In James Gunn’s “Superman,” the titular superhero is devastated when he learns that his birth parents sent him to Earth to subjugate humanity.
In theaters now, the film is set a few years into Superman’s caped career. The Kryptonian — who grew up as Clark Kent on a farm in Smallville, Kan. — always believed a message left to him by these birth parents was an encouragement to use his powers to be a protector and hero. He is more than shaken to learn that was never the case.
It’s Clark’s human father, Jonathan, who points out that the message’s intent doesn’t really matter.
“Your choices [and] your actions, that’s what makes you who you are,” he says to his son.
Being an alien refugee might be why Superman has his superpowers, but it’s who he is as a person that makes him a superhero. And although it is mostly left unsaid, Clark’s kindness and values come from how he was raised — by loving parents in America’s heartland.
Despite “Superman” being as all-American as ever, the movie has become the most recent front in America’s never-ending culture war because of comments made by Gunn acknowledging the character is an immigrant.
But Superman is more a story about the triumph of assimilation and opportunity. As the new movie also shows, Superman would not be Superman if he was not raised by Martha and Jonathan Kent on a farm in Kansas. And as much as Superman is undeniably an immigrant, it’s hard to deny in the current political climate that he also resembles the type of immigrants who have traditionally been more embraced in this country.
Since early last month, the Trump administration has aggressively targeted Latino communities across California. Immigration raids have seemingly indiscriminately taken people from their workplace, on their way to court and even in parking lots. Federal officials have pushed back on claims that these operations have targeted people “because of their skin color.” According to federal authorities, more than 2,700 undocumented immigrants have been arrested in L.A. since early June.
This is not the first time the U.S. government has targeted specific communities of color because of their ancestry. During World War II, 120,000 people of Japanese descent were incarcerated in wartime camps regardless of their citizenship.
Gunn, however, has long maintained that his “Superman” is “a movie about kindness [and] being good.”
The filmmaker, who has been outspoken in his criticism of President Trump, told the London Times that “Superman is the story of America. … An immigrant that came from other places and populated the country.” He reiterated that the movie is about “human kindness.”
The backlash was swift, with familiar right-wing commentators and personalities criticizing the film for allegedly being “superwoke” before it was released. Even former Superman actor Dean Cain has spoken out against Gunn’s comments and the perceived politicization of the character’s story.
In response, comic book fans, including Democratic politicians, have pointed out that Superman — an alien born on the planet Krypton, sent to Earth to escape his planet’s destruction — has always been an immigrant.
“The Superman story is an immigration story of an outsider who tries to always do the most good,” Rep. Robert Garcia (D-Long Beach) posted Wednesday on X. “His arch nemesis is a billionaire. You don’t get to change who he is because you don’t like his story. Comics are political.”
“Superman was an undocumented immigrant,” Gov. Gavin Newsom’s press office wrote Thursday on X in response to an image of Trump as Superman posted by the White House.
Others on social media have circulated clips from past Superman media, including from Cain’s show “Lois & Clark,” where the character’s immigration status is addressed.
Despite the accusation and backlash, Superman has never been as “woke” as the current debate makes him seem.
Created by Joe Shuster and Jerry Siegel, both children of Jewish immigrants, Superman’s first official appearance was in the first issue of “Action Comics” in the 1930s. With his iconic red and blue caped costume, the character is known as much for his godlike superpowers as he is for being the ultimate good guy with all-American looks and charm.
His adventures have spanned comics, radio, television and film. Besides evil billionaires, Superman has taken on superpowered supervillains, alien invaders and even his clones, as well as human threats like Nazis and the Ku Klux Klan. Yes, some Superman stories are more political than others.
But Superman has never been radical in his politics. As a Kryptonian raised on Earth by human parents, the character has been shown in stories where he struggles with his own sense of otherness and belonging because he straddles two worlds. But other than rare outliers, his story has never delved deeply into how immigrants or those perceived as other are treated in the U.S. (For that, consider checking out some “X-Men.”)
That’s because Clark Kent’s immigration status or Americanness will never be questioned because of his appearance. That itself could be subversive, but that’s a debate for a different “Superman” movie.
Former “Love Island USA” contestant Cierra Ortega has spoken out after her abrupt departure from the villa on Sunday following the resurfacing of posts containing a racial slur.
Ortega, who left just one week from the finale of the hit Peacock show’s seventh season, addressed the incident on Wednesday.
“Now that I’ve been back in the U.S. for about 48 hours and I’ve had the chance to process,” she said in a video posted on Instagram, “I now feel like I’m at a space where I can speak about this without being highly emotional because I am not the victim in this situation.”
“Love Island” commentator Iain Stirling broke the news during Sunday’s episode, stating that the 25-year-old Angeleno had left the show to deal with a “personal issue” that arose. Though it was not explicitly stated why Ortega had left, she had recently faced backlash over social media posts that resurfaced containing a racial slur against Asian people.
She used the slur in 2020 on TikTok and in 2023 on Instagram to describe her own appearance.
Ortega initially remained silent on the issue, with her parents taking to addressing the controversy themselves. In a statement Sunday on Ortega’s Instagram story, they said the backlash had resulted in “one of the most painful weeks of our lives.”
“We’ve seen the posts, the headlines, the hurt and the hate,” they wrote, adding that their daughter had been subject to threats and “cruel messages.”
“It’s uncalled for. And no one deserves that kind of hate, no matter what mistake they’ve made,” they continued.
Ortega chose to address the situation via an “accountability video” in addition to a written statement.
“While I was in the villa, there were some posts that resurfaced from my past where I was very naively using an incredibly offensive and derogatory term. And before I get into the details, I want to first start by addressing not just anyone that I have hurt or deeply offended, but most importantly, the entire Asian community. I am deeply, truly, honestly, so sorry,” she said.
“I had no ill intention when I was using it, but that’s absolutely no excuse because intent doesn’t excuse ignorance … this is not an apology video. This is an accountability video.”
She continued by insisting that the “lesson was learned” and, in an additional post made to her Instagram story, said c she was “genuinely ashamed” of her actions.
“Once again, to the Asian community, I am deeply sorry for my thoughtless mistake and the harm it caused,” she added.
Just a month prior to Ortega’s departure, another contestant faced a similar debacle. Yulissa Escobar left the villa by the season’s second episode due to her use of racial slurs against Black people during a podcast conversation
In response, Escobar also took to Instagram on June 6 to make an apology: “I want to apologize for using a word I had no right in using. … The truth is, I didn’t know better then, but I do now.”
This season of “Love Island USA” has lost yet another contestant after their past use of a racial slur resurfaced online: Cierra Ortega left the villa and will not return.
