battle

WASHINGTON — Debate over President Trump’s sweeping budget-and-policy package is over on Capitol Hill. Now the argument goes national.

From the Central Valley of California to Midwestern battlegrounds and suburban districts of the northeast, the new law already is shaping the 2026 midterm battle for control of the House of Representatives. The outcome will set the tone for Trump’s final two years in the Oval Office.

Democrats need a net gain of three House seats to break the GOP’s chokehold on Washington and reestablish a power center to counter Trump. There’s added pressure to flip the House because midterm Senate contests are concentrated in Republican-leaning states, making it harder for Democrats to reclaim that chamber.

As Republicans see it, they’ve now delivered broad tax cuts, an unprecedented investment in immigration enforcement and new restraints on social safety net programs. Democrats see a law that rolls back health insurance access and raises costs for middle-class Americans while cutting taxes mostly for the rich, curtailing green energy initiatives and restricting some workers’ organizing rights.

“It represents the broken promise they made to the American people,” said Rep. Suzan DelBene, a Washington Democrat who chairs the party’s House campaign arm. “We’re going to continue to hold Republicans accountable for this vote.”

Parties gear up for a fight

Whether voters see it that way will be determined on a district-by-district level, but the battle will be more intense in some places than others. Among the 435 House districts, only 69 contests were decided by less than 10 percentage points in the 2024 general election.

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has identified 26 Democratic-held seats it must defend vigorously, along with 35 GOP-held seats it believes could be ripe to flip. Republicans’ campaign arm, the National Republican Congressional Committee, has listed 18 GOP incumbents as priorities, plus two districts opened by retirements.

There are a historically low number of so-called crossover districts: Only 13 Democrats represent districts that Trump carried in 2024, while just three Republicans serve districts that Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris carried.

Both committees are busy recruiting challengers and open-seat candidates, and more retirements could come, so the competitive map will evolve. Still, there are clusters of districts guaranteed to influence the national result.

California, despite its clear lean to Democrats statewide, has at least nine House districts expected to be up for grabs: three in the Central Valley and six in Southern California. Six are held by Democrats, three by the GOP.

Pennsylvania features four districts that have been among the closest U.S. House races for several consecutive cycles. They include a suburban Philadelphia seat represented by Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick, one of just two House Republicans to vote against Trump’s bill and one of the three GOP lawmakers from a district Harris won. Fitzpatrick cited the Medicaid cuts.

Vice President JD Vance plans on Wednesday to be in Republican Rep. Robert Bresnahan’s northwest Pennsylvania district to tout the GOP package. Bresnahan’s seat is a top Democratic target.

Iowa and Wisconsin, meanwhile, feature four contiguous GOP-held districts in farm-heavy regions where voters could be swayed by fallout from Trump’s tariffs.

Democrats fight to define the GOP

Beyond bumper-sticker labels — Trump’s preferred “Big Beautiful Bill” versus Democrats’ “Big Ugly Bill” retort — the 900-page law is, in fact, an array of policies with varying effects.

Democrats hammer Medicaid and food assistance cuts, some timed to take full effect only after the 2026 midterms, along with Republicans’ refusal to extend tax credits to some people who obtained health insurance through the Affordable Care Act.

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that 11.8 million more Americans would become uninsured by 2034 if the bill became law; 3 million more would not qualify for food stamps, also known as SNAP benefits.

“Folks will die here in Louisiana and in other parts of the country,” House Minority Leader Jeffries warned last week during a town hall in Republican Speaker Mike Johnson’s home state of Louisiana.

Jeffries singled out vulnerable Republicans such as California Rep. David Valadao of Hanford, who represents a heavily agricultural Central Valley district where more than half of the population is eligible for the joint state-federal insurance program. California allows immigrants with legal status and those who are undocumented to qualify for Medicaid, so not all Medicaid recipients are voters. But the program helps finance the overall healthcare system, including nursing homes and hospitals.

Republicans highlight the law’s tightened work requirements for Medicaid enrollees. They argue that it’s a popular provision that will strengthen the program.

“I voted for this bill because it does preserve the Medicaid program for its intended recipients — children, pregnant women, the disabled, and elderly,” Valadao said. “I know how important the program is for my constituents.”

