adding

WASHINGTON — Construction started this week on the $250 million ballroom that President Trump is adding to the White House as construction crews began tearing down the facade of the East Wing, where the new space is being built.

The Republican president and top White House officials had initially said nothing would be demolished during construction.

The 90,000-square-foot ballroom will dwarf the main White House itself, at nearly double the size, and Trump says it will accommodate 999 people.

Trump said on social media that the ballroom won’t cost taxpayers a dime because it is being privately funded by “many generous Patriots, Great American Companies, and, yours truly.”

Here are some things to know about the newest White House construction project:

Why is Trump building a ballroom?

Trump says the White House needs a large entertaining space and has complained that the East Room, the current largest space in the White House, is too small, holding about 200 people. He has frowned on the past practice of presidents hosting state dinners and other large events in tents on the South Lawn.

Who is paying the $250 million construction tab?

Trump says the project will be paid for with private donations and that no public money will be spent on the ballroom. The White House promised to release information on which individuals and corporations have pledged or donated money and invited some of the donors to an East Room dinner last week, but has not released a comprehensive list and breakdown of funds.

Some $22 million for the project came from YouTube, a Google subsidiary, as part of a recent settlement for a 2021 lawsuit Trump brought against the company.

The White House also has not said how much of his own money Trump is contributing.

Why tear down part of the East Wing to build the ballroom?

The East Wing is traditionally the social side of the White House and sits across East Executive Avenue from the Treasury Department. It’s where tourists and other guests enter for events.

The president and his chief spokesperson, Karoline Leavitt, said over the summer that the White House itself would remain intact as the ballroom was going up.

“It’ll be near it but not touching it,” Trump said. “Nothing will be torn down,” Leavitt added.

That turned out not to be the case.

The White House said some demolition was needed because the East Wing, the traditional home for the first lady and her staff, is being modernized as part of the ballroom project.

Can Trump build a ballroom?

He’s moving ahead with construction despite the lack of sign-off from the National Capital Planning Commission, the executive branch agency that has jurisdiction over construction and major renovations to government buildings in the region.

Trump named a top White House aide, Will Scharf, to head the commission. Scharf has made a distinction between demolition work and rebuilding, saying the commission was only required to vet the latter.

What happens to the East Room?

By Trump’s telling, it will become a space where guests will mingle, sip cocktails and eat hors d’oeuvres until they are called into the ballroom for dinner. Trump said a set of windows in the room will be removed to create a passageway to and from the ballroom.

What will the new ballroom look like?

Renderings released by the White House suggest a strong resemblance to the gilded ballroom at Mar-a-Lago, Trump’s private club and home in Palm Beach, Florida.

The project also has grown in size since it was announced, going from accommodating 650 seated guests to holding 999 people, big enough to fit an inauguration if needed, he said at a recent White House dinner for donors. Windows will be bulletproof, he said.

When will the ballroom be completed?

The White House has said the ballroom will be ready for use before Trump’s second term ends in January 2029, an ambitious timeline.

Has Trump made other changes to the White House?

Yes. He has heavily redecorated the Oval Office by adding numerous portraits, busts and gold-toned adornments. He converted the Rose Garden into a stone-covered patio, installed towering flagpoles on the north and south lawns, and decorated an exterior wall with portraits of every president except his immediate predecessor, Democrat Joe Biden.

Trump also said he renovated the bathroom in the famous Lincoln Bedroom in the private living quarters and laid down marble floors in a passageway leading to the South Lawn.

How has construction changed the White House over the years?

Presidents have added to the White House since construction began in 1792 for a host of reasons, and Trump aides say his decision to build a ballroom follows that long tradition.

Many of the prior projects were criticized as being too costly or too lavish, but eventually came to be accepted, according to the White House Historical Association.

Thomas Jefferson added the east and west colonnades.