“Love Island USA” narrator Iain Stirling announced during the Sunday episode that Ortega, 25, had departed the hit dating competition series to deal with “a personal situation.” Though he did not provide additional details about her exit, Ortega recently landed in hot water for her repeated use of a slur for Chinese people — and often Asian people in general — after social media posts resurfaced online.
In an Instagram story from 2023 that made the rounds on Reddit and X, Ortega used the slur as she explained her Botox procedures, writing, “I love getting a mini brow lift to open up my eyes and get that snatched look.”
Another post that raised flags among critics was a 2020 TikTok video where Ortega uses a version of the slur to describe her smile in an Instagram caption. “Love Island USA” streamer Peacock and parent company NBCUniversal did not comment to The Times about the terms of Ortega’s exit, but the reality star’s parents spoke out online about “one of the most painful weeks of our lives.”
In a lengthy statement shared to Ortega’s Instagram story Sunday evening, her parents wrote, “We’ve seen the posts, the headlines, the hurt and the hate.” While acknowledging the outcry and upset around the resurfaced posts, Ortega’s parents alleged that their daughter has also been subject to online hate including threats and “cruel messages.” Ortega’s family, friends and supporters have been caught in the crossfire, they wrote: “it’s heartbreaking.”
The statement added: “It’s uncalled for. And no one deserves that kind of hate, no matter what mistake they’ve made.”
The missive also confirmed that “Cierra is not in the villa” and had yet to “process any of this or speak for herself.” Confident that Ortega will “face this with honesty, growth and grace,” her parents wrote that the reality TV personality will take accountability on her own terms.
Ortega left “Love Island” a month after contestant Yulissa Escobar faced similar backlash. Escobar was out by the season’s second episode amid social media outcry over her use of a slur for Black people. Video posted on Reddit and TMZ showed Escobar using the slur during a podcast conversation. Escobar apologized for using the slur, writing in a statement that she “used it ignorantly, not fully understanding the weight, history, or pain behind it.”
Until Ortega breaks her silence on the controversy, her parents said they have a request for supporters and critics alike: “We’re simply asking for compassion. For patience. For basic human decency.”
The “Love Island USA” Season 7 finale will air Sunday on Peacock.
Critics blasted Paramount Global’s decision to pay $16 million to settle President Trump’s lawsuit over “60 Minutes” edits, calling the move a “spineless capitulation” that erodes U.S. press freedoms.
Paramount late Tuesday agreed to a landmark settlement with Trump to end his $20-billion broadside against CBS News. The president will not be paid directly, or indirectly, as part of the deal, Paramount said. Instead, the money will go to cover Trump’s legal fees and help finance his future presidential library.
Paramount’s leaders hope the settlement will help clear a path for Trump-appointed regulators to bless the company’s $8-billion sale to David Ellison’s Skydance Media. They wanted to tamp down tensions with the president.
But journalists and others on Wednesday said the payoff will embolden attacks by Trump and his allies on news outlets. Some called the settlement a stain on the proud legacy of CBS News, the one-time home of such fearless journalists as Edward R. Murrow, Walter Cronkite and Mike Wallace.
“This is a shameful decision by Paramount,” Clayton Weimers, executive director of Reporters Without Borders USA, said in a statement. “Shari Redstone and Paramount’s board should have stood by CBS journalists and the integrity of press freedom. Instead, they chose to reward Donald Trump for his petty legal assault.”
Trump’s legal team quickly celebrated the settlement, saying: “President Donald J. Trump delivers another win for the American people as he, once again, holds the Fake News media accountable for their wrongdoing and deceit.”
Bob Corn-Revere, chief counsel for the non-profit 1st Amendment advocacy organization Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, took an opposing view, saying wider repercussions would result.
“A cold wind just blew through every newsroom,” Corn-Revere said in a statement. “Paramount may have closed this case, but it opened the door to the idea that the government should be the media’s editor-in-chief.”
Federal Communications Commissioner Anna M. Gomez, the lone Democrat on the panel, said the settlement was “a desperate move [by Paramount] to appease the Administration and secure regulatory approval of a major transaction currently pending before the FCC.”
“This moment marks a dangerous precedent for the 1st Amendment, and it should alarm anyone who values a free and independent press,” Gomez said.
Journalists were horrified by the board’s willingness to settle the case rather than defend 1st Amendment freedoms.
CBS News staffers feared the company would be forced to apologize when they said they did nothing wrong. (The settlement, negotiated through a mediator, did not require an apology.)
The legal wrangling began in October when CBS broadcast different portions of an answer given by then-Vice President Kamala Harris to a question about the Biden administration’s waning clout with Israel’s prime minister.
CBS’ “Face the Nation” program ran a clip of Harris giving a muddled response to the question. A day later, “60 Minutes” aired a different portion of her answer. This one was forceful and succinct.
CBS has acknowledged editing Harris’ answer.
Trump and fellow conservatives seized on the edits, claiming CBS had manipulated Harris’ answer to make her appear more authoritative to enhance her standing with voters. He called the edits an example of election interference.
Trump and fellow conservatives seized on CBS’ edits to Harris’ answer, calling them an example of election interference.
(Kevin Dietsch / Getty Images)
CBS has long denied such claims.
Paramount Co-Chief Executive George Cheeks said during the company’s shareholder meeting Wednesday that settlements are designed for companies to avoid “being mired in uncertainty and distraction.”
“Companies often settle litigation to avoid the high and somewhat unpredictable costs of legal defense, the risk of an adverse judgment that could result in significant financial or reputational damage, and the disruption to business operations that prolonged legal battles can cause,” Cheeks said.
That rationale did little to mollify detractors who alleged that Trump’s complaints were thin.
Vice President Kamala Harris talks to “60 Minutes” correspondent Bill Whitaker.
(CBS News)
Paramount’s settlement “will be remembered as one of the most shameful capitulations by the press to a president in history,” said Seth Stern, director of advocacy for the Freedom of the Press Foundation.
Paramount said the agreement with Trump included a release from threatened defamation claims.
But it’s not clear that Paramount’s headaches will go away.
“This could be bribery in plain sight,” Warren said in a statement Wednesday. “I’m calling for a full investigation into whether or not any anti-bribery laws were broken.”
“When Democrats retake power, I’ll be first in line calling for federal charges,” Wyden separately wrote in a post on the Bluesky social media site. “In the meantime, state prosecutors should make the corporate execs who sold out our democracy answer in court.”
Some journalists said they feared the settlement could have a chilling effect, particularly among news organizations that lack deep pockets or have unrelated business pending before the federal government.
