning them as the primary channel through which social demands are transmitted to the state. In the context of electoral competition, parties are expected to secure support by more effectively representing public interests, while also integrating fragmented social demands. Compared with the previous mixed model of representation, which included multiple categories of actors, a party-centered system enhances the coherence of political positions: social demands are systematically aggregated and restructured before entering the political arena, thereby improving, to some extent, the efficiency of policy articulation and decision-making.

Building on this, if meaningful and substantive competition among political parties can be established, this model has the potential not only to integrate social interests but also to more fully reflect the diversity of social groups. Political parties could function not merely as instruments of organization and coordination, but also as a crucial link between diverse societal demands and the process of state decision-making—balancing efficiency in representation with breadth and inclusiveness.Under such conditions, the consultative model of the Kurultai may gradually evolve from an elite-driven mechanism of integration into an institutionalized system of interest articulation grounded in party competition, thereby enhancing, to a certain extent, its capacity for bottom-up representation.

The new ITV quiz show is fronted by Danny Dyer and Emily Atack

ITV has unveiled the first look at its new reality quiz show with a surprising twist.

Fronted by Danny Dyer and Emily Atack, Nobody’s Fool has been billed as a “unique reality event packed full of drama and deception.”

In this ruthless contest, participants’ survival depends not on their actual intelligence, but on how clever their rivals perceive them to be.

Throughout the series, ten competitors from across the UK will share a purpose-built “Smart House,” taking part in a game where perception, tactics and trickery matter just as much as brainpower.

With challenges completed behind closed doors, assumptions, biases and initial impressions will prove crucial, as hasty conclusions and deliberate misdirection keep both contestants and audiences second-guessing.

The show will feature daily individual quizzes testing various forms of intelligence, with correct answers contributing to a collective prize fund.

However, in a clever twist, only the participants themselves will know their actual performance – leaving them free to share as much or as little truth as they wish with their housemates.

As the series progresses, players must identify the weakest link among them and vote them out.

Discussing the programme, Danny Dyer enthused: “this is a blinder of a game show and unlike anything I’ve seen before. Emily and I had a brilliant time making it and much like the audience at home will be, we kept guessing right until the very end.”

Emily Atack added: “It’s so exciting to be part of something this new and fresh. The chance to work with Danny again was a no brainer for me. We had such a laugh. Can’t wait for everyone to watch, it’s an absolute must see.”

Sue Murphy, Director of Factual Entertainment at ITV, and Kate Teckman, Head of Development and Commissioning Editor at ITV, said: “Nobody’s Fool is an innovative reality/quiz crossover show that puts preconceptions, stereotypes and judgements to the test.”

They continued: “Danny and Emily are the perfect pairing to host this game of surprise and prejudice, that will no doubt have audiences on the edge of their seats.”

Meanwhile, Richard Cowles, MD, and Tom Gould, Director of Entertainment and Formats at Lifted Entertainment, added: “Nobody’s Fool takes a simple premise – How do you really determine how smart someone is?

He added: “Trust your preconceptions and judgement or what they tell you? – and turns that into a high stakes reality game show with up to £100k up for grabs.

“There is drama at every turn but with Danny and Emily on hosting duties, the fun and laughter is also never far away.”

Nobody’s Fool is coming to ITV soon

May 1 (UPI) — May Day demonstrations are expected Friday, as organizers call for boycotts of school, work and shopping in protest of the Trump administration’s policies.

The May Day Strong protests are to mark International Labor Day. While Labor Day in the United States is in September and is a celebration of the achievements of organized labor, May Day — May 1 — is traditionally a day of protest.

The message this year is that the United States should be “focusing on workers over billionaires,” National Education Association President Becky Pringle told NPR.

“We know there are bus drivers in New York and teachers in Idaho and nurses in Louisiana who are feeling the impact of a system that has decided … to put billionaires ahead of everyone else,” she said.

More than 500 labor unions, student groups and community organizations are expected to participate, organizers said.

A student group, Sunrise Movement, said on X that more than 100,000 students were expected to miss school in the one-day strike. The organization said it is made of “young people fighting fascism to win a Green New Deal.”

This year, rising prices and stagnant wages make this year’s protest especially important, Terrence Wise, an organizer with Missouri Workers Center in Kansas City, Mo., told USA Today.

“If you want to see real change, you’ve got to be a part of the solution. Because if you’re not out organizing and you’re not out in the streets and you’re not talking to your neighbors, you’re part of the problem,” Wise said.

May Day began in Chicago in 1886 as a protest demanding an eight-hour workday and is celebrated around the world.

“People have figured out who’s rigging the game and are taking action,” People’s Action Executive Director Sulma Arias told USA Today. “What we expect is people to come out and deliver a clear message. … They understand that they’re seeing broken promises by an administration that promised to make things more affordable. And yet none of that has happened for everyday people who are still struggling.”

White House spokesperson Kush Desai said the administration of President Donald Trump supports workers.

“The Trump administration has never wavered from standing up for American workers, from renegotiating broken trade deals to securing trillions in manufacturing investments to slashing taxes on overtime to securing our border. President Trump will always have the backs of American workers,” Desai said.

In Nigeria’s North East, the Boko Haram insurgent group once carved out territory and declared a caliphate. In the North West, terrorist groups operate as fluid, profit-driven networks, embedding themselves in local economies. In the Middle Belt, communal violence reflects deeper contests over land, identity, and survival. In the South East, separatist agitation by the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) has fused with armed enforcement and criminal opportunism. Along the southern waterways, oil theft and piracy threaten economic lifelines.

Across all these theatres, one institution has remained consistently engaged: the Nigerian military, often as the default responder in the absence of effective civilian governance. Public perception often frames this engagement as a failure as attacks continue and civilians remain vulnerable. A closer, evidence-based reading tells a more complex story, however, though available data remains incomplete and, at times, contested. 

The Nigerian military appears to have adapted under pressure and recalibrated aspects of its doctrine, and, in key moments, helped reverse trajectories that once pointed toward state collapse. It has delivered tangible gains, some strategic, others tactical, many costly. Still, those gains sit on unstable ground because governance gaps, political interference, corruption, and weak institutional follow-through have repeatedly blunted them. Communities liberated from one threat find themselves exposed to another. 

The North East war: reversing a collapse

By early 2015, Nigeria was on the brink of losing control in the North East. Boko Haram had evolved from an insurgent group into a territorial force controlling large swathes of Borno State and parts of Yobe and Adamawa. It administered territory, collected taxes, and imposed its authority over local populations. Gwoza was declared the headquarters of a so-called caliphate. Entire communities were displaced, and military formations overrun.

The turning point came with a shift in military posture, in which command structures were reconfigured, and the operational headquarters was relocated to Maiduguri, the Borno State capital, bringing leadership closer to the frontline. Coordination with regional forces under the Multinational Joint Task Force (MJTF) also intensified as air and ground operations were synchronised.

The results were immediate and significant, though the durability of these gains has varied across locations. Key towns like Monguno, Bama, Dikwa, and even Gwoza, the symbolic heart of Boko Haram’s territorial claim, fell back under government control in rapid succession. Data from ACLED shows that between 2015 and 2025, the military recovered at least 259 territories. 

With this territorial success, supply routes were disrupted, and fighters were killed in large numbers. Civilians began to return to these areas, in some cases under fragile security conditions. 

It marked the collapse of Boko Haram’s experiment with territorial governance, and the battle for Sambisa Forest reinforced this shift.

For years, Sambisa had functioned as a strategic sanctuary where fighters trained, hostages were held, and leadership structures operated with relative security. It also carried psychological weight. As long as Sambisa remained intact, Boko Haram retained a sense of permanence.

The military’s assault on the forest required sustained effort involving navigating difficult terrain, dealing with improvised explosive devices, and confronting entrenched fighters. Airstrikes softened targets while ground troops advanced in phases, enabling special forces units to penetrate deeper into the forest.

The symbolic impact was significant, though not decisive in ending insurgent capacity. Boko Haram could no longer claim a fixed territorial base for as long as was once the case. Its command structure was disrupted, and its image of invincibility weakened.

And so Boko Haram fragmented into factions. The Islamic State West Africa Province (ISWAP) emerged as a more structured and strategic actor while the Shekau-led faction became more erratic, marked by extreme violence and unpredictability.

The military adjusted again.