Andrew Jackson built the North Portico on the Pennsylvania Avenue side of the White House, aligning with the South Portico that James Monroe added after the original mansion was rebuilt after the British burned it during the War of 1812.

Theodore Roosevelt added the West Wing to provide dedicated space for the president and key staff, while Franklin D. Roosevelt added the East Wing, which over time became the home base for the first lady’s staff and social functions.

One of the most significant White House renovations happened under Harry Truman, when the mansion was found to be so structurally unsound that he ordered a complete gutting of the interior that lasted from 1948 to 1952. The project, including Truman’s addition of a balcony to the second floor of the South Portico, was highly controversial.

Other changes include the creation of the Rose Garden during John F. Kennedy’s administration and Richard Nixon’s decision to convert an indoor swimming pool that was built for FDR’s physical therapy into a workspace for the growing White House press corps.

Superville writes for the Associated Press.

Thirty years ago, the coming-of-age romantic comedy “Clueless” opened in movie theaters and went on to become an enduring American pop culture touchstone.

“I’m thrilled that people love it and continue to love it,” the movie’s star, Alicia Silverstone, said in a recent conversation in New York. “Young people. Old people. It’s really gone on and on, and obviously that’s lovely.”

AMC Networks is counting on Silverstone’s multigenerational appeal to help boost the New York-based media company’s streaming service Acorn TV, which specializes in British dramas and other programs from overseas.

Silverstone is the lead in the new Acorn original series “Irish Blood,” which premiered Monday. She plays hard-bitten Los Angeles divorce lawyer Fiona Sharpe, who heads to Ireland to resolve a mystery involving the father who abandoned her as a child.

AMC has also signed the imperishable Brooke Shields to star in another Acorn project titled “You’re Killing Me.” She portrays a mystery novelist who teams with a young wannabe writer and influencer to investigate murders in a small New England town. The series starts shooting this summer and is set to premiere in 2026.

Why put two iconic American actors on a streaming platform with a well-defined niche of providing viewers with international locations and accents that at times require closed-captioning even when the language is English?

Even the small players in streaming have to get bigger.

AMC does not have the deep pockets to compete with the likes of Netflix, Prime Video and Disney+. The company has blazed its own digital path by serving dedicated audiences who will pay for an additional streaming service that caters to their passions, such as Shudder for horror fans and HIDIVE for anime lovers.

The company’s suite of streaming services has around 10.4 million customers. Even with that modest figure, AMC Networks’ streaming revenue has steadily grown to the point where it will soon surpass what the company earns from its traditional TV channels such as AMC, BBC America, Sundance TV and WE, which continue to see subscriber declines because of cord-cutting.

AMC has found that the strong fan bases for its niche services are willing to absorb price increases and are less likely to cancel. The company has managed to keep its streaming platforms priced at less than $10 a month.

Brooke Shields is set to star next year in “You’re Killing Me,” a new small-town mystery from Acorn TV.

(Evelyn Freja / For The Times)

Now AMC Networks is looking to accelerate its subscriber growth and Acorn — the most popular and profitable of its standalone offerings — is seen as the platform best suited to the task.

“It’s a service we really believe in,” Courtney Thomasma, executive vice president for streaming and content strategy at AMC Networks, told The Times in a recent interview. “Over the last year, we’ve been really focused on looking for ways to continue to raise awareness of the brand and invite new viewers in who we know would also love it. We’re doing that with a focus on investing in the brand and inviting bigger talent that’s more familiar to North American audiences.”

Many fans of Acorn — which started out as a direct marketer of British TV series on home video and was acquired by AMC in 2018 — are what Thomasma calls “armchair travelers” who want to take in a French vineyard or the cobblestone streets of Chelsea. But AMC believes aligning Acorn more closely to the mystery genre will widen its appeal.

A monthlong promotional campaign under the banner of Murder Mystery May — which featured a number of season premieres — drove Acorn TV subscription sign-ups to a four-year high. The 20 million hours watched during the month was the best ever for the service, according to AMC.