Republicans hope voters see lower taxes

The law includes $4.5 trillion in tax cuts. It makes permanent existing rates and brackets approved during Trump’s first term. Republicans and their allies have hammered vulnerable Democrats for “raising costs” on American households by opposing the bill.

GOP campaign aides point to the popularity of individual provisions: boosting the $2,000 child tax credit to $2,200 (some families at lower income levels would not get the full credit), new deductions on tip and overtime income and auto loans; and a new deduction for older adults earning less than $75,000 a year.

“Everyone will have more take-home pay. They’ll have more jobs and opportunity,” Johnson said in a Fox News Sunday interview. “The economy will be doing better and we’ll be able to point to that as the obvious result of what we did.”

Democrats note that the biggest beneficiaries of Trump’s tax code are wealthy Americans and corporations. Pairing that with safety net cuts, Florida Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz concluded, “The cruelty is the point.”

Immigration, meanwhile, was Trump’s strongest issue in 2024. NRCC aides say that will continue with the new law’s investments in immigration enforcement. Democrats believe that the Trump administration has overplayed its hand with its push for mass deportation.

Playing the Trump card

The president is a titanic variable.

Democrats point to 2018, when they notched a 40-seat net gain in House seats to take control away from the GOP. This year, Democrats have enjoyed a double-digit swing in special elections around the country when compared with 2024 presidential results. Similar trends emerged in 2017 after Trump’s 2016 victory. Democrats say that reflects voter discontent with Trump once he’s actually in charge.

Republicans answer that Trump’s job approval remains higher at this point than in 2017. But the GOP’s effort is further complicated by ongoing realignments: Since Trump’s emergence, Democrats have gained affluent white voters — like those in suburban swing districts — while Trump has drawn more working-class voters across racial and ethnic groups. But Republicans face a stiffer challenge of replicating Trump’s coalition in a midterm election without him on the ballot.

Democrats, meanwhile, must corral voters who are not a threat to vote for Republicans but could stay home.

Jeffries said he’s determined not to let that happen: “We’re going to do everything we can until we end this national nightmare.”

Barrow, Cooper and Brook write for the Associated Press. Cooper reported from Phoenix and Brook reported from New Orleans. AP reporters Michael Blood in Los Angeles and Marc Levy in Harrisburg, Pa., contributed to this report.

La migra spread across MacArthur Park yesterday morning like a platoon ready for war.

Federal agents on horseback with a white steed in the middle trotted through a soccer field. Others dressed like they were ready for Fallujah walked across lawns that just minutes earlier hosted a kid’s summer camp. Humvees complete with gun turrets parked on Wilshire Boulevard.

A Black Hawk helicopter buzzed above.

It was meant to be a show of force. It was more of a farce.

The park was mostly empty thanks to social media posts that had been warning Los Angeles about the coming incursion since Sunday. A furious Mayor Karen Bass arrived, got on the phone with U.S. Border Patrol Chief Gregory Bovino — who was strolling around while a photographer took glam shots — and told him to pull back. Activists showed up instead of the regular crowd to laugh at and film la migra and cuss them outta there.

It was like the climactic scene in “Blazing Saddles,” when incompetent villain Hedley Lamarr tried to invade a small town with the baddest of hombres besides him only to find a Potemkin village. The Non-Battle of MacArthur Park even had a “cowboy” (those quote marks are getting some serious “air” time as I write this)With his straw cowboy bat and rifle slung over his shoulder, Assistant Chief Border Patrol Agent David Kim seemed to be channeling his inner Alex Villanueva, the ex-L.A. County sheriff who wore Stetsons anywhere and everywhere in urban L.A. because he thought that showed power.

This was the Battle of the Photo Op. Written in D.C. and paid for by taxpayers.

For the past 30 days, President Donald Trump has laid siege to L.A. like a potentate trying to quash a far-away rebel province. Over 1,600 people detained, citizens and noncitizens alike. A parade of his lackeys — Department of Homeland Security head Kristi Noem, Vice President JD Vance, border policy advisor Tom Homan — parachuted in to lecture L.A. about how out of control it is and vow retribution. California’s senior U.S. senator, Alex Padilla, briefly handcuffed for daring to question Noem during a press conference.