“CBS News may weather the financial hit, but smaller newsrooms facing similar legal threats could be pushed to the brink,” Tim Richardson, journalism and disinformation program director at the nonprofit PEN America, said in a statement.
“The danger is clear,” Richardson said, calling the settlement a “spineless capitulation.”
“Emboldened politicians and powerful actors will feel more free than ever to weaponize lawsuits and bring regulatory pressure to bear to silence and censor independent journalism.”
For years, Muslim New Yorkers have gathered at Washington Square Park on the Eid holidays for prayer services, putting the city’s religious and ethnic diversity on display.
But this year, right-wing influencers have been sharing footage of the gatherings, presenting them as a nefarious “invasion” tied to Muslim American New York City mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani.
“The fear-mongering is insane,” said Asad Dandia, a local historian and Muslim American activist who supports Mamdani’s campaign. “I think the community and our leadership know that we’re on the radar now.”
Muslim Americans in New York and across the United States said the country is seeing a spike in Islamophobic rhetoric in response to Mamdani’s victory in the Democratic primaries.
Advocates said the wave of hateful comments shows that Islamophobia remains a tolerated form of bigotry in the US despite appearing to have receded in recent years.
“The more things change, the more they stay the same,” Dandia said.
‘Islam is not a religion’
It is not just anonymous internet users and online anti-Muslim figures attacking Mamdani and his identity. A flood of politicians, including some in the orbit of President Donald Trump, have joined in.
Congressman Randy Fine went as far as to suggest without evidence that Mamdani will install a “caliphate” in New York City if elected while Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene posted a cartoon of the Statue of Liberty in a burqa on X.
Former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn attacked the mayoral candidate, arguing that Islam is a political ideology and “not a religion”.
Others, like conservative activist Charlie Kirk invoked the 9/11 attacks and called Mamdani a “Muslim Maoist” while right-wing commentator Angie Wong told CNN that people in New York are “concerned about their safety, living here with a Muslim mayor”.
Far-right activist Laura Loomer, a Trump confidant, referred to the mayoral candidate as a “jihadist Muslim”, baselessly alleging that he has ties to both Iran and the Muslim Brotherhood.
And Republican Representative Andy Ogles sent a letter to the Department of Justice, calling for Mamdani’s citizenship to be revoked and for him to be deported.
On Sunday, Congressman Brandon Gill posted a video of Mamdani eating biryani with his hand and called on him “to go back to the Third World”, saying that “civilized people” in the US “don’t eat like this”.
Zohran Mamdani gestures as he speaks during a watch party for his primary election, which includes his bid to become the Democratic candidate for New York City mayor in the upcoming November 2025 election, in New York City, US, June 25, 2025. [David ‘Dee’ Delgado/Reuters]
Calls for condemnation
“I’m getting flashbacks from after 9/11,” New York City Council member Shahana Hanif said. “I was a kid then, and still the bigotry and Islamophobia were horrifying as a child.”
Hanif, who represents a district in Brooklyn, comfortably won re-election last week in a race that focused on her advocacy for Palestinian rights and calls for a ceasefire in Gaza.
She told Al Jazeera that the anti-Muslim rhetoric in response to Mamdani’s win aims to distract and derail the progressive energy that defeated the establishment to secure the Democratic nomination for him.
Hanif said Islamophobic comments should be condemned across the political spectrum, stressing that there is “so much more work to do” to undo racism in the US.
While several Democrats have denounced the campaign against Mamdani, leading figures in the party – including many in New York – have not released formal statements on the issue.
“We should all be disgusted by the flood of anti-Muslim remarks spewed in the aftermath of Zohran Mamdani’s victory in the NYC mayoral primary – some blatant, others latent,” US Senator Chris Van Hollen said in a statement.
“Shame on the members of Congress who have engaged in such bigotry and anyone who doesn’t challenge it.”
Our joint statement on the vile, anti-Muslim, racist attacks on Zohran Mamdani: pic.twitter.com/QRGOvh0jdG
— Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib (@RepRashida) June 27, 2025
Trump and Muslim voters
At the same time, Democratic Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, who represents New York, has been accused of fuelling bigotry against Mamdani. Last week, she falsely accused Mamdani of making “references to global jihad”.
Her office later told US media outlets that she “misspoke” and was raising concerns over Mamdani’s refusal to condemn the phrase “globalise the intifada”, a call for activism using the Arabic word for uprising.
Critics of the chant claimed that it makes Jews feel unsafe because it invokes the Palestinian uprisings of the late 1980s and early 2000s, which saw both peaceful opposition and armed struggle against the Israeli occupation.
While Mamdani, who is of South Asian descent, focused his campaign on making New York affordable, his support for Palestinian rights took centre stage in the criticism against him. Since the election, the attacks – particularly on the right – appear to have shifted to his Muslim identity.
That backlash comes after Trump and his allies courted Muslim voters during his bid for the presidency last year. In fact, the US president has nominated two Muslim mayors from Michigan as ambassadors to Tunisia and Kuwait.
In the lead-up to the elections, Trump called Muslim Americans “smart” and “good people”.
The Republican Party seemed to tone down the anti-Muslim language as it sought the socially conservative community’s votes.
But Corey Saylor, research and advocacy director at the Council on American-Islamic Relations, said Islamophobia goes in cycles.
“Islamophobia is sort of baked into American society,” Saylor told Al Jazeera.
“It wasn’t front and centre, but all it required was something to flip the switch right back on, and I would say, we’re seeing that once again.”
Islamophobia ‘industry’
Negative portrayals of Arabs and Muslims in the US media, pop culture and political discourse have persisted for decades.
That trend intensified after the 9/11 attacks in 2001 by al-Qaeda. In subsequent years, right-wing activists started to warn about what they said were plans to implement Islamic religious law in the West.
Muslims were also the subjects of conspiracy theories warning against the “Islamisation” of the US through immigration.
The early 2000s saw the rise of provocateurs, “counterterrorism experts” and think tanks dedicated to bashing Islam and drumming up fear against the religion in a loosely connected network that community advocates have described as an “industry”.
That atmosphere regularly seeped into mainstream political conversations. For example, then-candidate Trump called in 2015 for “a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States”.
Even in liberal New York, where the 9/11 attacks killed more than 2,600 people at the World Trade Center in 2001, the Muslim community endured a backlash.
After the attacks, the New York Police Department established a network of undercover informants to surveil the Muslim community’s mosques, businesses and student associations.
The programme was disbanded in 2014, and a few years later, the city reached a legal settlement with the Muslim community, agreeing to implement stronger oversight on police investigations to prevent abuse.