The emphasis on mystery provides Acorn the latitude to cast Silverstone and Shields. One way AMC attracts star talent is the opportunity to put their own creative stamp on their programs. “They become as invested in the success of the projects as we are,” Thomasma said.

Silverstone came on to “Irish Blood” as executive producer and became involved in the development of the series. She was involved in the hiring of key positions in the production and worked with the writers. She’s happy with the result.

“I thought it was quirky and also an emotionally deep drama,” Silverstone said. “There’s a lot for me to do.”

Shields and writer Robin Bernheim pitched the generation gap tandem at the center of “You’re Killing Me” to AMC, and the actor remains deeply involved in the process as shooting begins. “This is the first time I’ve ever had this much creative control as an executive producer,” Shields said in an interview. “I feel lucky that they entrusted me to do what we’re doing.”

Silverstone, left, with Ruth Codd in “Irish Blood.”

(Szymon Lazewski / Acorn TV)

Acorn teams with production partners around the world and generates revenue from selling some of its series for second runs on international broadcasters and PBS. AMC spends in the range of $1 million per episode for its cost-efficient series, which are heavy on dialogue and largely car-chase free. The audience is older — they are avid readers who are likely to subscribe to newspapers, watch cable news and PBS, and enjoy solving puzzles.

And though Acorn is hoping to attract more younger subscribers, the service won’t be losing its British accent.

Acorn recently launched “Art Detectives” with Stephen Moyer, who also is an executive producer. The series, about a Heritage Crime Unit that solves murders connected to art and antiques, had the strongest premiere in the streamer’s history.

Later this year, it will offer a new six-episode series starring Matthew Lewis, known for his Neville Longbottom role in the Harry Potter films. Based on the series of Canon Clements mystery novels by the Rev. Richard Coles, “Murder Before Evensong” is a co-production with British broadcaster Channel 5.

“We pride ourselves on being a boutique neighborhood store, the kind that you walk in, you know the owner [and] the owner knows you,” Thomasma said. “We have deep connection to our audience.”

The Trump administration is forging ahead with a plan that is sure to fuel alarm across California’s immigrant communities: handing over the personal data of millions of Medicaid recipients to federal immigration officials who seek to track down people living in the U.S. illegally.

The huge trove of private information, which includes home addresses, social security numbers and ethnicities of 79 million Medicaid enrollees, will allow officials with Immigration and Customs Enforcement greater latitude to locate immigrants they suspect are undocumented, according to an agreement signed this week between the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and the Department of Homeland Security and obtained by the Associated Press.

“ICE will use the CMS data to allow ICE to receive identity and location information on aliens identified by ICE,” the agreement says.

The plan, which has not been announced publicly, is the latest step by the Trump administration to gather sensitive information about people living in the U.S. as it seeks to deliver on its pledge to crack down on illegal immigration and arrest 3,000 undocumented immigrants a day. It is certain to face legal challenges.

Critics have sounded the alarm ever since the Trump administration directed the CMS last month to send the DHS personal information on Medicaid enrollees, including non-U.S. citizens registered in state-funded programs in California, Illinois, Washington and Washington, D.C.

These states operate state-funded Medicaid programs for immigrants who are otherwise ineligible for federal Medicaid and had committed not to bill the federal government.

California Senators Alex Padilla and Adam Schiff warned last month of potential violations of federal privacy laws as Trump officials made plans to share personal health data.

“These actions not only raise ethical issues but are contrary to longstanding HHS policy and raise significant concerns about possible violations of federal law,” the Senators wrote in a letter to U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., DHS Secretary Kristi Noem and CMS Administrator Mehmet Oz.

“We are deeply troubled that this administration intends to use individuals’ private health information for the unrelated purpose of possible enforcement actions targeting lawful noncitizens and mixed status families,” Padilla and Schiff said in a statement. “The decision by HHS to share confidential health information with DHS is a remarkable departure from established federal privacy protections that should alarm all Americans.”