Trump and his troupe keep squawking about getting “the worst of the worst,” but they’re mostly not. This operation doesn’t seem to make much of a distinction between snatching an immigrant with a criminal record or a guy armed with a stockpile of tamales he’s trying to sell to make a living.

Masked men grabbing anyone and everyone in the fashion of paramilitary squads from countries we deem uncivilized. Straight-up invasions of workplaces and residential neighborhoods, parks and street corners. Thousands of members of the National Guard and hundreds of Marines called up.

What the city is weathering is supposed to be a warning to all other immigrant-friendly municipalities across the country: submit, or else.

Well, L.A. chose the something else. And Trump and his goons are getting more and more angry — and reckless.

Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem speaks to the National Guard before their lunch at the Wilshire Federal Building in Los Angeles on June 12.

(Luke Johnson / Los Angeles Times)

People are scared, sure — even terrified. That’s part of Trump’s strategy, along with making life so miserable that he hopes Angelenos will turn on each other. Instead, they’re uniting and hunkering down for more. Support networks and neighborhood watchdog groups are blooming across the region. Everyone with a smartphone and a social media account is now a reporter, capturing la migra at its worst and letting the world know what’s really going on. Lawsuits are being filed. More and more average citizens are joining the resistance.

What’s happening reminds me of the concluding line Lisa Simpson sang when Springfield Nuclear Power Plant workers went on strike against Mr. Burns and his heavies:

They may have the strength, but we have the power.

I get it, America: You think what’s happening in L.A. will never come to you. And you sort of like seeing the big, bad City of Angels getting smacked around with promises of even worse things to come. There’s a reason sports fans chant “Beat L.A.” and not “Beat Salt Lake City” or even New York.

But what happened yesterday at MacArthur Park is a microcosm of Trump’s vision for the rest of the country: a massive show of nada that does absolutely nothing to make life better for Americans. A gigantic waste of money. Spectacle over substance. Venom for anyone who dares speak out.

That should concern anyone who cares about a functioning democracy. Including L.A. haters.

The last month of raids across Southern California has shown that when the going gets tough, Trump goes for the easy. Sure, the Department of Homeland Security and its toxic alphabet soup of agencies participating in Trump’s deportation deluge are churning out social media posts featuring grainy photos of some of the people they’ve caught along with their alleged crimes. But that’s a way to mask the reality that these people taken in raids are mostly not criminals. A Times analysis of data obtained by the Deportation Data Project at UC Berkeley Law found that nearly 70% of those arrested by Immigration and Customs Enforcement from June 1 through June 10 had no criminal convictions.

The sad irony about what happened yesterday in MacArthur Park is that if ever there was a place in L.A. that might have welcomed a helpful assist from the feds … it’s MacArthur Park.

As my fellow columnista Steve Lopez has written about for years, it’s a jewel of a green space with serious problems that city officials have allowed to fester over the decades and has made it a no-go zone for many Angelenos. Gangs have long extorted businesses in the neighborhood and terrorized everyone else — including immigrants. Too many unhoused people pass through with nowhere else to go. Drug use is as prevalent as sunbathing: When I walked through it earlier this year on the way to Langer’s for lunch, I saw a man smoke a meth pipe within eyesight of an LAPD officer who didn’t even blink.

But this wasn’t about saving MacArthur Park from the bad guys. Instead, the deployment of masked troops in tactical gear showed Trump and his berserkers only care about optics, up to and including a man on horseback leading his fellow cavalry in a straight line while holding an American flag as colleagues whipped out their smartphones. The charade looked like something out of a Western movie — American military subjugating yet another Native American tribe.

Federal immigration agents near MacArthur Park on July 7.

(Carlin Stiehl / Los Angeles Times)

More is going to come, most likely worse. Trump’s Bloated Bullplop Bill has allocated $170 billion to immigration enforcement. Homan is relishing the idea of increasing the number of ICE agents from 5,000 to 15,000 — as if all that migra will improve the economy or make up for the rise in taxes and loss in Medicaid that millions of American citizens will suffer in order to support an agency whose increased budget will put it above the military of most of the world’s countries.