In 2010, the city’s Muslim community burst into the national spotlight again after plans for a Muslim community centre in lower Manhattan faced intense opposition due to its proximity to the destroyed World Trade Center.
While many Republicans whipped up conspiracy theories against the community centre, several Democrats as well as the Anti-Defamation League, a prominent pro-Israel group, joined them in opposing the project, which was eventually scrapped.
‘We are above this’
Now New York Muslims find themselves once again in the eye of an Islamophobia storm. This time, however, advocates said their communities are more resilient than ever.
“We feel more confident in our community’s voice and our institutional power and in the support that we will have from allies,” Dandia said.
“Yes, we’re dealing with this Islamophobic backlash, but I don’t want to make it seem like we’re just victims because we are able to now fight back. The fact that this was the largest Muslim voter mobilisation in American history is a testament to that.”
Hanif echoed his comments.
“Over the last 25 years, we’ve built a strong coalition that includes our Jewish communities, that includes Asian, Latino, Black communities, to be able to say like we are above this and we will care for one another,” she told Al Jazeera.
Sabrina Carpenter divided fans earlier this month with her choice of cover art for her forthcoming album, “Man’s Best Friend.” Playing on the title, she poses on all fours like a dog while a faceless man pulls her hair.
While some interpreted the cover as cheeky and ironic — especially given the themes of the album’s first single, “Manchild” — others accused the former Disney Channel star of promoting sexist stereotypes and setting women‘s rights back decades.
Carpenter has addressed criticism by releasing an alternative cover “approved by God,” the singer revealed Wednesday on Instagram.
The black-and-white image seemingly channels Marilyn Monroe as the singer, dressed in an elegant beaded gown, leans against a man in a suit. Carpenter is front and center while the man‘s face is partially hidden.
This isn’t the first time Carpenter has ruffled some feathers.
In 2023, she received backlash from the Catholic Church after she filmed parts of her “Feather” music video at the Annunciation of the Blessed Virgin Mary Church. The Diocese of Brooklyn said it was “appalled” by the nature of the video and the priest who allowed her to film there was removed from his administrative duties.
When asked about the incident in an interview with Variety, Carpenter responded, “Jesus was a carpenter.” She doubled down during her Coachella debut in 2024, wearing a shirt with the same phrase.
The singer has also raised eyebrows on her Short n’ Sweet Tour, which returns to North America this fall. During her sultry performance of “Juno,” she acts out a different sex position every night.
Carpenter addressed the criticism that she’s shaped her entire brand around sex in her June cover story with Rolling Stone.
“It’s always funny to me when people complain,” she said. “They’re like, ‘All she does is sing about this.’ But those are the songs that you’ve made popular. Clearly you love sex. You’re obsessed with it. It’s in my show. There’s so many more moments than the ‘Juno’ positions, but those are the ones you post every night and comment on. I can’t control that.”
In a since-deleted post, an X user shared the first “Man’s Best Friend” cover and asked, “Does she have a personality outside of sex?” Carpenter responded, “Girl yes and it is goooooood.”
Among those who came to Carpenter’s defense of the original album art was “You’re So Vain” singer Carly Simon, who received backlash for the cover of her 1975 album, “Playing Possum.”
“She’s not doing anything outrageous,” Simon told Rolling Stone. “It seems tame. There have been far flashier covers than hers. One of the most startling covers I’ve ever seen was [the Rolling Stones’] ‘Sticky Fingers.’ That was out there in terms of sexual attitude. So I don’t know why she’s getting such flak.”
“Man’s Best Friend” will be released Aug. 29, a little over a year after Carpenter’s last project, “Short n’ Sweet.” Signed editions and copies with the alternative cover are available for preorder on her website.
Sen. Alex Padilla blasted the Trump administration Saturday, calling it “petty and unserious” after Vice President JD Vance referred to him as “Jose” during a news conference in Los Angeles the previous day.
“He knows my name,” Padilla said in an appearance on MSNBC on Saturday morning.
Vance visited Los Angeles on Friday for less than five hours after several weeks of federal immigration raids in the city and surrounding areas, sparking protests and backlash from state and local officials.
Padilla was thrown into the heated nationwide immigration debate when he was dragged to the ground by federal law enforcement officers and briefly detained when he attempted to ask U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem a question during a news conference earlier this month.
Vance characterized the move by California’s first Latino senator as “political theater” in his remarks.
“I was hoping Jose Padilla would be here to ask a question, but unfortunately I guess he decided not to show up because there wasn’t a theater, and that’s all it is,” Vance said.
Vance served alongside Padilla in the Senate and is now the president of the upper chamber of Congress. Vance’s press secretary, Taylor Van Kirk, told Politico that the vice president misspoke and “must have mixed up two people who have broken the law.”
Padilla, in his TV interview, said he broke no laws.
He suggested the misnaming was intentional — and a reflection of the administration’s skewed priorities.
“He’s the vice president of the United States.” Padilla said. “You think he’d take the the situation in Los Angeles more seriously.”
Padilla said Vance might instead have taken the opportunity to talk to families or employers affected by raids carried out by Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
Other California Democrats rallied behind Padilla after the misnaming incident.
“Calling him ‘Jose Padilla’ is not an accident,” California Gov. Gavin Newsom said in a Friday post on the social media platform X.
Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass highlighted racial undertones in Vance’s comments.
“I guess he just looked like anybody to you, but he’s not just anybody to us,” she said during a press conference on Friday. “He is our senator.”
It turns out Zoe Saldaña was more than just emotionally drained after tearfully accepting her supporting actress Oscar for “Emilia Pérez” at this year’s Academy Awards — she was also worn out physically.
The 46-year-old actor explained Wednesday on the ABC talk show “Live With Kelly and Mark” how she had been fighting a cold and felt fully exhausted immediately following one of her career-defining moments.
“I collapsed right after. I lost my voice within an hour after I won the award,” she said. “I couldn’t stand on those heels that I had. All I wanted to do was crawl in bed and maybe cry. I don’t know why, I just needed to cry.”
The “Avatar” star noted that up until that point her body was running on all cylinders for months on end during awards season.
“Your body is running on pure adrenaline so you know that your immune system is in optimal condition, but once you tell your body that it’s over, then everything sort of collapses,” Saldaña said.
The Oscar victory capped an impressive awards season run for the “Guardians of the Galaxy” actor, having won the Golden Globe, BAFTA, SAG and Critics’ Choice awards for her role as Mexico City attorney Rita Castro in “Emilia Pérez.”
While her performance was almost universally celebrated and well-regarded, the film as a whole was heavily criticized for its incomplete and offensive portrayals of transgender issues and the lack of consideration taken in depicting Mexico.