DHS spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin declined to answer questions about whether immigration officials are now accessing the personal Medicaid data or how they plan to use it.

“President Trump consistently promised to protect Medicaid for eligible beneficiaries,” McLaughlin said in a statement. “To keep that promise after Joe Biden flooded our country with tens of millions of illegal aliens CMS and DHS are exploring an initiative to ensure that illegal aliens are not receiving Medicaid benefits that are meant for law-abiding Americans.”

Undocumented immigrants are not permitted to enroll in Medicaid, a joint federal and state program that helps cover medical costs for low-income individuals. The program also limits benefits for other lawfully present immigrants, with some required to undergo waiting periods before they can receive coverage.

However, federal law requires states to offer emergency Medicaid, coverage that pays for lifesaving services in emergency rooms to everyone, including non-U.S. citizens.

A 2024 Congressional Budget Office report found that a total of $27 billion was spent on emergency Medicaid for non-citizens between 2017 and 2023. That number represents less than 1% of overall spending on Medicaid during that time period. Nevertheless, Trump and other federal leaders have pushed to reduce spending on Medicaid, alleging that undocumented immigrants have been taking advantage of the program.

Hannah Katch, a CMS advisor during the Biden administration who previously worked for California Medicaid, told The Times that the Trump administration’s plan to turn over Medicaid data represented “an incredible violation of trust.”

The data that states send to CMS has certain protections and requirements in statute and also by custom, Katch said. For CMS to share the information of Medicaid enrollees outside the agency, she said, would have a devastating impact on people who depend on emergency Medicaid to access critical care.

“Making people afraid to seek care when they are experiencing a medical emergency, or when their child is experiencing a medical emergency, it is an incredibly cruel action to take,” Katch said.

Elizabeth Laird, the director of equity in civic technology at the Center for Democracy & Technology, said the sharing of such data would further erode people’s trust in government.

“By turning over some of our most sensitive healthcare data to ICE, Health and Human Services has fundamentally betrayed the trust of almost 80 million people,” she said in a statement to The Times.

“This jaw-dropping development proves that the Administration’s claim of using this information to prevent fraud is a Trojan horse that instead will primarily advance their goal of deporting millions of people,” she said. “Over 90 percent of entitlement fraud is committed by U.S. citizens, underscoring the false pretense of sharing this information with ICE.”

The plan to share Medicaid data is not the first time the Trump administration has sought to share personal information across departments. In May, the Department of Agriculture told states they had to turn over data on the recipients of SNAP food benefits.

Last month, the California Medical Assn. warned that the Trump administration’s sharing of personal Medicaid data would put nearly 15 million patients and their families at risk statewide.

Dr. René Bravo, CMA’s president elect, said that sending sensitive patient information to deportation officials “will have a devastating impact on communities and access to care that all people need.”

“Our job is not protecting the borders, it’s protecting our patients and providing the best health care possible, “ Bravo said in a statement. “When patients come to us it’s often the most vulnerable times in their lives, and we offer a safe space for their care.”

Orange County’s Office of Immigrant and Refugee Affairs notified the public last month that the CMS had been directed to send DHS personal information of Medicaid enrollees, including non-citizens.

“This data, provided for the purpose of administering healthcare, may now be used to locate individuals for immigration enforcement or to challenge their future immigration applications,” the statement read.

The agency wrote that it had already heard of increased anxiety among clients who are fearful that their personal information could be used against them if they seek health care services.

“We are concerned this will further erode trust in public institutions and care providers,” the agency wrote.

Orange County Supervisor Vicente Sarmiento, who represents a large Latino population that includes Santa Ana and portions of Anaheim, said the families enrolled in Medi-Cal did so with the reasonable expectation their information would be kept private.

He called the action a “cruel breach” that erodes people’s trust in government.