Are you paying attention yet, America?

After the MacArthur Park action, Trump’s disciples proclaimed victory. Bovino bragged to Fox News reporter Bill Melugin — the de facto media stenographer for Trump’s migra mission — that he told L.A. Mayor Karen Bass during their phone call, “Better get used to us now, ’cause this is going to be normal very soon. We will go anywhere, anytime we want in Los Angeles.” White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller went on Fox News later to thunder, “The Democrat Party’s objective is to flood the West with millions upon millions of illegals from the developing world” as footage of what happened earlier that day rolled next to him.

Big words from little men who act like they’re living some “Apocalypse Now” fantasy.

I preferred what L.A. councilmember Eunisses Hernandez — whose district encompasses MacArthur Park — said shortly after the sweep at a City Hall press conference, something as true as the sun rising in the east: “We are the canary in the coal mine. What you see happening at MacArthur Park is coming to you.”

BEVERLY HILLS — Julian McMahon, an Australia-born actor who performed in two “Fantastic Four” films and appeared in TV shows such as “Charmed,” “Nip/Tuck” and “Profiler,” has died, his wife said in a statement.

McMahon died peacefully this week after a battle with cancer, Kelly McMahon said in a statement provided to the Associated Press by his Beverly Hills-based publicist. He was 56, according to the New York Times.

“Julian loved life,” the statement said. “He loved his family. He loved his friends. He loved his work, and he loved his fans. His deepest wish was to bring joy into as many lives as possible.”

McMahon played Dr. Doom in the films “Fantastic Four” in 2005 and “Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer,” which came out two years later.

Additionally, he had roles in the TV shows “Home and Away,” “FBI: Most Wanted” and “Another World,” according to IMDB.

Actor Alyssa Milano, who appeared with McMahon on “Charmed,” mourned his death on social media, saying “Julian was more than my TV husband.”

“Julian McMahon was magic,” Milano said. “That smile. That laugh. That talent. That presence. He walked into a room and lit it up — not just with charisma, but with kindness. With mischief. With soulful understanding.”

Syria’s Civil Defence teams are battling wildfires sweeping through northeastern Syria, with the coastal region of Latakia among the worst hit. Emergency workers expressed concerns that unexploded ordnance from the war might be contributing to the rapid spread of the flames.

WASHINGTON — Congress adjourned Tuesday, ending an unusually rancorous year that sorely tested the constitutional relationship between the legislative branch and the President.

Throughout 1987 and even into its final hours, the Democrat-controlled Congress clashed repeatedly with President Reagan on a wide variety of matters, including the budget deficit, Reagan’s sale of arms to Iran, assistance for the Nicaraguan resistance and U.S. military involvement in the Persian Gulf.

In addition, Congress handed the President several serious legislative setbacks by rejecting the nomination of Robert H. Bork to the Supreme Court and enacting two major bills–one providing for clean water and the other funding highway construction–over Reagan’s veto.

Lapse of Funding

So deep were the divisions between Reagan and Congress that they let the bureaucracy go unfunded for more than a day before adjournment as they fought over continued appropriations for the Contras and the renewal of the broadcasting industry’s so-called Fairness Doctrine.

But unlike most years, when squabbling between Congress and the White House can be attributed purely to political differences, the debate in 1987 was seen as a more fundamental struggle over the constitutional roles of the two branches of government.

“Indeed,” Senate Majority Leader Robert C. Byrd (D-W.Va.) said last week, “it is my belief that 1987 was a year of constitutional challenge and struggle regarding the separation of powers. . . . The Congress and the Administration were engaged in a vigorous and most serious debate over how the power of this government, derived from the people, should be exercised.”

The Iran-Contra affair exposed a general disregard for Congress inside the Reagan White House that embittered many members of both parties–making smooth relations between the two branches almost impossible. Reagan’s former aides publicly acknowledged that they had lied to congressional committees on the grounds that Congress should not be meddling in the executive branch’s foreign-policy initiatives.