Operations shifted from territory holding to mobility and disruption. Intelligence-led raids targeted leadership and logistics. Airpower became central to deep strikes in difficult terrain. Operation Lafiya Dole, the codename for the counter-insurgency operation, transitioned into Operation Hadin Kai, reflecting a recalibrated effort.

Today, the insurgency remains active, particularly in remote areas and along the Lake Chad basin. But the scale and nature of the threat have changed.

The North West: fighting a war without frontlines

The North West posed a different challenge. Armed groups here are diffuse. It lacks a central command and is driven by economic incentives rather than ideology, so groups form, splinter, and realign quickly. Local grievances and criminal enterprise also intersect here.

Estimates suggest tens of thousands of terrorists operate across this region, covering multiple states including Zamfara, Katsina, Kebbi, Sokoto, and Kaduna. This fragmentation complicates the military response, as frontlines, headquarters, and leadership structures (the usual strategic targets) are not clear. The military has responded by leaning heavily on airpower and targeted ground operations. This has not gone without major problems, such as the repeated “accidental bombing” of civilian populations, which have drawn criticism from rights groups and affected communities. 

Still, airstrikes have been used to hit camps deep within forested areas that are difficult for ground troops to access. Intelligence plays a critical role in identifying targets. Data shows that the sustained air campaign has yielded at least 909 strikes and 10,237 fatalities in 10 years. ACLED data shows that about 560 of these fatalities were civilians.

Ground forces usually conduct follow-up operations to recover weapons and temporarily secure areas.

Large numbers of kidnapped victims have been rescued during coordinated operations. Livestock, often a key economic asset for communities, has been retrieved. Such attacks have also killed some high-profile terrorist leaders, but they have also led to the loss of officers. 

In some areas, these operations appear to have had a temporary stabilising effect, though violence frequently resurges. Communities report periods of reduced attacks, farming activities have resumed in limited corridors, and confidence in security presence has improved, though often temporarily. 

Still, armed violence regenerates as the effects of weak governance in the North East are the same in the North West: new leaders emerge, and fighters disperse and regroup. Economic incentives remain strong. 

The Middle Belt: stabilising a political conflict

Violence in the Middle Belt is often described as a farmer-herder conflict, but the region’s violence reflects a complex mix of land disputes, ethnic tensions, and environmental stress. Armed militias operate alongside opportunistic criminal actors, while cycles of reprisal deepen mistrust between communities. 

There are too many dynamics in play here to reduce the crisis to a “military versus any specific group” conflict. Most of the time, softer kinetic actions, such as arrest and deterrence, are used. 

In certain corridors, the presence of military forces has reduced the frequency of mass casualty events. But the limits are clear. Several parts of the region still depend on self-help vigilante groups, who are often outgunned during terror attacks. 

There is also a growing distrust between communities and security operatives, who are sometimes accused of slow response and complicity. In April, residents of Gashish, a rural community in Barkin Ladi Local Government Area of Plateau State, staged a protest over continued attacks in the community despite military presence. A checkpoint manned by troops of Operation Enduring Peace was destroyed during the demonstration. 

The military has denied such accusations, but independent verification remains limited. 

However, in other areas, the visibility of armed forces has also had a deterrent effect on opportunistic attacks. 

At its core, the conflict in the region is driven by political and environmental factors. It revolves around identity and access to land and water. While military deployments can suppress violence temporarily, they cannot resolve competing claims or rebuild trust between communities. Without political solutions, stability remains provisional.

The South East: managing a hybrid threat

The South East presents a hybrid security challenge. Separatist agitation, particularly linked to IPOB, has evolved into a mix of political mobilisation and armed enforcement. The group has enforced sit-at-home orders through violence and intimidation while the Eastern Security Network (ESN) operates in forested areas.

The military’s response has been presented as targeted and intelligence-driven. Operations focus on dismantling camps, intercepting arms, and arresting key figures. Urban centres are secured to prevent escalation into wider insurgency.

Yet the approach carries risks.

Heavy-handed operations have generated grievances. Allegations of abuses have eroded trust in some communities. This complicates intelligence gathering, which is critical in a conflict where fighters blend into civilian populations. 

The Niger Delta and maritime domain: securing economic lifelines

In the South South and along Nigeria’s maritime corridors, the military, particularly the navy, has delivered some of its most visible successes. A decade ago, the Gulf of Guinea was a global hotspot for piracy. Sustained operations, including improved surveillance, increased naval patrols, and collaboration with international partners, have changed that landscape. These have led to the destruction of illegal refining sites and to arrests that disrupt networks involved in oil theft.

These gains have helped to protect revenue streams, stabilise energy production, and reinforce Nigeria’s position in regional maritime security, although illegal activities have not been fully eradicated. 

“The Nigerian military is overstretched”

According to World Bank data collected from development indicators in 2020, Nigeria has roughly 223,000 active personnel across the army, navy, and air force. The army, which carries out most internal operations, has about 140,000 to 150,000 troops.

In the battlespace, there are simultaneous operations in at least six theatres. That constitutes multi-domain internal security warfare. Nigeria has about 0.1 per cent of its population under arms. When compared to countries facing sustained internal conflict, which often exceed 0.3 to 0.5 per cent, the country is operating below the threshold needed to dominate territory.

On the geography front, Nigeria is over 923,000 square kilometres, with vast forests, porous borders, and ungoverned rural space. It is impossible to hold ground everywhere with the limited available personnel. So troops are cycled, which then leads to fatigue because units stay deployed for long periods with limited rest.

Retired Lt. Gen. Tukur Buratai, the country’s former Chief of Army Staff, recently said, “The military is overstretched, defence budgets are diverted to routine policing duties, and the Armed Forces’ preparedness for conventional threats is reduced.”

However, there are also welfare issues and equipment gaps, especially at the tactical level in remote theatres. The result is predictable: Tactical wins, like killing terror commanders or rescuing hostages are visible, but strategic stagnation remains because you cannot sustain presence everywhere.

The structural constraint: why gains do not hold

Despite these efforts, Nigeria’s security situation remains volatile. 

In many areas, once the military has cleared armed actors, there is limited follow-through by civil authorities, as local administration is weak. So, communities do not experience the full return of the state, allowing armed groups to exploit this gap to re-enter or reorganise.

Economic conditions sustain conflict. Studies have shown that high levels of poverty and unemployment, particularly among young people, create a pool of potential recruits when armed groups offer income, however precarious.

Trust deficits also weaken intelligence because communities that distrust state actors are less likely to share information. This limits the effectiveness of intelligence-led operations and increases reliance on force.

Finally, strategy remains fragmented. Nigeria faces different types of violence that require tailored responses. Yet policy often treats them through a similar lens. Counterterrorism approaches are applied to terrorist attacks, while military solutions are prioritised in conflicts that require political negotiation.

The Nigerian military has played a significant role in preventing state collapse in multiple regions.

At the height of Boko Haram’s expansion, the possibility of sustained territorial loss was real. That threat has been largely reversed. In the North West, despite persistent violence, terrorist groups have not been allowed to consolidate into a territorial authority. In the South East, tensions have been contained below the threshold of full insurgency. In the maritime domain, economic lifelines have been secured.

However, good governance remains the only real pathway out of a cycle of violence. 

Yet the reality remains harsh. Lives are still lost daily. Families continue to sell everything they own to pay ransoms. The military has contributed to pushing back elements of the threat with measurable, though uneven, success, but it has not eliminated them.

Additional data provided by Mansir Muhammed. 

Love Island presenter and Entrepreneur Maya Jama is heading in to the Traitors castle for the new series for Celebrity Traitors but she is pleading with fans to do this one thing…

The BBC has revealed the full line-up of 21 celebrities joining series two of Celebrity Traitors – with this year’s “big dogs” appearing to be Jerry Hall and Miranda Hart, or possibly Michael Sheen and Richard E Grant.

Another huge name for the show is Love Island presenter and entrepreneur, Maya Jama, who will join the stars to work out the traitors from the faithfuls. Filming for the programme, which takes place at the stunning Ardross Castle in the Scottish Highlands, begins next week with celebrities expected to arrive today.

Maya, who is currently on a break from filming Love Island, took to Instagram to react to the news of her being a part of the iconic TV game show, which will air later this year.

Posting the announcement on her Instagram Story, she said: “Secret’s out,” before pleading with fans with a hand over the eye emoji and said: “wish me luck”.