“These actions discourage participation in healthcare and mean that some individuals may not seek needed medical services,” he said in a statement. “This hurts the overall community, creates serious public health concerns, and increases costs for our healthcare system.”

Jose Serrano, director of Orange County’s Office of Immigrant and Refugee Affairs, said certain information about those who sign up for benefits has long been shared with the state, which passes it along to the federal government for research, funding and eligibility purposes.

“The one thing that is different during this time is that the information is being used against people, especially those who are immigrants,” he said.

The situation has already caused anxiety among immigrant populations in Orange County, Serrano said. Some have reached out to the agency asking whether they can un-enroll from programs or change their addresses for fear that they or their families may be targeted by immigration officials.

“The truth is immigrants spend more and invest more in our communities and the economy then they take away,” Serrano said, adding that it’s unfortunate that this medical information is “going to be used against the same families that are already investing in our communities through the taxes they pay on a yearly basis.”

California is a state of contradictions. We lead the nation in environmental regulation, tout our clean energy goals with pride and champion a rapid transition away from fossil fuels. Yet despite this green image, our economy — and daily life — still very much run on oil and gas.

Fossil fuels account for roughly 8% of California’s $3 trillion economy — but that’s the first 8%. “If you don’t get that first 8%,” I tell my students, “You don’t get the rest of our economy.” Oil powers everything from trucks to tractors to construction equipment. Without it, you can’t build roads or bridges or get goods to grocery stores. Without refined petroleum products, you don’t make cement, steel, plastics or even the lithium-ion batteries in electric vehicles.

Despite these realities, California energy policy is leading to the dismantling of the critical infrastructure that supports this essential system. Our state has lost more than 30 refineries in the last few decades. We are now down to just nine major gasoline-producing facilities, and two more are scheduled to close in the coming months, Phillips 66 in Los Angeles and Valero in the Bay Area. Those two plants represent 284,000 barrels of daily production and account for nearly 18% of the state’s total refining capacity.

California sits atop one of the largest untapped reserves in the world, the Monterey Shale. But because of policy and regulation, we import most of our oil — including from Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Brazil, Guyana and Ecuador. California has also imported oil from Russia and Venezuela. Ironically, we have among the world’s cleanest refining standards, but we import fuel from places with lower environmental and labor protections.

All of this is enabled by a supply chain that’s more vulnerable than most realize. We have no major pipelines bringing oil to California. We rely on ships — many from Asia — that take 30 to 40 days to deliver fuel. These foreign tankers pollute at staggering rates. Stunningly, because that pollution happens over international waters, it doesn’t get counted by the California Air Resources Board. Closing a refinery in California and importing more fuel causes a net increase in pollution. And adding to our reliance on foreign oil is risky when global instability is rising.

This isn’t just a self-inflicted energy crisis in the making. It’s also a national security issue.

Military bases in California, Nevada and Arizona depend heavily on in-state refineries for specialized aviation fuel and other petroleum products essential to operations. As refineries shut down, the supply chain narrows, increasing reliance on imports from Asia and elsewhere. These gaps create unacceptable logistical and strategic risks for U.S. military readiness in the western states.

And remember, there are estimated to be hundreds of millions of barrels of accessible oil under our feet. Yet we’ve built an energy model that depends on importing foreign oil and, now, a growing dependency on foreign-supplied gasoline.

This isn’t just unsustainable. It’s also borderline irresponsible.

California’s energy transition is inevitable — but how we get there matters. We can’t pretend fossil fuels are already gone. We still need them for the economy, for mobility, for national security and for the working people who can’t afford a $60,000 electric vehicle or a solar roof.

We have the tools, talent and resources to lead a responsible energy transition, one that leverages our in-state production, balances environmental stewardship with economic pragmatism and protects our most vulnerable communities along the way.

But we have to be honest about where we are. And right now, fossil fuels still power the Golden State.