Senate Role in Treaties

Likewise, the Administration’s decision to reinterpret terms of the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty were viewed on Capitol Hill as an attempt to circumvent the Senate’s role in treaty ratification. And the battle over the Bork nomination eventually came down to a quarrel over the Senate’s right to advise and consent on judicial nominations.

Convinced that Reagan was trying to bypass them, members of Congress sought to reassert their role as equal partners in governance. By rejecting the Bork nomination, pressing its own interpretation of the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and frequently asserting its independent will on other issues, Byrd said, Congress succeeded in restoring the constitutional balance.

“I believe the 100th Congress has maintained the balance and checked the abuses,” he said.

Some of the quarreling was nevertheless inevitable, since 1987 was the first year of the Reagan presidency in which Democrats controlled both houses of Congress. Democrats contend that Reagan, who had become accustomed to getting his own way in the early years, still has not fully realized that a divided government demands compromise.

‘Wasn’t in Step’

Frequently, the Democrats who are running Congress saw it as their duty to rein in the President’s more strident policies. “The Administration went to the very outer limits–it wasn’t in step with the American people,” Byrd said. “Again and again, the energy of the Congress was committed to maintaining the mainstream political consensus.”

As a test of the new Democratic leadership, however, the year was not a raving success.

Many programs long supported by Democrats suffered new cutbacks and few, if any, new initiatives were enacted into law, even though some major pieces of legislation–such as a trade bill, catastrophic health insurance and welfare reform–are waiting to be passed next year in the second session of the 100th Congress.

“It hasn’t been a complete bust, but I’ll tell you it’s been pretty near that,” said House Minority Leader Robert H. Michel (R-Ill.). And Senate Minority Leader Bob Dole (R-Kan.) said: “We have done some things but I can’t remember what.”

Democrats, of course, had a more positive view of the year’s accomplishments. Byrd insisted that Congress made “healthy and positive progress” on a number of policy fronts, and House Speaker Jim Wright (D-Tex.) noted that the Democrat-controlled Congress succeeded in increasing money for the homeless, AIDS research and education.

Deficit Reduction Pact

Yet, neither Democrats nor Republicans were especially proud of the session’s most widely publicized achievement–the deficit reduction package that was negotiated in the wake of the Oct. 19 stock market crash. In Dole’s words, Congress “missed an opportunity there for a bold move” when it settled for a modest plan to reduce the projected shortfall by $76 billion over the next two years.

Many Democrats were even more disappointed by the outcome of the Iran-Contra hearings, which many had hoped would turn up evidence that Reagan was aware of the diversion of funds from the Iran arms sales to the Nicaraguan resistance. Not only was there no such proof, but also Reagan’s fired National Security Council aide, Lt. Col. Oliver L. North, succeeded in using the hearings as a platform to promote support for the Contras.

Byrd said the Democrat-controlled investigating committees made a mistake by focusing attention on the complex diversion of funds to the Contras while failing to fully explore the highly unpopular sale of U.S. arms to Iran.

“It seems to me that, if there is any constructive criticism which comes a bit late for the hearings, it was that they centered too much on the Contra aspect as against the arms-for-hostage deal,” he said.

Participants’ Futures Affected

No doubt the political fortunes of several highly visible Congress members were affected by these events–particularly by the exposure that some of them got during the lengthy televised Iran-Contra hearings.

The weaknesses of the probe were widely blamed on Sen. Daniel K. Inouye (D-Hawaii), chairman of the Senate investigating committee, and as a result he is now seen as less likely to be chosen Democratic leader next year, if Byrd decides to step down. At the same time, several new stars did emerge from the hearings, including Sens. George J. Mitchell (D-Me.) and Warren B. Rudman (R-N.H.), and Rep. Lee H. Hamilton (D-Ind.)–all of whom appear destined for more responsible roles in their parties.

Meanwhile, in his first year as Speaker, Wright gained a reputation for controversy exceeding that of his predecessor, the retired Thomas P. (Tip) O’Neill Jr. (D-Mass.). House Republicans are furious with Wright for what they see as his highly partisan tactics, and the Administration condemned him for meeting with Nicaraguan leader Daniel Ortega at a time when the President opposes bilateral talks with the Sandinista government.