This message suggests that the star might not be the most confident, with the presenter herself unaware just yet whether she will be a goodie or a baddie in this game.

Once filming begins this weekend, the 21 contestants will be divided into Traitors and Faithfuls, following extensive interviews with host Claudia Winkleman and production staff.

From then on, their objective will be to identify which participants are making nocturnal trips to the turret dressed in those distinctive hooded cloaks – selecting which remaining contestants will be murdered.

Also taking part is BBC presenter Amol Rajan, The Last of Us actress Bella Ramsey and comedian James Acaster – not to be mixed up with You’re Beautiful singer James Blunt, who has also signed up.

This comes after Maya recently admitted she “is ready to move on” from presenting, as she eyes up a new career in acting. Drama was actually the TV star’s first love, with Maya, 31, auditioning for Channel 4 ‘s hit teen series Skins when she was just 15.

Despite getting to the final stages, she didn’t make it into the cast, which launched the careers of the likes of Nicholas Hoult, Dev Patel and Daniel Kaluuya. And now the Bristol-born star, who is in a relationship with Man City footballer Ruben Dias, is ready to leave presenting to go back into acting.

Speaking to the BBC , Maya revealed she got “disheartened” after having to many unsuccessful auditions as a teen, leading her to give up on her dream. But now, after filming has wrapped for the upcoming release of the second season of Netflix crime thriller The Gentlemen, Maya’s love for the art has been reignited.

She told the broadcaster that her “dream role” would be to play a villain, but she “naturally fell into presenting roles” after starting out on YouTube . After a few years on social media, she made the move to TV to co-host ITV game show Cannonball, as well as MOBO Awards in 2017.

The year after she booked to host reality show The Circle and then ITV2 panel show Don’t Hate the Playaz. Of course, Jama’s big break came in 2022 when she replaced Laura Whitmore as the host for hit ITV reality dating show, Love Island.

Maya added: “I always remember when I started being like ‘how on Earth am I going to get on primetime TV as a girl from Bristol doing YouTube videos’ – it seemed like a massive reach.”

She added: “I naturally fell into presenting when I was young because I got to be myself on camera and I’m interested in humans”, adding: “Now it just feels like the doors opened up again [to get into acting]”. Maya said she is “ready to do something else after presenting for so long.”

Maya reportedly plays the glam wife of a friend of lead character Eddie Horniman, alongside the likes of Vinnie Jones and Ray Winstone. She spent time in 2025 filming at Gloucestershire’s Grade II listed building Badminton House, which is Eddie’s home.

The TV personality soft-launched her new gig with the streamer on social media at the start of last year. She teased her followers on Instagram when she posted a snap of a cast list with the Netflix logo on it.

She also shared a peek of a Netflix script, and posted a photo of her and Skins star Kaya, who plays mob boss Susie Glass in the show. Further adding to the speculation around what is next for Maya, she posted a photo of a Netflix mug, with fans then certain she was working on something big.

Like this story? For more of the latest showbiz news and gossip, follow Mirror Celebs on TikTok , Snapchat , Instagram , Twitter , Facebook , YouTube and Threads .

Ruben Rocha Moya again denies allegations he shielded cartel, says taking ‘temporary leave’ to defend self.

The governor of Mexico’s Sinaloa state has temporarily resigned days after being charged by United States authorities in a sweeping drug trafficking indictment that has further strained relations between the two countries.

In a brief video statement posted late Friday, Ruben Rocha Moya again denied any wrongdoing, but said he was taking “temporary leave” to defend himself against the US allegations.

The indictment unsealed by US prosecutors earlier this week claimed that Rocha Moya and nine other officials directly aided the Sinaloa drug cartel in its smuggling operations in exchange for political support and bribes.

That support included members of the powerful cartel kidnapping and threatening opposition candidates in the 2021 election and stealing paper ballots cast for those running against Rocha Moya, the indictment charged.

Rocha Moya is a member of President Claudia Sheinbaum’s progressive Morena party.

“My conscience is clear,” Rocha Moya said in the video message. “To my people and to my family, I can look you in the eye because I have never betrayed you, and I never will.”

Juan de Dios Gamez Mendivil, the mayor of the Sinaloa state capital Culiacan who was among the other officials charged by the US, also announced he would step down on Saturday. He has denied the allegations.

Sheinbaum has also pushed back on charges, which come at a time when she has sought to navigate tense relations with the administration of US President Donald Trump.

On Thursday, she said her government had not been provided with any concrete evidence to back up the claims, suggesting the information laid out in the indictment was insufficient.

“My position on these events is as follows: truth, justice and the defence of sovereignty,” Sheinbaum said.

She added that if “clear and irrefutable evidence” is presented, the US still must proceed “in accordance with the law under our jurisdiction”.

Sheinbaum maintained her government will not “shield anyone who has committed a crime”.

“However, if there is no clear evidence,” she added, “it is evident that the aim of these charges by the [US] Department of Justice is political.”

Tense US-Mexico relations

Since taking office in January of last year, the Trump administration has heaped pressure on Mexico to do more to address migration and drug smuggling.

The approach has included Washington imposing a host of tariffs as leverage against Mexico’s government.

The US State Department has also labelled several Latin American drug cartels as “Foreign Terrorist Organisations”, an unorthodox move in line with the administration’s more militaristic approach to Latin America.

The administration has broadly argued that the criminal groups are driven, in part, by efforts to destabilise the US, a claim rejected by many longtime experts.

Sheinbaum has walked a careful line with Trump, increasing cooperation in countering cartels while pledging to protect Mexico’s sovereignty. Notably, she has staunchly opposed the prospect of any US military action on Mexican soil.

But experts have said charging elected officials in Mexico represents a major escalation in the Trump administration’s strategy.

Speaking to Al Jazeera this week, Vanda Felbab-Brown, an expert on non-state armed groups at the Brookings Institution think tank in Washington, DC, said the approach had “long been considered a very big step, almost a ‘nuclear option’”.

She predicted more US indictments were likely to come.

We can analyze China’s current stance on the escalating Iranian conflict by understanding its true position. China does not desire a full-scale war that would destroy its oil interests, but it is not averse to the continuation of the neither-peace-nor-war situation that drains its adversaries, such as Washington. This positions China as a player that pushes for calm during critical times, while simultaneously providing Iran with the economic lifeline it needs. Here, China plays a dual and complex role in the Iranian conflict (the Iranian-American/Israeli conflict), balancing its strategic support for Tehran to safeguard its energy interests and undermine American influence with its pursuit of a ceasefire to avoid widespread economic chaos.

Based on current developments up to early May 2026 and statements by Iranian officials that war is a possibility, the regional and international landscape reveals a divide between actual military escalation and cautious diplomacy. The Chinese position and the likelihood of war can be analyzed based on several factors. China views the current conflict with Iran as a proxy war, prioritizing stability over stability. China considers Iran a strategic partner, and its stance is characterized by a delicate balance. The Chinese Foreign Ministry has repeatedly called for de-escalation and a complete ceasefire to prevent further escalation in the Middle East, while simultaneously condemning American escalation. China has stated that American and Israeli military operations against Iran violate its sovereignty and has expressed grave concern about the potential imposition of a blockade on Iranian ports and the Strait of Hormuz. While Beijing seeks to protect its investments and economic interests, China is deeply concerned about any disruption to oil and energy supplies, especially since a direct war would lead to imported inflation, negatively impacting its economy. Therefore, China’s current stance is characterized by a cautious, mediating role. China is attempting to play the part of a peace broker but is also wary of the potential damage a war could inflict on its relations with the United States, especially given the ongoing diplomatic exchanges between the two countries.

Regarding the likelihood of war (and the expected scenarios), despite the tense rhetoric, a full-scale, direct war between the United States and Iran remains a risky prospect for all parties. Current indicators suggest that a war is already underway (indirectly), particularly since the start of direct military operations (US/Israeli strikes) against Iran and its allies in February 2026. This indicates that a direct war remains a strong possibility. The option of blockade and proxies also remains a possibility. Chinese intelligence and military assessments suggest that Iran might prefer to carry out its threats through proxies in the region or by disrupting oil shipments in the Strait of Hormuz, rather than engaging in a direct war, to avoid a conventional military defeat. Despite Chinese diplomatic efforts to contain the situation, and despite the escalation, attempts are still underway, such as Pakistani mediation, to reach a ceasefire. This indicates a desire among the parties to keep the door open for political solutions.