Although physically and emotionally exhausted, Saldaña managed to make some attention-grabbing statements in the Oscars press room after a Mexican journalist noted that the movie’s presentation of Mexico was “really hurtful for us Mexicans.”
“First of all, I’m very, very sorry that you and so many Mexicans felt offended,” Saldaña said in the defense of the film. “That was never our intention. We spoke and came from a place of love, and I will stand by that.”
She went on to further disagree with the Mexican journalist’s point of view regarding the centrality and importance of Mexico in the 13-time Oscar nominated movie.
“For me, the heart of this movie was not Mexico. We were making a film about friendship. We were making a film about four women,” Saldaña explained. “And these women are still very universal women that are struggling every day, but trying to survive systemic oppression and trying to find the most authentic voices.”
Outside of the issues within the film, much of the main cast and crew of the movie was bogged down by mostly self-inflicted negative press.
Actor Karla Sofía Gascón faced backlash in January after Canadian writer Sarah Hagi resurfaced tweets dating from 2016 to 2023 that spoke negatively of Muslims’ clothing, language and culture in her home country of Spain. Additionally, Gascón caught heat for resurfaced comments about the 2020 killing of George Floyd, the ensuing racial reckoning, the Black Lives Matter movement and the COVID-19-era Academy Awards ceremony in 2021.
Gascón later apologized for her previous online remarks and deactivated her X account.
The film’s director Jacques Audiard spoke openly on record about how little he prepped to portray Mexico and denigrated the Spanish language during his press tour.
When asked by a Mexican journalist at a red carpet event about how much he had to study up on Mexico and Mexican culture to prepare for the movie, Audiard gave a telling answer.
“No, I didn’t study that much. What I needed to know, I already knew a little about,” the filmmaker said. “It was more about capturing the little details and we came a lot to Mexico to see actors, to see locations, to see the decorations and so on.”
Speaking with the French outlet Konbini, Audiard spoke down on the Spanish language, saying, “Spanish is a language of modest countries, of developing countries, of the poor and migrants.”
Audiard later apologized for his comments after the movie received backlash from Mexican audiences.
Selena Gomez, who played a pivotal supporting role in the film, was criticized for her proficiency in Spanish. Mexican actor Eugenio Derbez was among those who called out Gomez’s performance and Spanish language ability.
Gomez has previously said her Spanish fluency waned after she started working in television at age 7. She responded to the criticism on social media, saying, “I did the best I could with the time I was given. Doesn’t take away from how much work and heart I put into this movie.” Derbez later apologized.
This Morning host Ben Shephard was forced to issue an apology at the end of the show after a remark made by a guest earlier on in the ITV programme
This Morning swiftly tackled a comment made by a guest earlier on in the show.
As the programme was drawing to a close, host Ben Shephard stated: “We just want to take a moment to apologise if viewers were offended by a phrase that we used, by one of the teams that we had on the show today.
“If anybody was, we would like to say sorry.”
The moment of contrition followed a segment where Gyles Brandreth and Sayeeda Warsi were discussing topical stories.
Sayeeda had remarked during a chat about the social role of hairdressers, reports Wales Online.
This Morning host forced to apologise as ‘offensive’ comment sparks backlash
She said: First of all, hairdressers are the place people go and offload. For a lot of people, especially older people, hairdressers are one of the few places where they still get regular company.”
“They don’t have a lot of human contact, many of them who may be living on their own. Particularly for black men or coloured men, or Asian men, I know I have doctors who say when men of certain backgrounds come in to hospital and you talk to them about how much pain they’re in, they always undersell because they’re brought up to not share their feelings and to try and be tough.”
Viewers rapidly moved to express their dismay on Twitter regarding the choice of words.
One viewer tweeted: “‘Coloured Men’, it’s 2025, this type of language!!!” While another challenged: “”Coloured men” What colour were they? #ThisMorning”
This Morning viewers were quick to comment on the remark
One viewer expressed their outrage, stating: “‘Coloured Men’ it’s not the 50s 60s 70s ffs how has she not been reprimanded.”
Another chimed in with: “#thismorning coloured men? ! How is this allowed and you’ve let her keep talking?!”.
A social media user questioned: “How is it acceptable for Sayeeda to say” coloured men”? @sayeedawarsi #thismorning.”
While another was shocked, tweeting: “Coloured men”??Did she just say that on national TV like it’s nothing?””
This isn’t the first time This Morning has faced a backlash from its viewers, as earlier in the week, many labelled one segment ‘cruel’.
People were unimpressed by the dog lookalike segment which aired on Monday morning
On Monday, Cat and Ben were joined by two dogs and their owners, who had participated in this year’s annual Greenwich dog show.
However, they competed in a new category introduced for 2025, the Best Bridgerton Lookalike.
Appearing on the ITV programme, the dogs were dressed in costumes complete with wigs while their owners discussed the competition.
Despite many viewers expressing anger at seeing the dogs in costumes on the show, the two hosts addressed the potential criticism they might face.
Cat pointed out how content the dogs seemed, while Ben added: “There will be people asking, ‘Are the dogs happy?’ because dressing dogs up can sometimes get some criticism. Are they happy wearing the outfits? She seems pretty unbothered.”
Charlotte’s owner responded: “She’s pretty used to wearing clothes in general; when we go out, I tend to dress her up and try to coordinate our outfits.”
Dr. Santa Ono, former University of Michigan president, was rejected Tuesday as the next president at the University of Florida, amid conservative backlash over previous statements on diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives. File Photo by Heinz Ruckemann/UPI | License Photo
June 3 (UPI) — Dr. Santa Ono, the former president at the University of Michigan, was rejected Tuesday as the next president at the University of Florida amid backlash from Republicans over his earlier support of diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives.
Tuesday’s decision by the 17-member Board of Governors comes one week after UF’s Board of Trustees unanimously approved Ono as the finalist.
Ono was on track to become one of the highest paid public university presidents in the country. He was due to sign a five-year contract with a base salary of $1.5 million and incentives to earn as much as $15 million over the life of the deal.
Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis, who signed the 2023 bill banning DEI initiatives in public colleges, delivered a lukewarm response when Ono became the presidential pick, saying Ono’s statements made him “cringe.”
Other Republicans, including Sen. Rick Scott and Reps. Byron Donalds and Greg Steube expressed outrage.
“The UF Board of Trustees has made a grave mistake,” Steube wrote in a post last week. “Dr. Ono gave it his best ‘college try’ walking back his woke past, claiming he’s now ‘evolved.’ But I’m not sold. This role is too important to gamble on convenient conversions.”