Refusal to Negotiate

As has occurred frequently in recent years, the process of trying to trim the deficit overwhelmed almost every other item on Congress’ agenda. For the first 10 months of the year, the President adamantly refused to negotiate with Congress over the deficit.

By midyear–with appropriations bills backing up–it was clear that Congress could not meet the deficit goals of the Gramm-Rudman law it had passed less than two years earlier, and embarrassed lawmakers passed a new version that promised a balanced budget in 1993, rather than 1991.

Reagan was already facing the prospect of the Gramm-Rudman law’s making deep automatic cuts in defense when the stock market plummeted 508 points on one October day, causing him to enter into negotiations with Congress and consider a tax increase for the first time.

The resulting package called for $9 billion in higher taxes, cuts in military spending and most domestic programs totaling $7.6 billion, a $4-billion cut from federal benefits programs and a number of other measures that–at least on paper–will pare $33 billion from this year’s projected $180-billion deficit.

The Bork episode was certainly a low point in relations between Congress and the President in 1987. When it became clear that the Senate was going to reject Bork for being too extreme on civil liberties issues, the President’s supporters responded with recriminations and Reagan vowed to nominate someone equally objectionable to the Democrats.

Kennedy Confirmation Likely

But Reagan’s second choice, Judge Douglas H. Ginsburg, was quickly scuttled by the disclosure that he had smoked marijuana on occasion in the 1960s and 1970s–forcing the President to choose a more traditional jurist for his third nominee. As a result, Justice-designate Anthony M. Kennedy of Sacramento appears headed toward a smooth confirmation early next year.

Arms control policy also divided Congress and the President through most of the year. Congress balked at Reagan’s decision to break out of the unratified 1979 Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty as well as his attempt to reinterpret the ABM treaty in a way that would allow for testing of aspects of the “Star Wars” missile defense system.

For the first time, the Senate passed legislation, similar to that previously passed by the House, requiring the President to abide by the 1979 SALT agreement and the traditional interpretation of the ABM treaty. Although a last-minute compromise kept this issue from precipitating a showdown between Reagan and Congress over defense spending, the controversy has only been postponed until next year.

U.S. funding for the Contras also continued throughout 1987, even though the Iran-Contra affair stirred greater opposition among Democrats. It now appears that the outcome of the next big Contra aid vote, scheduled for Feb. 4, will hinge on the results of the current cease-fire negotiations between the Contras and the Sandinistas.

Benchmark for Agreements

Despite the divisiveness of 1987, Democratic leaders predict that next year could be less quarrelsome–especially if the President shows a greater willingness to compromise, as he did on the deficit reduction package. Byrd said the budget talks set a benchmark for resolving future differences, such as next year’s big battle over trade legislation.

Ironically, it is the President’s usual critics in the Democratic Party who will be supporting Reagan early next year when he seeks Senate ratification for the recently signed U.S.-Soviet agreement to eliminate medium-range nuclear weapons. GOP conservatives generally oppose the treaty.

During his stint on MAFS, Dave Hand was open about his father Howard’s struggle with cancer. Months later, the Aussie hunk shares a devastating update on his dad’s health.

After making waves in Married At First Sight Australia, Dave Hand has revealed his father Howard is facing his own storm as his cancer has returned.

From heartbreak to healing, Dave Hand is figuring out what comes after reality TV – one step, one trial and one walk with his dog at a time.

Since leaving Married At First Sight Australia and after calling the show out, Dave has been focused on three things: his business, his family and his pooch. But the aftermath of instant fame hit him harder than he thought.

“It’s definitely a lot harder than I expected,” he says, “You’re not only thrown into TV and popularity, it’s like a whole new world. You’re just learning to walk again.”

New to the spotlight of the hit E4 show, Dave didn’t anticipate how fame would ripple into everyday life. “It plays out in everything you do,” he says. “You go out for coffee, you’re taking photos with somebody. Or you’re walking down the street and people are asking you for advice.”

What audiences saw on screen was a man entering the MAFS experiment with real intention. But behind his calm exterior, another story was unfolding. His father, Howard, was battling stage-four cancer.