As for my perspective on the proxy war between China and Iran against the United States and Israel, the current conflict is likely to continue as a proxy war of attrition, with limited and precise strikes, rather than a full-scale ground invasion. China will likely exert further pressure, continuing to push for diplomatic solutions because any large-scale war would threaten the stability of global energy supplies, on which it depends. It’s worth noting that the region is going through a critical moment and a dangerous phase of mutual deterrence. Iranian officials’ statements are as much messages of deterrence as they are an acknowledgment of the potential for escalation.

Regarding China’s role in the continuation of the war or its support for Iran (strategic and economic support), China considers the Iranian Strait of Hormuz and its purchases of Iranian oil as a vital economic lifeline. China is the largest buyer of Iranian oil (approximately 80-90% of exports), providing Tehran with crucial funding to sustain its activities. China also seeks to help Iran circumvent US sanctions, assisting Iran in bypassing these sanctions through an unofficial oil fleet, thus keeping the Iranian economy afloat. Furthermore, there is a strategic Chinese-Iranian partnership opposed to the West and US sanctions against Tehran. China views Iran as a partner in undermining the US-led global order through organizations such as BRICS and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. Moreover, China is exploiting the current situation to its advantage. Chinese intelligence, military, defense, and security analyses suggest that the continuation of the Iranian war drains US resources and provides China with an opportunity to enhance its influence, absorbing the shock of the war and potentially emerging with strategic gains.

At the same time that China is playing a role in halting the Iranian war through mediation diplomacy to de-escalate tensions, with China acting as a hidden mediator to urge Tehran to cooperate and reach a ceasefire with the United States to protect its economic interests, despite China’s support for Iran, the war harms China by closing the Strait of Hormuz and threatening its energy security. This prompts Beijing to urge an end to the war and the reopening of waterways. Therefore, China is pursuing a policy of diplomatic pressure, consistently calling for restraint and believing that the best solution is an immediate ceasefire, according to statements by its permanent representative to the United Nations.

Accordingly, we conclude that a full-scale war is theoretically possible but practically unlikely as a final option due to the exorbitant cost to all parties. However, the continuation of retaliatory strikes and economic sanctions remains the most probable scenario at present.

We are living in an era of dissent, but what does that mean in 2026? According to writer Gal Beckerman, to be a dissident is as much a way of being as it is an act of resistance. In his new book “How to Be a Dissident,” Beckerman, a staff writer for the Atlantic, unpacks dissent as a kind of rough art. His book is both an instruction guide and a primer.

In nine short, potent chapters, Beckerman lays out the essential traits of an effective dissident — loyalty, recklessness and watchfulness, among them — to illustrate how communities of resistance are built from the ground up. I recently chatted with Beckerman about playwright and former president of the Czech Republic Václav Havel, President Trump and AI.

✍️ Author Chat

You have written three books that deal with dissent — political, cultural and societal. It’s clearly a big issue with you.

I don’t think of myself as an activist; I don’t approach these topics with an activist’s fervor. I’m genuinely curious about how change happens in society. All four of my grandparents survived the Holocaust, and I think the notion of a society that can change that quickly and turn on you was always very shocking and interesting to me.

In reading your book, it’s really inspiring and extraordinary to read about individuals putting their lives on the line to make change happen.

They genuinely fascinate me as these bizarre human beings who are able to act in ways that I find really mysterious. There’s a mystery as to how people’s minds actually change, and how society can change.

You write about making moral choices, and doing something bold because of some strongly held belief. This is not the same thing as joining the crowd, which can be the path of least resistance.

I had this feeling during the first few months of the current Trump term (and I share this sentiment with a lot of people) that we were just bowled over by the degree to which people in elite places were acquiescing to the exercise of executive power and being willing to bend the knee in ways that felt shocking to me. This prompted me to wonder, what would I do in that situation? Would I say “no” and not succumb to the will of executive power? Would any of us do so? It’s a question we all have to ask ourselves.

You cite Iris Murdoch’s notion of “radical humanism” as a key trait of effective dissent.

Radical humanists are attuned to the messy and wonderful ways that beings just are. They are defending those conditions for human beings to have a normal life, whether that means being able to listen to whatever music you like, or to wear your hair in a certain way, or to take care of a neighbor that is being ill-treated. Václav Havel called it the “pre-political” way of thinking and acting. And we saw this recently in Minnesota, with people standing up to ICE, regardless of what their political affiliations might be. Something pre-political was going on.

Another important factor you cite is civic mindedness, which feels like a difficult goal given how our communities have been dissolved by our screen addictions.

The communication tools that we use are dehumanizing in many ways because they don’t allow us to really see each other. Instead we preconceive each other and just scream a lot. And we know this at a gut level even as we continue to use them. That’s why I do think it takes an almost dissident sort of energy to insist on thinking in a different way and scrambling the assumptions that our modes of communication have foisted upon us.

What about AI? It feels as if there is a lot of resistance to accepting AI into our lives just because technology companies are investing billions of dollars to make it so. You are seeing communities protesting against the construction of data farms in their neighborhoods, for example.

The money behind the ideology pushing AI is about letting us feel that the only way to have an efficient life is through AI. And I feel like the 20th century taught us that there are lots of ideologies that come around to promise this sort of thing. And so we need to learn from that. I think there are a lot of overwhelming powers that try to flatten us. But we have to take that wonderful human element, that radical humanism, to say no, maybe there’s a way to do it better.

📰 The Week(s) in Books

Monica Lewinsky as a saint offering solace to the lovelorn and abandoned? Julia Langbein’s wild conceit works beautifully in her novel “Dear Monica Lewinsky,” according to Julia M. Klein, who calls the book “smart, poignant and involving.”

Among the casualties of the Vietnam War were the Appalachian communities whose male populations were decimated on the frontlines. This is the subject of Pamela Steele’s “taut, lyrical” novel “In the Fields of Fatherless Children,” a book that delves into the “poverty, racism, environmental degradation and despair suffered in the Appalachian ‘holler’ during the Vietnam era,” writes Meredith Maran.

The Times’ Deputy Entertainment and Arts Editor Nate Jackson sat down with the rapper, actor and K-Town native Jonnie Park to discuss his memoir, “Spit: A Life in Battles.”

Finally, Maddie Connors answers the question, “why are novels getting shorter?” Welcome to the age of the Adderall novel.

📖 Bookstore Faves

The inside of Mystery Pier Books

(Mystery Pier Books)

Established in 1998, Mystery Pier Books is L.A.’s prime destination for rare books and signed editions across a wide range of genres and forms, including Shakespeare folios and vintage sci-fi paperbacks. Located right alongside its Sunset Strip neighbor Book Soup, Mystery Pier was established by character actor Harvey Jason and his son Louis, who continue to run the store together. I chatted with Harvey about the treasures to be found in his store.

What is the market like for rare books right now?

Very strong, in fact. We just sold a beautiful edition of J.R.R. Tolkien’s “Lord of the Rings” trilogy to a private collector for $55,000. And that is actually a reasonable price for those books. We have a long list of serious collectors all over the world that contact us for books, customers that have been coming to us for years. We also sold a first edition of “The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn” for $17,500.

Why should one own a rare book?

It’s a good investment. People who collect rare books are book lovers, first and foremost. And they are smart enough to know that the books they love can increase in value year by year. First editions never depreciate. They always become more valuable over time.

I’m interested in journalism books. Do you have any Tom Wolfe or Hunter Thompson in your store?

Hunter Thompson came in here years ago and signed all of his books, so, yes, we have his books signed by him.

Do you see young people looking to get into collecting books?

Yes. A lot of recent college graduates are building collections. It’s very heartening to see that. You can come into our store and find nice editions for $100. The front room of our store contains the first editions but our other rooms will have landmark titles for far less money. This is really a pursuit for everybody, not just wealthy collectors.

Social media is full of posts showing off photos and videos of fancy-looking cafes and restaurants in Gaza. Pro-Israeli accounts often use these images to claim that life is back to normal in Gaza, that people are not suffering and that no genocide ever took place.

These cafes and restaurants do exist. I have seen them myself.