Republican state Rep. Jimmy Patronis also questioned the presidential search committee’s decision to make Ono the sole finalist.
“UF sets the benchmark for education nationwide. There’s too much smoke with Santa Ono. We need a leader, not a DEI acolyte. Leave the Ann Arbor thinking in Ann Arbor,” Patronis wrote on X.
During questioning for the role, Ono stated he believed DEI programs do more harm than good. He said he closed the University of Michigan’s DEI offices in March and vowed DEI would not return to Florida’s campus, if he were president.
“The fact is some of my past remarks about DEI do not reflect what I believe, and that evolution did not take place overnight and it was shaped over a year and a half of thinking, discussions, listening to faculty, staff and students and their thoughts on the DEI program,” Ono said.
Ono, who was criticized for allowing an encampment of pro-Palestinian protesters to remain at the University of Michigan for a month, vowed last week during questioning to fight anti-Semitism at the University of Florida.
“Let me be very clear: based on my experience, I believe that anti-Semitism is not just one form of hatred among many,” Ono said. “It is a uniquely virulent and persistent threat, especially on college campuses today.”
Deterred by escalating anti-tourist sentiment in Spain? Don’t worry, this beautiful EU island offers equally stunning beaches, history and architecture – all without the threat of angry protestors
This article contains affiliate links, we will receive a commission on any sales we generate from it. Learn more
This tiny but magical EU island hasn’t been experiencing anti-tourist demonstrations(Image: Getty Images)
Avoid the angry protestors on this stunning European island just over three hours from the UK.
For decades, sun-worshipping Brits have been flocking to sunny Spain – partying in the hectic regions of Magaluf and Benidorm, or chilling out in the more laid-back coastal gems stretching across the Costa del Sol. Lured in by golden sandy beaches, crystal clear waters, cheap booze and stunning history, the country has watched its tourism rapidly boom.
Last year, Spain and its slew of insatiably popular islands, witnessed a record-breaking 94 million international visitors – a 10 per cent spike from the year before. However, the influx sparked backlash amongst locals, who argue the skyrocketing demand for short-term holiday lets has priced them out of the property market. 2024 witnessed a string of protests erupt across the country, with banner-holding residents demanding Brits ‘go home’ and never return. This anti-tourist rhetoric has spiralled in recent years, with fresh vows of demonstrations to take place during the insufferably busy summer.
Brits have been warned of a ‘bleak’ summer in Spain this year(Image: SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images)
If you’ve been put off by the clashing protests, Joanne Lynn, a European travel expert over at Riviera Travel, recommends visiting Malta instead. Situated in the central Mediterranean between Sicily and the North African coast – Malta may only span some 122 square miles, but it certainly packs a powerful punch.
Here, you’ll find a UNESCO city dripping in history, ancient ruins, stunning architecture and pristine beaches. Highlights include the ‘Blue Grotto’ – a network of six sea caves that has been branded the perfect dupe of Italy’s Amalfi Coast – and the Saluting Battery ceremony in the capital, where a restored canon is fired Monday through Sunday twice a day.
Malta’s Blue Grotto is a must-visit attraction(Image: Getty Images)
Speaking exclusively with the Mirror, Joanne explained how the country has ‘largely avoided’ this kind of tension thanks to the island’s more ‘measured approach to tourism and strong emphasis on maintaining local culture’. “While the island can certainly get busy, particularly around popular beach areas during peak season, it has not experienced the same degree of backlash or protest seen in places like Barcelona,” she said. “Crucially, Malta hasn’t faced the same pressures on housing markets or local infrastructure, which has helped preserve a generally positive relationship between residents and visitors.”
Last year, Malta welcomed 3.6 million tourists – almost 20 per cent more compared to 2023. But despite its growing popularity, Joanne says travellers can still enjoy a ‘fulfilling experience without the added concern of tourism-related unrest’. “Overall, Malta’s combination of high-quality restaurants, museums, historical tourist attractions and quiet towns makes it a great choice for anyone looking to avoid demonstrations across Europe, while still being able to experience a wonderful summer trip abroad,” she added.
Of course, this is not to say that everyone on the islands loves the sudden influx of Brits. Certain areas, such as Comino – a small island of the Maltese archipelago, have become super crowded in the busy summer months. Back in 2022, a local group named Movimenti Graffiti stripped the area of its deckchairs and sun beds to make it clear that Comino should be protected ‘not plundered’.
Comino has seen some pushback to over-tourism – but not to the extent of Spain(Image: Getty Images)
You can fly directly to Malta from most major UK airports, including Glasgow, Belfast, Liverpool, and London Stansted, with flights taking an average of three hours and 15 minutes. If you’re flexible with dates, you can grab return fares for as little as £50 in June.
Accommodation on the island is equally affordable, with a slew of no-thrill hotels, hostels, and apartments available. For example, a week’s stay (Monday, June 9-16) at The Rose Hostel in St Julian’s will set you back £349. This is based on two adults staying in a seven-bed mixed dorm. However, if you want a more luxurious trip – check out Grand Hotel Excelsior.
Located in Valetta, this stunning resort boasts a large outdoor and indoor pool, a private beach, spa, and three restaurants. You can splurge out on the Superior Deluxe Double Room with a sea view for £1,659 on the exact same dates.
*Prices based on Skyscanner and Booking.com listings at the time of writing.
Do you have a story to share? Email us at [email protected] for a chance to be featured.
From allegations of infidelity to swinging scandals, The Secret Lives of Mormon Wives offers a look into a version of Mormon life far removed from traditional public perception.
Set in suburban Utah, the TV series follows a group of Mormon women – most of whom rose to fame on TikTok and became MomTok influencers – as they manage scandals, confront marital breakdowns and clash over everything from business ventures to party invitations.
But beneath the sensational plotlines is a more complex story about the evolving dynamics within a tight-knit community.
The group of Mormon mothers have been making content online for the past five years but say the concept of reality TV still feels very new to them.
“I’ve heard that eventually people learn how to play the reality TV game but that’s not us yet, we’re still trying to figure it out,” Jessi Ngatikaura tells the BBC. “So you’re getting to see the real us.”
Getty Images
What started off as a hobby has now become a job and the women speak openly on the show about the amount of money they make from reality TV and brand deals.
“It is totally our job now but we chose this and we could all walk away any time if we didn’t want to be part of it,” Jessi says.
Whitney Leavitt explains that “naturally dynamics will change when there’s more money and family involved and definitely some people get competitive” but reassures me the group are still friends off camera.
Across the two seasons of the show, Jessi and Whitney have had challenging storylines play out – Whitney is presented as the villain in season one and at the end of season two it is alleged Jessi has had an affair.