READ MORE: ‘Struggling’ mum ditches regular diets to lose 4 stone with 3 children under five

“A lot of people connected with me through my dad’s sickness,” Dave says, “Cancer is a hell of a disease and it’s an eye-opener because you don’t realise how many people are going through it. It’s really nice to hear people’s stories.”

But reality TV comes with backlash. Dave says he’s experienced both the highs and lows of fan attention. “On one side, you’ve got really nice, heartwarming messages and on the other, you’ve got someone who’s so immature,” Dave says. “You choose to be mean rather than spread kindness and love. I don’t understand it.”

The online noise isn’t the only thing frustrating him. Off-screen drama between his castmates has left Dave disappointed in what could have been a supportive community.

The latest season has been one of MAFS AU’s most explosive yet – with Ryan Donnelly and Jacqui Burfoot’s feud spiralling into restraining orders and off-camera rows erupting between Jacqui, Rhi, Tim, amongst other participants.

“The cast members should be looking after one another after the show. And you’ve got people acting absolutely ridiculous towards one another. It’s a damn shame,” Dave says.

Before settling scores with on-screen rival Adrian Araouzou. “Adrian said some things about me and he absolutely copped it from the public. I feel sorry for him,” he says, “And in the meantime, he’s attacking me. This isn’t the way the group should be handling it. It’s quite scary.”

He adds: “We should be backing each other at this time and we’ve dropped the ball completely. We could have been standing up to the bad comments together.”

Tensions also brewed with Tim during filming but Dave insists that chapter is far behind him. “I’ve moved on from Tim, any anybody who’s thrown shade my way. I’m not hostile,” Dave says. “If I saw him, I’d probably say ‘G’day!’ But if someone paints you a picture, don’t let them paint you another.”

He’s also made peace with the end of his relationship with Jamie Marinos, the 28-year-old digital marketing agent he was matched with.

While Jamie fell fast – telling Dave she loved him just weeks in – he struggled to match the pace. “After the show, I’ve learned that I really want to take my time with somebody,” he says, “It takes time for me. I’m not as quick as Jamie was, falling in love after six weeks.”

He continues: “You can love somebody when things are all good and happy but when things get hard, you don’t really know who this person is. Jamie said two weeks later that she didn’t love me. I feel like she loved the idea of me or the idea of someone she wanted me to be.”

Now, Dave’s focus is back where it matters the most – his father. The cancer Howard had kept at bay during filming has returned. “The tumours my dad had on the show that had previously shrunk – they’ve come back pretty quickly,” Dave says, emotion straining his voice.

“He’s on a new trial now. Only 200 people in the world are doing it. My dad’s response for doing it is, ‘if I can help somebody out, I’m going to give this trial a crack and help the future.’”

But Dave doesn’t sugar-coat the toll it’s taken. “He’s been fighting it for five years and now it’s taken a toll on him,” Dave adds, “He’s a bit frail and now he’s got to go into battle again.”

Looking ahead, Dave is considering a bold next chapter. “I want to get over to the UK,” he says, “I’d love to do some reality TV over there. I’ll probably come out later in the year.”

As for dating? He’s in no rush. In fact, he’s more focused on mental health advocacy. “Mental health issues and depression have been in my family, I’ve witnessed it, I’ve lived it,” he says.

“But I’ve processed it, I deal with it and I know what works for me. I can help others with that. I want to get the message across that the sad days don’t stick.”

His long-term dream? A mental health charity. “I’d like to touch base on some mental health stuff and be a role model for younger kids,” he says. “I want to start a charity one day.”

Until then, Dave’s not walking alone. His five-year-old Marana dog is always by his side during his toughest days. “He’s definitely helped keep me grounded,” Dave says.

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

Marlee Matlin has a word tattooed on each of her wrists. On the left is “perseverance,” on the right is “warrior.”

“After 37 years, I’m still hustling,” she says by way of explanation in “Marlee Matlin: Not Alone Anymore.” Referring to the ink on her left wrist, she adds, “I look at this all the time. Every day.”