In late March, I went on my first visit to Gaza City since the war started. I was shocked to see the destruction wrought on the city. There were piles of rubble at every corner. Unable to recognise the streets, I felt as if I were strolling through a maze. I soon arrived at an area nearby that shocked me even more. It was full of new cafes that did not exist before the war.

These were not makeshift or temporary places as one might expect; they were built with expensive materials, carefully painted, furnished with tables, sofas, and elegant chairs, with glass facades and shining lights. A luxury feel emanated from them. They looked so out of place amid the rubble and the half-collapsed buildings that it felt almost surreal to see them.

These new establishments do not prove that normality is coming back to Gaza. They are a testament to its continuing genocidal abnormality.

The war made some people in Gaza rich, especially those who engaged in illicit activities like smuggling, looting, and hoarding during acute shortages. This wealth is now coming out in various forms, including luxury cafes and restaurants.

In parallel, the vast majority of Gaza’s population has been thrown into abject poverty. While before the war, the average person was able to afford to sit at a cafe and have a drink and a bite to eat, today this is no longer the case.

Most people cannot even look at these new places, let alone enter them and order something. The vast majority of Gaza’s population lives in tents, has no electricity or potable water, and suffers from the loss of livelihoods. They are surviving on what little aid Israel is allowing through.

I am one of them. My family and I live in a tent pitched near the rubble of our home in the Nuseirat camp. We have lost our family livelihood. The comfortable life we used to have is now just a distant memory.

The expensive new establishments reflect the deeply unjust social order that has emerged in Gaza – one where war profiteering has elevated a new privileged class and collapsed the vast majority into misery with no access to proper education, healthcare and even food. The genocide did not just kill and maim people and destroy homes and schools; it eliminated the prospect of a normal life for most people in Gaza.

I could not afford the fancy cafes, so I continued down the street till I reached a more modest restaurant, which used to go to with friends before the war. Entering it felt like stepping back in time to the days before the war; the place was the same, with the same chairs and tables, and the familiar smells that filled the space.

I sat and observed, dwelling on fond memories of spending time there after university lectures. I ordered what I used to order: a chicken wrap, a soda and a small salad plate. The bill was 60 shekels ($20) – more than three times what I would pay before the war, when my family actually had a normal income.

The restaurant bill, together with the fare I paid for a shared ride to get to Gaza City (15 shekels or $5 one way), cost me a fortune. I felt guilty spending all this money to enjoy a glimpse of normalcy.

The few who are fortunate enough to be able to afford going to cafes and restaurants in Gaza may enjoy short moments of relief, a temporary escape from the horrors of reality. Yet these moments are limited, often accompanied by anxiety about returning to the destroyed streets, the bombed-out landscape and the trauma.

As I sat at Al-Taboon, I thought of the friends with whom I used to spend time: Rama, who was martyred and Ranan, who escaped to Belgium. I sat there alone, holding on to these memories amid the greyness of Gaza’s rubble and the lights of the generator-powered cafés.

The genocide has devasted everyone – even those who have profiteered from it. No amount of time spent in shiny cafes and restaurants will ever erase this reality.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial stance.

The U.S. Air Force said its new interim Air Force One jet, dubbed the VC-25B Bridge aircraft, has officially completed modifications and flight testing and is being painted in the red, white and blue livery sought by President Donald Trump. The extremely lavish 747-8i Boeing Business Jet (BBJ) – donated by Qatar to the U.S. last year for use by Trump – is set to serve in the Air Force One role while the White House awaits the delayed delivery from Boeing of two fully-outfitted VC-25B Air Force One aircraft. There are no plans to retire the VC-25As that currently serve as Air Force One until both full-up VC-25Bs are operational.

The Air Force said the VC-25B Bridge aircraft is on schedule to roll out in its new paint scheme and be delivered to the Presidential Airlift Group this summer. It is not clear when it will start flying Trump. The White House referred us to the Air Force for additional information.

The jet recently underwent flight testing in Texas, which you can see in the following photos that aviation photographer TT-33 operator was kind enough to share with us at the time.

The USAF now says that with the Boeing VC-25B deliveries delayed far past its initial 2024 target and VC-25A heavy maintenance cycles being extended, an interim capability became “an absolute imperative.” How accurate this claim actually is isn’t clear. Trump has been talking about an interim Air Force One aircraft for some time since deliveries of the new VC-25Bs were pushed back beyond his second term. We heard of no actual requirements originating for this capability from within the USAF prior to the new administration or far in advance of Trump’s deal with the Qataris to source the jet. Very early in the new administration, Elon Musk was even working to find out how to get Trump a new Air Force One as fast as possible, for instance.

The Air Force claimed that in February 2025, a dedicated task force launched a “full-court press” on the VC-25B Bridge program while simultaneously working to accelerate Boeing’s long-term VC-25B production.

Though questions were swirling about the legality and ethics of receiving the gifted plane, the Pentagon last May took delivery of the aircraft and said it would rapidly undertake the required modifications.

It’s one thing to have a donated ultra-luxury jet, but turning it into one safe and connected enough to carry a president is another story.

As TWZ has previously noted, converting any aircraft into one that is secure enough to transport the president is a complex undertaking. The aircraft needs to provide constant, secure communications, including what is needed to order a nuclear strike under extreme conditions. Historically, it also needs to be physically hardened both inside and out to withstand myriad threats, from the electromagnetic pulse of a nuclear weapon going off to incoming surface-to-air missiles to enemy intelligence-gathering efforts. To do this requires significant modifications right down to the aircraft’s outer structure. It is very unlikely, if not impossible, that this aircraft was hardened against EMPs in the timeframe required for fielding it.

The VC-25As are speckled with missile approach warning sensors and many laser countermeasures turrets (DIRCM). They also include the legacy Matador infrared countermeasure system above their jet engines and APU. This is in addition to other defensive features which are less visible and remain closely guarded secrets.

Common Infrared Countermeasures (CIRCM)

In previous coverage, we noted that at the very least, “this aircraft will have to feature some kind of DIRCM setup to repel shoulder-fired heat-seeking missiles, and modular units are available that can be attached in a canoe to the bottom of the aircraft. These systems, such as Elbit’s C-MUSIC or Northrop Grumman’s Guardian, are in service with foreign VVIP 747s, as well as commercial aircraft, including those flying for Israeli airline El Al. You can read all about these systems here. Still, while they offer far less defensive capacity compared to what is seen under the belly of a VC-25A, they would offer a significant layer of protection.” We still don’t see any evidence of the aircraft being modified with defensive countermeasures.

L3Harris, known for its communications systems and aircraft alterations, was selected to undertake the “complex modification of the bridge aircraft,” the Air Force explained. The company already delivers “secure, reliable and resilient communications” for VC-25A and the executive airlift fleet “but has extensive experience with self-protection and customization of VIP aircraft,” the Air Force added. “The accelerated timeline was further made possible by a mission-focused partnership with Boeing, who provided the necessary engineering data to support the required structural modifications.”

In addition, “elite specialists from multiple government agencies developed advanced protocols to detect and – if necessary – neutralize potential technical hazards on previously owned aircraft,” according to the Air Force. “Their rigorous approach on the Bridge aircraft has literally ‘written the book’ and set the benchmark for integrating used airframes into the secure military inventory.”

In response to our question about what modifications the jet received, the Air Force told us the following:

“Safety and security were at the forefront of this program. We deliberately minimized interior aesthetic modifications to focus on modifications for safety, security and mission execution. We assessed which requirements were necessary for an interim capability. We had greater flexibility in developing our mission requirements.

After safety and security, we focused on the mission communications systems.

We have made deliberate decisions such as the reduction of the number of airstairs, less chiller space, and exclusion of the Golden Eagle mission [to fly the remains of former presidents] to minimize structural modifications, while prioritizing modifications focused on safety, security and secure communications.”

We also asked whether this jet will be able to fly overseas and into higher-risk areas, but have not gotten a response. At this point, based on the limited info we have at this time, that seems unlikely. But if this is the case, the question then can be raised why the USAF is spending billions on two full-up Air Force One aircraft if standards have been so relaxed that this simpler aircraft can do all their missions? We will update this story with any pertinent details the USAF provides.

To help speed up the delivery process of this interim Air Force One jet, the Air Force said it “constructed an at-scale mockup of the interior, complete with virtual reality views, to enable early commissioning activities for White House staff.”