The pair speak candidly about the impact having your life watched and commented on by millions of people worldwide has had on them.
Getty Images
“It’s been hard coming to terms with the fact we have no control over the narrative and you don’t ever really get over it,” Whitney explains. “But you have to accept that and let it go.”
As the show follows the lives of nine friends, it’s easy to see how some of them may create more drama for themselves in order to guarantee some screen time but Jessi insists that’s not the case and no one “plays up but naturally emotions are heightened”.
“We’re actually recording four or five days a week so we don’t know what will make the final edit.”
Jessi says her explosive Halloween party was not manufactured by producers and there is just “naturally so much drama that we don’t need to create more just for the show”.
‘Lots of resentment’
Given the intensity of drama and filming demands, the presence of strong aftercare is essential and both women praise the production for its duty of care standards.
“There are always therapists on hand and at first I was like why are Taylor and Jen having therapy all the time and now I’m having five or six hours of it a week,” Jessi confesses. “I’ve found it’s useful even if you’re not going through a hard time.”
Whitney also accessed some aftercare in season one after being presented as the villain of the show.
“It totally sucked being the villain and I was angry, had a lot of resentment and was really sad. There were so many overwhelming emotions for me but I was proud that instead of running away I stayed and had those hard conversations I didn’t want to have,” Whitney says.
Whitney was one of the members of the MomTok group that Taylor Frankie Paul publicly revealed was involved in “soft swinging”, something she denies and caused a rift to form in their friendship.
Getty Images
There was some backlash to the reality TV show from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints
The open discussions around sex, marital affairs and alcohol on the show has caused some backlash from the Mormon church.
“When the first trailer came out there was some backlash from the church because they were scared but actually we’re showing you how we live the Mormon life and we all live it differently,” Whitney says.
Jessi adds the docudrama shows how “we are all normal and everyday girls, not people wearing bonnets and churning butter like you might think”.
The women say that not only has the church come to accept the show, they are also helping young women think about their faith differently.
“We’ve definitely influenced people to question their faith, dive deeper into it or be more honest about it and I’ve had messages from some people saying that they’re joining the church because of me,” Jessi says.
While their religion plays an important part of their life, they’re keen to tell me that they are not the face of Mormonism.
“There are Mormons who still get upset about it but we’re just showing our version of it and I think that’s empowering as hopefully people can relate to our stories and struggles.”
Avelo Airlines, a struggling, Houston, Texas-based budget carrier, has faced weeks of backlash after taking a contract with the United States government to use its planes to deport migrants, the first commercial airline to do so.
Avelo, which started the deportation flights in mid-May, defended the move in an April 3 letter to employees, saying its partnership with the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency is “too valuable not to pursue”.
Founded in 2021, the airline has been in financial turmoil and was projected to have only about $2m in cash on hand by June, the trade publication Airline Observer reported last month. An Avelo spokesperson told Al Jazeera that that reporting is outdated.
The airline has not disclosed the terms of the deal with ICE but is said to be using three of its Boeing 737 aircraft for the flights. Avelo has 20 aircraft in its fleet.
At the beginning of 2024, Avelo reported its first profitable quarter since its founding but hasn’t released any financial results since then. Because it is not a publicly traded company, Avelo is not legally obligated to regularly disclose its financial status to the public.
Avelo’s deal was brokered through a third-party contractor, CSI Aviation, which received $262.9m in federal contracts, mostly through ICE, for the 2025 fiscal year. While CSI Aviation did not confirm to Al Jazeera the specifics of its deal with Avelo, federal spending records show the company was awarded a new contract in March and received $97.5m in April when the Avelo flights were announced.
April’s contract marks the biggest for CSI Aviation since it began receiving federal contracts in 2008. Until now, CSI Aviation’s highest payouts had come more frequently during Democratic administrations. In October under former President Joe Biden, the federal government paid out more than $75m to CSI Aviation.
CEO Andrew Levy has said Avelo operated similar flights under the Biden administration but the public outcry against Avelo this time is because of how Republican President Donald Trump’s administration has conducted deportations.
“In the past, the deportees were afforded due process,” aviation journalist and New Hampshire state lawmaker Seth Miller said. “[They were] not snatched off the street, moved multiple times to evade the judicial process and put on planes before they could appeal. In the past, they were returned to their country of origin, not a third country. In the past, they were not shipped to a labour camp from which no one is ever released.”
“These are, to me, not the same deportations as in the past, and any company signing on in April 2025 to operate those flights knows that,” Miller told Al Jazeera.
The US government has awarded CSI Aviation $165m for deportation charter flights so far in the current year until August 31, and that could be extended to February 26. The data does not specify how much goes to each subcontractor. However, the March 1 $165m contract was modified on March 25 with an additional $33.7m tacked onto it just days before Avelo announced its deal.
Al Jazeera was unable to confirm the specific dollar amount for the Avelo contract.
CSI Aviation did not respond to Al Jazeera’s request for comment.
Avelo, led by Levy – an industry veteran who previously served as CEO of another US-based budget airline, Allegiant, and as chief financial officer for United Airlines – has stood by the deal despite the public outcry.
“We realize this is a sensitive and complicated topic. After significant deliberations, we determined that charter flying will provide us with the stability to continue expanding our core scheduled passenger service and keep our more than 1,100 Crewmembers employed for years to come,” Levy said in a statement to Al Jazeera, comments the company had also provided to other publications.
Connecticut Attorney General William Tong pressed the airline for the terms of the deal. Avelo responded by instructing Tong to file a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request. FOIA requests typically take several months to process. Connecticut is home to one of Avelo’s biggest hubs in New Haven.
Avelo declined Al Jazeera’s request for information on the terms of its agreement with CSI Aviation, saying in an email that it was not “authorised to share the details of the contract”.
Al Jazeera has submitted a FOIA request for the contract terms. ICE denied our expedited request for the contract terms, saying our request lacked “an urgency to inform the public about an actual or alleged federal government activity, if made by a person primarily engaged in disseminating information”. The phone number ICE gave to challenge the request through its public liaison did not work when called.
“For reasons of operational security, US Immigration and Customs Enforcement does not release information about future removal flights or schedules in advance. However, the removal of illegal aliens who are unlawfully present in the United States is a core responsibility of ICE and is regularly carried out by ICE Air Operations,” a spokesperson for ICE told Al Jazeera.
Several lawmakers, including Senator Alex Padilla of California and Senator Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, have voiced concerns over these flights.
“Given the Trump Administration’s mission to indiscriminately deport our nation’s immigrants – without due process, in violation of the Constitution and federal immigration law, and, in some cases, in defiance of court orders – it is deeply disturbing that Avelo has determined that its partnership with ICE is ‘too valuable not to pursue,’” Padilla’s office said in a news release.