Especially because of coming refinery rules and a new tax taking effect in July, Californians are set to pay the highest gas prices in the nation. Our prices are inflated by a web of taxes, fees and boutique regulations that has grown thicker and more expensive over time. Even if oil dropped to $0 per barrel and refining were free, Californians would still be paying about $1.82 a gallon at the pump — $1.64 of that from state taxes and fees, plus 18 cents in federal gas tax.

According to CalTrans, Californians drive about 1,200 miles a month. If you’re a working-class Californian and gas goes up 50 cents per gallon, that adds about $500 in annual fuel costs. And because you pay for that with after-tax dollars, you’d need to earn at least an extra $750 just to cover it.

That matters to a construction worker commuting 60 miles a day in a pickup truck. It matters to a single mom cleaning homes across the city or a physical therapist driving to house calls. Most of these people can’t easily trade in their vehicles for Teslas and dodge gasoline hikes. Consumer analysis as noted in CalMatters indicates that the majority of EVs are bought by higher-income Californians living in areas such as Atherton, Palo Alto, Sunnyvale and Mountain View.

The people hit hardest by rising gasoline prices are the ones least able to afford alternatives. For most Californians, there is no viable mass transit available. People are just stuck spending more and more of their income on the gas-powered vehicles their lives depend on. Our state’s policies punish people for not being able to adapt quickly enough to a green future that’s not yet built. It’s a regressive tax masquerading as environmental action.

Until California realistically bridges the gap between aspirational climate goals and equitable policy execution, the state’s lofty environmental vision will continue to rest uneasily on the shoulders of its most vulnerable.

The new state excise tax adding about 2 cents a gallon went into effect July 1, and CARB is pushing for a new low-carbon fuel standard that could add and potentially major costs to the prices of gasoline and diesel fuel. No one knows exactly how much — not even the board proposing the rules.

At a recent Assembly oversight hearing, CARB officials were asked if they analyzed their regulations for consumer impacts. Their answer: We don’t calculate that. The room went silent. It was a stunning admission — regulators pushing policy without running the math.

No wonder we’re seeing an exodus of working families. By layering new and unclear costs on top of an already overstretched system, CARB and other regulators are creating what could become a self-inflicted economic shock.

And for what? Not environmental progress. California will be forced to source more and more fuel from overseas — at greater environmental and economic cost. By relying on polluting sources and carbon-intensive shipping, we’ve simply outsourced our emissions to other countries. California is not reducing emissions. We are exporting them.

If this sounds reckless, it is. But more than that, it’s unjust.

These policies are not burdening the wealthy. They’re crushing the working class. They’re forcing families to choose between gas and groceries, between job access and housing stability. They’re also outsourcing jobs overseas.

And they’re being implemented by unelected bureaucrats who, by their own admission in testimony before California lawmakers, haven’t calculated the real-world impact.

The people of California deserve better than this. They deserve honesty, transparency and policy grounded in economic realism, not ideological fantasy and environmental dogma. If recent and coming changes become a tipping point, it won’t be because of some unpredictable global event. It will be because we chose not to look before we leaped.

The path forward demands a pause, a recalibration and a return to common sense. Otherwise, this summer could mark not just another price hike — but the day we began losing control of our energy future.

Michael A. Mische is an associate professor at USC’s Marshall School of Business. A former KPMG principal, he is the author of eight books on business and strategy.

Published on 18/06/2025 – 18:37 GMT+2•Updated
18:43

ADVERTISEMENT

The conflict in the Middle East will further worsen the global economic outlook, already strained by ongoing trade disputes, the managing director of the International Monetary Fund (FMI) has told Euronews in an interview.

“Being hit by a trade war has consequences. We have projected a decline in global growth by half a percentage point,” Kristalina Georgieva said, adding: “What we witness now is more turbulence in the Middle East, which adds to uncertainty and therefore is bad for business.”

Since Donald Trump’s return to power as leader of the world’s largest economy, international trade has been disrupted by a wave of tariffs imposed by the US administration on its global partners.