“Our commitment to providing the president with a secure, resilient and reliable airborne command post is unwavering,” said Chief of Staff of the Air Force Gen. Ken Wilsbach. “The VC-25B Bridge program is a testament to the Air Force’s ability to innovate and rapidly evolve to ensure the continuity of our government under any conditions.”

The Air Force said the estimated delivery of Boeing’s VC-25Bs is now expected in 2028. If that holds up, then this ‘bridge’ aircraft will have served at most around two years until the first full-up VC-25B is delivered.

We will continue to follow developments in this program and provide updates when warranted.

Contact the author: howard@thewarzone.com

Leigh-Anne Pinnock made her thoughts known after the former Little Mix star was announced in the line-up for the second series of BBC’s Celebrity Traitors

Celebrity Traitors fans were loving the latest line-up as a star-studded cast gets ready to descend on the castle for the second series. Among them is former Little Mix singer Leigh-Anne Pinnock – and the star has made her feelings known.

The 34-year-old songstress shared the announcement on her Instagram stories. The official video shows a number of famous faces’ names on boards in an airport.. And Leigh-Anne is one of them set to the beautiful Scottish Highlands to reside in Ardross Castle.

Leigh-Anne avoided using words and simply shared two emojis after the announcement. She posted a looking eyes emoji as well as an emoji covering its faces with its hands to signal she isn’t sure what she’s signed herself up for in the new season.

READ MORE: Who is Celebrity Traitors star King Kenny?READ MORE: Celebrity Traitors fans have already predicted the ‘big dogs’ as season two line-up finally announced

Leigh-Anne will line up with some huge names in the industry, including Michael Sheen and Jerry Hall. The 21-star list also includes Richard E Grant and Miranda Hart.

Also taking part is BBC presenter Amol Rajan, The Last of Us actress Bella Ramsey and comedian James Acaster – not to be mixed up with You’re Beautiful singer James Blunt, who has also signed up. Comedy stars Joanne McNally and Joe Lycett, former Corrie legend Julie Hesmondhalgh and social media content creator King Henry were also announced.

And there’s also space for Love Island presenter Maya Jama, Industry actress Myha’la and BBC maths guru Professor Hannah Fry. Rob Beckett with be bringing laughs alongside TV sidekick Romesh Ranganathan, flanked by former EastEnder Ross Kemp and My Mad Fat Diary star Sharon Rooney.

Game of Thrones actor Sebastian Croft completes the line-up as presenter Claudia Winkleman gets ready to choose her Traitors. While they will all take part exactly like the usual Traitors series, rather than take any winnings themselves, the celebrity players will be donating anything they get from the potential £100,000 jackpot to their chosen charities

While filming is about to begin, it’s thought BBC1 won’t air the series until the autumn. This is similar timing as the maiden series last year when the likes of Sir Stephen Fry, Paloma Faith, Charlotte Church and Jonathan Ross took part.

Speculation had been rife as to who would be heading to the lavish castle. Those hinted at who aren’t set to take part include Danny Dyer, Ruth Jones, Liam Gallagher, Cheryl Tweedy and Peter Crouch. There was also talk of Alison Hammond and Louis Theroux being involved.

Despite the wrong suggestions, fans clearly will have enough entertainment to choose from when it comes to picking their favourite. And they were quick to share their thoughts on X.

One user wrote: “Great line up. Look forward to watching.” Another added: “Great line-up. Maybe not as strong as last year’s but still decent. Can’t wait to see Miranda Hart have ‘such fun’ doing this!

“Also love that Beta Squad can’t stay away from Celebrity Traitors. Surprised it’s King Kenny this time round and not Chunkz.”

And a third said: “That celebrity traitors line up is amazing.”

Like this story? For more of the latest showbiz news and gossip, follow Mirror Celebs on TikTok, Snapchat, Instagram, Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and Threads.

An assassination attempt at the White House correspondents’ dinner underscored the spectacle, chaos and violence that have defined Donald Trump’s second presidency.

As journalists rushed to report what had happened, a parallel narrative of conspiracy was already taking shape online. Conspiracy theories get far more currency than they merit – and they are a by-product of an information landscape that has been muddied by Trump.

Contributors:
John Nichols – Executive editor, The Nation
Niall Stanage – White House columnist, The Hill
Amber Duke – Editor-in-chief, Daily Caller
Suzanne Kianpour – Cohost, Global Power Shifts podcast

On our radar

Russia’s effort to tighten internet restrictions and throttle Telegram has caused a furious public backlash. The uproar has forced President Vladimir Putin to admit the measures went too far. Ryan Kohls reports.

Israel’s information war on Lebanon

Throughout two years of war, Israeli forces have used drones, AI-powered targeting and the infiltration of Lebanese communications devices and the networks they rely on – to control the population, spread terror and kill people. And it has escalated its information war, using all kinds of propaganda to deepen fear and divisions within Lebanese society. We speak to Justin Salhani about the tactics Israel is using in Lebanon.

Featuring:
Justin Salhani – Senior producer, Al Jazeera Digital

Addressing the cameras following reports of spiralling youth violence, including the killing of the 21-year-old former Israeli soldier Yemanu Binyamin Zalka last week, Israel’s National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir was clear.

“This will be a total war,” he said, announcing a national operation to target a surge in youth violence. “We will restore security to the streets and calm to parents. Anyone who harms Israeli civilians will face the strong hand of the Israel Police and pay a heavy price.”

The response was sharp, aligned itself with the victim, and promised a solution.

That, critics say, is a sharp contrast to Ben-Gvir’s response – or lack of one – to the ongoing epidemic of violence in Israeli towns and villages populated by Palestinians, which has so far led to the deaths of almost 100 people and, according to Israel’s own finance ministry, costs the country up to $6.7bn a year.

Allegations of two-tier policing, to the detriment of what Israelis refer to as the “Arab sector”, have dogged Israel’s police for decades. But the situation has gotten worse under the current administration of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, which has been in power since the end of 2022, and Ben-Gvir, a far-right politician who is in charge of the police.

The statistics since Ben-Gvir came into office back up the narrative that the crime wave in Palestinian communities has gotten significantly worse. The Israeli newspaper Haaretz reported that the murder rate in Israel’s Palestinian communities increased from 4.9 per 100,000 in 2020, to 11 per 100,000, on par with the murder rate in Sudan and Iraq.

In contrast, the murder rate in Israel’s Jewish society stood at approximately 0.6 per 100,000.

That increase can not totally be attributed to the current government – Netanyahu himself was prime minister in 2020, when the murder rate was lower. But critics argue that the introduction into government of figures like Ben-Gvir and Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, who they say are openly disdainful of Palestinians, has contributed to the sharp uptick in violence.

Analysts and experts who spoke to Al Jazeera had little doubt over the Netanyahu government’s culpability in the increased murder rate.

“They really don’t mind that Palestinians are killing each other, as they’ve been left to do for years,” lawmaker Aida Touma-Suleiman, a Palestinian member of the Hadash party and a longstanding critic of the lack of policing in Palestinian communities in Israel, said.

“It would never occur to the police that they should provide a service to Arab neighbourhoods,” she said of the lack of physical police presence within Palestinian communities. “It’s about enforcement. It’s hostile.”

While police stations are standard in Israel’s Jewish-majority areas, there are only about 10 in Palestinian-majority areas.

Among the decisions that have most angered Palestinian advocacy groups in Israel was the government’s December approval of a $68.5m cut to an economic development programme for Palestinian communities in Israel, in order to fund more policing in the communities.

Critics agreed that more funding was needed for the police, but bemoaned that the money was coming from a fund designed to address the root causes of criminality by addressing housing and economic development, areas where Palestinian communities are notoriously underfunded in comparison to Jewish ones.

Hardwired poverty

Palestinian citizens of Israel make up around 21 percent of the country’s population. Disadvantaged economically, they are the descendants of Palestinians who did not flee after the 1948 establishment of Israel – an event they know as the Nakba, when an estimated 750,000 Palestinians were ethnically cleansed and forced out.

Often concentrated in separate towns and villages from Israeli Jews, Palestinians frequently describe a reality of chronic underinvestment, with the presence of the state either limited or non-existent.

Joblessness has long been woven into their daily lives, analysts say, but the unemployment rate has worsened since Israel choked off access to the occupied West Bank, where many worked, after the Hamas-led October 7 attack on Israel and the start of Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza in 2023.