Flight attendants have also raised safety concerns, saying there is no safe plan in the event of an emergency and it is only a matter of time before a tragic incident occurs.
As first reported by ProPublica, ICE Air detainees have soiled themselves because they did not have access to bathrooms while being transported to prisons without due process.
ICE has denied allegations that detainees lacked access to bathrooms during flights.
Are financiers concerned?
Avelo’s largest investor is Morgan Stanley Tactical Value, whose managing director, Tom Cahill, sits on Avelo’s board. Morgan Stanley’s fund invested an undisclosed amount in the airline’s Series A funding round, the first major investment stage for a company.
That round raised $125m in January 2020, weeks before the COVID-19 pandemic was declared a US and global emergency. A subsequent Series B round in 2022 brought in an additional $42m, $30m of which came from Morgan Stanley.
Morgan Stanley Tactical Value remains Avelo’s largest shareholder. Cahill, who has been with Morgan Stanley since 1990, has not publicly commented on the deal. He did not respond to Al Jazeera’s request for comment. Morgan Stanley declined to comment.
Avelo has also hired Jefferies Financial Group, an investment bank and financial services company, to raise additional capital in a new investment round, reportedly aiming to raise $100m, according to the Airline Observer, information that Avelo said is outdated.
Jefferies did not respond to Al Jazeera’s request for comment.
A public image problem
Avelo’s involvement in the deportation programme has sparked intense public backlash. Upon the launch of the flights, protests erupted at airports in Burbank, California; Mesa, Arizona; and New Haven, Connecticut.
A Change.org petition calling for a boycott of the airline has garnered more than 38,000 signatures. Avelo did not comment on the petition.
“From a reputational perspective, someone in a boardroom somewhere made the decision that the hit to reputation wasn’t as important as staying alive,” said Hannah Mooney Mack, an independent strategic communications consultant.
Miller has taken action to raise awareness about the airline’s recent contract, funding two billboards near Tweed New Haven Airport that criticise Avelo’s participation in deportation flights. The signs read: “Does your vacation support their deportation? Just say AvelNO!”
“I love almost all of the things that aviation does in helping bring people together and connect communities and things like that. This is decidedly not that. And it rubbed me the wrong way,” the congressman told Al Jazeera.
“I certainly understand that from a financial perspective there may be a need. I happen to disagree with it from a moral perspective and think it’s abhorrent.”
Miller said he spent $7,000 on the billboards and 96 people contributed to the effort. Avelo reportedly convinced billboard operator Lamar Advertising to take down the ads, citing copyright concerns. Miller has since sued Avelo on First Amendment grounds. He said he’s fighting because he thinks people need to know about Avelo’s contract.
“I don’t like that this is happening, and I think other people should not fly Avelo as long as they are running these deportation flights.”
Avelo Airlines, a Texas-based budget carrier, is facing backlash from both customers and employees over its decision to operate deportation flights under a new contract with the Trump administration.
Avelo, which has been struggling financially, signed a contract with the United States Department of Homeland Security (DHS) last month to transport migrants to detention centres inside and outside the US, according to an internal company memo reviewed by the Reuters news agency.
On Monday, the airline flew its first flight under the deal from Arizona to Louisiana, data from flight-tracking services FlightAware and Flightradar24 showed.
Avelo plans to dedicate three aircraft to deportation operations and has established a charter-only base in Mesa, Arizona, specifically for these flights, according to the company memo.
The union representing Avelo’s flight attendants called the contract “bad for the airline”, and one customer has helped organise a petition urging travellers to boycott the airline.
US President Donald Trump has launched a hardline crackdown on undocumented immigration, including the deportation of Venezuelan migrants he accuses of being gang members to a maximum-security prison in El Salvador. Immigration authorities also detained and moved to deport some legal permanent US residents. Trump’s policies have triggered a rash of lawsuits and protests.
Tricia McLaughlin, assistant secretary for public affairs at DHS, said Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) was deporting illegal aliens who broke the country’s laws. She called the protests “nothing more than a tired tactic to abolish ICE by proxy”.
“Avelo Airlines is a sub-carrier on a government contract to assist with deportation flights,” McLaughlin said in a statement. “Attacks and demonization of ICE and our partners is wrong.”
On defence
The airline on Wednesday confirmed its long-term agreement with ICE and said it was vital to Avelo’s financial stability. It also shared a statement from CEO Andrew Levy acknowledging that it is a “sensitive and complicated topic”, but saying that the decision on the contract came “after significant deliberations”.
The statement added that the deal would keep the airline’s “more than 1,100 crewmembers employed for years to come”.
Avelo said it will use three Boeing 737-800 planes in Mesa, Arizona.
“Flights will be both domestic and international,” the company said, declining to share more details of the agreement.
Avelo, which launched in 2021, was forced to suspend its most recent fundraising round after reporting its worst quarterly performance in two years.
In a message to employees last month, Levy said the airline was spending more than it earned from its customers, forcing it to seek repeated infusions of capital from investors.
“I realize some may view the decision to fly for DHS as controversial,” Levy wrote in the staff memo, which was reviewed by Reuters, but said the opportunity was “too valuable not to pursue”.
Widespread backlash
The Association of Flight Attendants-CWA, which represents Avelo’s crew, has urged the company to reconsider its decision, which it said would be “bad for the airline”.
“Having an entire flight of people handcuffed and shackled would hinder any evacuation and risk injury or death,” the union said. “We cannot do our jobs in these conditions.”
The Trump administration has deported hundreds of migrants labelled as Venezuelan gang members to El Salvador. Photos and videos have shown deportees in handcuffs and shackles.
Customers have also expressed outrage. Anne Watkins, a New Haven, Connecticut, resident, said she has stopped flying with Avelo. She and her co-members at the New Haven Immigrants Coalition have launched an online petition urging travellers to boycott the airline until it ends its ICE flight operations. The petition has garnered more than 38,000 signatures.
Watkins, 55, said the coalition also organised a vigil on Monday to mark the launch of Avelo’s deportation flights.
“Companies can decide to operate in wholly ethical and transparent ways,” she said. “Avelo is not choosing to do that right now.”
Connecticut Attorney General William Tong, a Democrat, has threatened to review the state’s incentives for Avelo, which has received more than $2m in subsidies and tax breaks.
In California, Los Angeles resident Nancy K has co-founded a campaign called “Mothers Against Avelo”. She plans to lead weekly protests every Sunday in May at Hollywood Burbank airport, one of Avelo’s six operating bases.