Mexico and Canada were the initial targets, followed by a prolonged standoff between the US and China, which saw reciprocal tariffs between the pair soar to more than 100%.

On 2 April— a day he dubbed “Liberation Day”—Trump imposed tariffs on a wide range of countries, including the EU. He then declared a 90-day truce, set to expire on 9 July.

Negotiations are currently underway with the EU, which currently faces tariffs of 50% on steel and aluminum, 25% on cars, and 10% on all its exports to the US.

However, the director of the IMF, which is responsible for financial stability across the world and facilitate global trade, admitted that “the global economy has proven to be remarkably resilient to shocks, and that resilience continues.”

In her view, economic uncertainty is becoming the new normal.

“We live in a more shock-prone world, a world of higher uncertainty,” Georgieva said, adding: “For this world, countries need to work hard to be more resilient. Do reforms at home that would make your economies stronger.”

Georgieva, a former vice-president of the European Commission, also expressed optimism with the economic outlook despite the bleak growth figures.

She considered that the recent trade agreement between China and the US and the deal Trump has brokered with the UK to be good signs, saying: “We are in a better place.”

In an uncertain context, she also sees opportunities to be seized—an outlook shared by the European Commission, which is pursuing a strategy of diversifying its trading partners by expanding the number of trade agreements worldwide.

“In Europe, we see an increase in bilateral and plurilateral agreements, which I expect to be a big feature of the future of trade globally,” she told Euronews, adding that it is a great moment for Europe, “a defender of rules-based” global trade exchanges.

The movie wowed audiences and critics alike upon release

An acclaimed Western flick, featuring the likes of Benedict Cumberbatch and Kirsten Dunst, is set to hit screens later this month, reports Surrey Live.

The film, which first graced cinemas in 2021, has garnered top-notch reviews from both critics and cinema-goers alike.

One glowing critique on Rotten Tomatoes stated: “A deeply symbolic movie presented through the genre of a Western.”

Another viewer enthused: “This movie may be hard to watch at times but it is worth it.”

They added: “Great atmosphere, an incredibly compelling story, amazing acting and characters that are genuinely interesting and multidimensional.”

Meanwhile, another fan described the film as: “The Power of the Dog is a slow-burning masterpiece of tension and repression.”

They continued: “Benedict Cumberbatch delivers a career-best performance as the menacing yet vulnerable rancher Phil Burbank, while Kirsten Dunst and Kodi Smit-McPhee shine in this haunting psychological drama.

“Director Jane Campion crafts a visually stunning, emotionally devastating film that lingers long after the credits roll.”

BBC iPlayer will be adding The Power of the Dog to its roster at the end of the month, available for viewers at no extra cost.

Based on Thomas Savage’s 1967 novel, the film promises to be a riveting experience.

The plot of The Power of the Dog delves into the tense dynamics between rugged rancher Phil Burbank (Cumberbatch), his sister-in-law Rose Gordon (Dunst), and her son Peter Gordon (Kodi Smit-McPhee).

Set in the 1920s on a Montana ranch, the film follows Rose’s spiral into alcoholism after being humiliated by her brother-in-law Phil.

Phil had previously accused Rose of marrying his brother George Burbank (Plemons) for financial gain, adding fuel to the fire.

Viewers are given a glimpse into Phil’s past as he forms a connection with Peter, who returns from medical school for the holidays.

Despite having previously ridiculed Peter, it seems the two manage to overcome their differences.

The Power of the Dog is a blend of Western family drama and psychological thriller.

Other members of the cast include Thomasin McKenzie known for The Hobbit, Keith Carradine from Dexter and Madam Secretary, Frances Conroy from Six Feet Under, Peter Carroll from Sleeping Beauty and Alice Englert from Beautiful Creatures and Ginger and Rosa.

The Power of the Dog will be streaming on BBC iPlayer from May 30