The most recent official date, based on 2024 figures, shows that 37.6 percent of Palestinian households in Israel live below the poverty line.

Local criminal networks in Israel’s Palestinian towns and villages have grown in scale and influence in recent years, in some cases taking on the form of mafia-style organisations, untroubled, critics say, by the current government.

“There is a wide network of criminal gangs who exert control across Arab neighbourhoods,” said Daniel Bar-Tal, professor of social-political psychology at Tel Aviv University, adding that criminality and even murder were allowed to continue with the state’s own complicity.

“In part, the government just likes it. They get to say, ‘Look, this is Arab culture, this is Arab society. This is what they do.’ They also rely on the collaboration of the gangs to gather information on what’s going on in these communities,” he said, referring to numerous accounts of how friends who had reported criminal activity in their neighbourhoods were dismissed. “And lastly, it is because the police force is controlled by Ben-Gvir, a racist who actively enjoys dehumanising Arab society.”

Ben-Gvir has previously rejected accusations of racism and says he is only against those who harm Jews.

Policed by the enemy

From leveraging his position in government to urge on the genocide in Gaza, to defending officers under his charge filmed raping a Palestinian prisoner, Ben-Gvir’s actions have dismayed many of Israel’s self-styled liberals, just as they have shocked observers around the world.

However, following an uptick in crime in Israel, criticism of Ben-Gvir’s performance in his role as national security minister has begun to enter the domestic mainstream.

As well as more predictable opinion pieces in Israel’s liberal press, accusing the National Security Minister of being “busy on TikTok” while Zelka was killed, or concentrating his efforts on arresting professors wearing Palestinian flags on their kippahs while murder rates break records, there have also been criticisms from those closer to the establishment.

Earlier this month, Israel’s High Court intervened in a row between Ben-Gvir and Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara, ordering the two to reach an accommodation after Baharav-Miara called for his ousting following what she claimed was his attempts to make political interventions in the police’s work.

“Nobody cares if Ben-Gvir’s good at his job,” political scientist Ori Goldberg said. “He’s there to punish Palestinians, even those in Israel. They’re punished through a lack of security, just as they’re punished through hostile planning, and a lack of healthcare punishes them. This is how the apartheid Israel always works.”

May 1 (UPI) — Former U.S. Rep. David Rivera, R-Fla., was found guilty on Friday of being paid to secretly lobby elected U.S. officials to ease sanctions against Venezuela.

Rivera and a co-conspirator were each found guilty of taking payment from Nicholas Maduro to try to repair ties between the South American nation and the United States but never registering as an agent of a foreign country, The Miami Herald and NBC News reported.

A 12-person jury found the former Miami-Dade congressman and consultant Esther Nuhfer guilty of lobbying Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Rep. Pete Sessions, R-Texas, and attempting to set meetings up for Delcy Rodriguez, Venezuela’s then-foreign minister and current acting president.

Rivera was also found guilty of conspiring to commit money laundering and tax evasion.

Rivera had long been friends with his former roommate Rubio and became friends with Sessions when he was in Congress, and after Maduro gave him a $50 million contract he attempted to leverage those relationships.

Both Rivera and Nuhfer were caught having not registered themselves of lobbying for the federal government on behalf of another nation.

The convictions come after a 5-week trial that saw Rubio, who was in the Senate in 2017, when he met with Rivera and was told a plan to convince Maduro to step down was afoot.

Rivera denied that he was working on behalf of Maduro and the Venezuelan government, insisting that he was working to overthrow the now-deposed ruler rather than to promote his interests.

Nuhfur was released on bond ahead of her sentencing, while Rivera was judged to be a flight risk and will remain in jail until he is sentenced.

Rivera also still faces charges in another foreign lobbying case, as well.

Follow our live build-up, with full team news coverage, ahead of our text commentary stream.

CHRISTINE McGuinness is reportedly growing close to a Strictly star and Olympian after opening up about having sex with women for the first time.

Mum-of-three Christine, 38, who finalised her divorce from ex-Top Gear host Paddy, 52, in 2024, is getting close to Olympic boxing star Nicola Adams, 43, according to The Mail.

Christine and Nicola attended The DIVA Awards 2026 recently, which is an event which celebrates the achievements of LGBTQIA women and non-binary people.

An onlooker told the paper: “They were inseparable and looked like they were a couple.”

The pair now also follow each other on social media.

Nicola split from her partner of seven years, Ella Baig, in March 2025.

Read More about Christine

‘I KISSED A GIRL’

Christine McGuinness opens up about having sex with women for first time

racy reveal

Christine McGuinness reveals secret to ‘controlling sex drive’ & bondage romps

The Sun reached out to both Christine and Nicola’s representatives for comment, but they did not immediately respond.

This comes after Christine opened up about dating women last week.

“I would love to have a wife one day,” Christine explains on new podcast It Started With A Kiss.

“Not like a legalised marriage, but like a blessing, a celebration of love.

“I’ve been there, done it, spent an absolute fortune and probably aged about ten years throughout it all.

“I don’t want to do that again.

“I would love to just be saying, ‘This is my wife.’”

Elsewhere in her chat, Christine said: “I’m a sucker for a stud and a masc.

“I swear they come for me.

“This one date, well, it wasn’t a date, it was when I did the whole hotel thing and not the whole date thing.

“Because I didn’t want to ever just meet someone and it just be sex, but then kind of did find myself in a place in life where I was like, ‘Do you know what? I actually do just want to do that.’

“I’ve been married, I’ve had situationships, I was single, I was celibate for six months, and with all of that, I just had a moment of, ‘Do you know what, I wouldn’t mind just meeting up with someone and just seeing how it goes.’

“So I got to this hotel and I’m thinking, ‘This is just sex, it’s fine.’

“She was very, very beautiful, like that perfect, pretty, handsome, like masc stud type woman, really gorgeous, dark skin, like she had everything.”

Christine adds: “We’re just chatting away and she said that she was a Gold Star Lesbian.

“So I’m like, love that, love a Gold Star Lesbian.

“I went, ‘Stop . . .  because you might be a Gold Star Lesbian, but I’m a Five Star Lesbian.’”

Of her first kiss, Christine is just as open, saying: “The first time I kissed a woman, again after my husband and no disrespect to him, it had been a while.

“I remember that first kiss just being so soft and so nice and so feminine.

“I knew I always felt it and it wasn’t something that I was worried about never doing again because when I married, I married for life, genuinely.

“But I was really happy that I was doing it again.

“And I’m really happy that now I am dating women again and that I am having fun.

“I’ve got some of the best stories, some of the wildest memories, like the craziest experiences that only I and one other person would ever know.”

Christine chose to speak about wanting to date men and women after signing up to E4 TV series Celebs Go Dating in April last year.

It came after Christine and Paddy announced their separation in 2022.

May 1 (UPI) — A federal appeals court on Friday night issued a ruling that enacts a nationwide block on the prescription of the abortion pills in telehealth appointments and mailing them to patients.

A three-judge panel on the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the state of Louisiana, which had used to end a Food and Drug Administration rule that allows doctors to prescribe mifepristone without having an in-person visit, ABC News, Politico and The New York Times reported.

Mifepristone was first approved by the FDA in 2000 for medical termination of pregnancy, and until the COVID-19 global pandemic required that the drug be prescribed to patients during in-person doctor’s appointments.

After enacting a strict abortion ban in 2022, Louisiana then moved to reclassify mifepristone as a controlled substance and criminalized its possession, effectively making it illegal in the state.

Although Louisiana had made it illegal to prescribe or possess in the state, people could obtain prescriptions from out-of-state doctors have virtual telehealth visits, with the mails mailed to people’s homes.

As the COVID-19 pandemic spread across the country in spring 2020 and forced much of in-person life to stop, doctors sued the FDA for an exception to the in-person requirement to prescribe mifepristone.

The agency in 2021 announced that it would exercise “enforcement discretion” because of the COVID-19 public health emergency.

After Roe v. Wade was struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court, several states across the country moved to outlaw most abortions, but mifepristone continued to be available through telehealth appointments and the mail.

Louisiana told the court that it needed relief because of an alleged influx of abortion pills to the state, making the argument that mail-delivered abortion pills endanger the safety of women there.

“We are alarmed by this Court’s decision to ignore the FDA’s rigorous science and decades of safe use of mifepristone in a case pursued by extremist abortion opponents,” Evan Masingill, CEO of GenBioPort, which manufacturers the drug, told Politico in a statement.

“We remain committed to taking any actions necessary to make mifepristone available and remain accessible to as many people as possible,” Masingill said.

The United Arab Emirates’ announcement of its withdrawal from OPEC and the OPEC+ alliance, effective May 1, 2026, represents a major strategic shift in the global energy market, with direct and significant implications for China, the world’s largest oil importer. The primary impact of this UAE withdrawal on China is the enhancement of Chinese energy security, as it will increase available supplies. The UAE will now be able to raise its production towards its target of 5 million barrels per day by 2027, without being bound by OPEC quotas. This expansion will provide China with a substantial and stable source of oil outside the constraints of production alliances. Furthermore, the UAE’s withdrawal from OPEC will impact China’s diversification policy, as China relies on imports to cover approximately 70% of its oil needs. The UAE’s departure will grant Beijing greater flexibility in purchasing from the spot market at potentially more competitive prices.

This also has a significant impact on import costs (prices) through prolonged downward pressure. The UAE’s increased oil production (up to 680,000 barrels per day above previous levels) is expected to put downward pressure on global Brent crude prices in the medium term (12-24 months), thus reducing China’s energy import bill. This could lead to short-term volatility, as, despite the potential benefit, the closure of the Strait of Hormuz (due to current regional tensions in April 2026) limits the immediate ability to capitalize on the UAE’s withdrawal from OPEC, since most of the UAE’s exports to China pass through this waterway.

China could benefit from the UAE’s withdrawal from OPEC by enhancing its capacity for financial and trade cooperation and expanding trade in local currencies, particularly the Chinese yuan. The UAE’s departure from OPEC could (facilitate the expansion of oil trade agreements) in rubles, rupees, and yuan, moving away from OPEC’s traditional dollar pricing. This aligns with China’s drive to internationalize the yuan. Such a move could boost joint investments, given China’s existing stakes in UAE oil concessions. With Abu Dhabi freed from restrictions, these Chinese investments could generate higher returns through increased production. Furthermore, China might leverage the UAE’s withdrawal from OPEC to bolster the strategic and geopolitical value of weakening OPEC’s influence. This withdrawal diminishes OPEC’s ability to control global supply, which benefits major consuming nations like China by reducing the likelihood of price shocks resulting from collective production cuts.

In this context, Chinese discussions and analyses have intensified, examining the potential benefits for China from the UAE’s withdrawal from OPEC. Chinese experts are analyzing the likelihood and impact of such a move should it materialize, particularly given the UAE’s increasing production capacity and its desire for greater flexibility. If we assume the UAE’s withdrawal from OPEC is indeed the case, China stands to be the biggest beneficiary for the following reasons. First, it would break the dominance of the petrodollar. The departure of a player the size of the UAE from traditional OPEC constraints opens the door wide to bilateral agreements for pricing oil in digital yuan (or Chinese yuan), thus supporting Beijing’s strategy of internationalizing the yuan to reduce its dependence on the Western financial system (SWIFT). In addition to the increased Chinese-Emirati supply, since Chinese companies such as CNPC and CNOOC hold stakes in oil concessions in Abu Dhabi, the UAE’s release from OPEC production quotas means these companies can increase production and secure China’s growing energy needs at preferential prices and with favorable terms. This facilitates the revitalization of joint UAE-China investments, allowing for deeper Chinese capital flow into the UAE’s refining and petrochemical sector. The exchange of finished goods and crude oil within an economic cycle based on local currencies reduces conversion costs and the risks associated with dollar fluctuations. This supports China’s policy of moving towards BRICS+. As the UAE is a member of the BRICS group, any move away from traditional OPEC frameworks aligns with the group’s overall direction to create a parallel financial system that supports the ruble, rupee, and yuan. This scenario, if it were to occur, would transform the relationship from one of buyer and seller to a comprehensive strategic partnership, making energy the driving force behind the new financial system that China seeks to lead.

Accordingly, the UAE’s withdrawal represents a strategic gain for China in terms of increased supply and potential cost reductions, but maximizing the benefit remains contingent on the stability of shipping lanes in the Arabian Gulf.

ZAYN Malik shared a heartfelt statement with fans after cancelling 22 gigs following his shock hospitalisation.

The former One Direction star revealed he is now back at home and recovering from his mystery illness – but his world tour dates have taken a hit.

The singer has been forced to cancel the entire US leg of his KONNAKOL tour, as well as some UK performances.

In an Instagram story today, he wrote: “To my fans : Thank you so much for all the support and love you’ve shown me on the album release and more importantly, your love, prayers and well wishes for my health.

“I’ve felt it, and it’s meant the world. I’ve been at home recovering and I’m doing well and will be better and stronger than before.

“I’ve had to take another look at my schedule for the months ahead and reduce the number of shows on the KONNAKOL Tour.

STEPPING BACK

Zayn Malik cancels two UK gigs after hospitalisation and Louis punch-up

TAKING SIDES

Niall Horan throws support behind Louis after it’s revealed Zayn punched him

“I want to make sure I still get out and see as many of you as I possibly can. I’m really looking forward to playing these shows for you, and I hope to see the rest of you around the world very soon.”

The cause of Zayn’s hospitalisation is not yet known, but in a previous statement, he thanked his cardiologist, which suggests it could be to do with his heart and or blood vessels.

Alongside a photo of him in a hospital bed, he wrote: “To my fans – thank you to all of you for your love and support now and always.

“[It’s] been a long week and am still unexpectedly recovering. Heartbroken that I can’t see you all this week, I wouldn’t be in the place I am today without you guys and am so thankful for your understanding.

“Thank you to the incredible hospital staff or Drs, nurses, cardiologists, management, admin, and everyone who has helped along the way and continue to. You are all legends! Big big love xxx z.”

The health scare came amid the revelation from The Sun that Zayn had punched his close pal and former band member Louis Tomlinson as they found themselves in a vicious row whilst filming for their new Netflix documentary.

Louis and Zayn were joining forces to film a three-part road trip docuseries for the streaming service, which has since been axed.

Sources told The Sun their astonishing on-set row was triggered by a remark from Zayn about Louis’ mum Johannah Deakin, who died of leukaemia in 2016.

The Sun understands Louis and Zayn have not spoken since the incident six months ago.

The UNIFIL has faced a growing number of casualties as Israel continues air raids despite a ceasefire and Hezbollah has responded with rockets and drones.

China’s ambassador to the United Nations, Fu Cong, has said there is a need to re-examine the UN Security Council’s decision to terminate the mandate of the longstanding peacekeeping mission in Lebanon, which is due to end later this year.

Speaking to reporters on Friday at the UN headquarters in New York, Ambassador Fu expressed China’s deep concern about the situation in Lebanon as Beijing assumed the council’s rotating presidency for May.

He observed that a genuine ceasefire did not exist in Lebanon, describing the current state of conflict as merely a “lesser fire”.

“We do believe that we should revisit the decision, actually, to withdraw the UNIFIL,” Fu said, using the acronym for the UN Interim Force in Lebanon.

“I think at least the view of the overwhelming majority of the Security Council is that this is not the time to really, to withdraw the UNIFIL out of that part of the country,” Fu said.

China is waiting for a report from the UN secretariat, expected in June, “before we take our position”, he added.

Fu also said, “It is incumbent on Israel to stop this bombardment of Lebanon.”

Created to oversee the withdrawal of Israeli troops after the 1978 invasion, UNIFIL saw its mandate expanded after the 2006 war between Israel and the Lebanese group Hezbollah and was responsible for a demilitarised buffer between the opposing sides.

However, the UNSC unanimously resolved last year to begin withdrawing the UNIFIL mission’s 10,800 international peacekeepers by December 2026.

According to Lebanese authorities, Israeli attacks on Lebanon since March 2 have killed 2,618 people and forced more than one million to flee their homes.

The UNIFIL mission has also faced a growing number of casualties. According to UN officials, at least six peacekeepers have been killed and many others injured since Israel began its attack on March 2.

The deaths include soldiers from various contributing nations, including Indonesia and France, who have been caught in shelling incidents and roadside attacks.

UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres has condemned these incidents, noting that the UN’s “blue helmets” have come under fire while performing essential duties, such as clearing explosive ordnance and escorting logistics convoys.