“Not Alone Anymore” is hardly the first celebrity documentary to salute its subject’s tenacity. But if the contours of this story are familiar — the rise, the fall, then the rise again of an Oscar winner — director Shoshannah Stern’s affectionate portrait is all the richer for the layers it reveals about both Matlin and the larger struggles of the Deaf community she embodies. The 59-year-old actor’s legacy may indeed be one of perseverance, but “Not Alone Anymore” touchingly details just how much more challenging her battles with addiction and sexual abuse have been than those of other famous people.

The film’s inventiveness starts with its opening frames, in which closed captioning describes the sounds that accompany the production companies’ logos: “[low humming],” “[dramatic, echoey flutters].” These descriptions occur throughout the documentary, as do subtitles for every talking head, including the Deaf participants. Obviously, these creative decisions allow Deaf and hard-of-hearing viewers to more easily experience “Not Alone Anymore.”

But it’s also a subtle acknowledgement of Matlin’s trailblazing work in the late 1980s, when she used her newfound fame to convince lawmakers to require televisions to include closed captioning — a groundbreaking development for a community who had been deprived of a fuller engagement with the media they were watching.

This wasn’t the only way in which Matlin has left her mark. In “Not Alone Anymore,” she breezily recounts how, at 19, she was plucked from relative obscurity to star in her first film, the 1986 adaptation of “Children of a Lesser God,” based on Mark Medoff’s acclaimed play, about a love affair between Sarah, a Deaf janitor, and James, a hearing teacher. Matlin won the Oscar, becoming the first Deaf actor to do so. (Nearly 40 years later, she remains the youngest lead actress recipient.) At the time, her victory was hailed not just as a coronation of a promising talent but also a triumph for the Deaf, who too often feel marginalized and underestimated. But, as the documentary reveals, real progress would prove trickier to achieve.

Matlin and Stern, who is also a Deaf actor, have been friends for decades, and their interviews are mostly conducted sitting together on a couch, the conversations exuding the cozy intimacy of old chums chatting. Making her directorial debut, Stern deftly draws out her subject. Audiences will learn about Matlin’s past history of drug abuse and her fraught romantic relationship with her “Lesser God” costar William Hurt, whom she has accused of sexual and physical abuse. (Hurt died in 2022.)

But “Not Alone Anymore” gently probes the unique difficulties Matlin’s deafness created as she navigated those traumas. When she went to rehab, the facility was ill-equipped to treat a Deaf patient. And during a poignant discussion about Matlin’s sexual abuse, she explains growing up with no understanding of the phrase “domestic violence.”

“Deaf people only have their eyes to rely on for information,” she tells Stern. It’s an illuminating illustration of the dangers of what the Deaf community refers to as language deprivation.

Despite her Oscar win, Matlin would repeatedly have to advocate for herself in an industry seemingly uninterested in Deaf characters. Stern uses 2021’s best-picture-winning “CODA,” which costarred Matlin, as a happy ending of sorts for her film, without denying the ongoing movement for greater Deaf visibility. But if “Not Alone Anymore” can sometimes lean too heavily on uplifting sentiment, Matlin’s story possesses a bittersweet aftertaste.

As evidenced by Matlin’s years of striking, engaging performances, she is a winning presence in the documentary — funny, charming and open — even while we sense the lingering wounds from a difficult upbringing exacerbated by sexual abuse she endured in childhood. Beyond being a spokesperson for the Deaf, Matlin has also emerged as a voice for survivors, even when the world wasn’t receptive to what she had to say. “Not Alone Anymore” notes, with pointed irony, that Matlin published her candid memoir “I’ll Scream Later” in 2009, years before #MeToo, so her accusations against Hurt didn’t carry the same weight in the media as the ones that would later stop powerful predators such as Harvey Weinstein.

It was hardly the first time Matlin waited for society to catch up with her. When she first arrived in Hollywood, she couldn’t have possibly imagined how much of a warrior spirit she would need. “Not Alone Anymore” honors a woman who learned how to fight.

WASHINGTON — Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth announced Friday that the USNS Harvey Milk will be renamed after a World War II sailor who received the Medal of Honor, stripping the ship of the name of a slain gay rights activist who served during the Korean War.

In a video posted to social media, Hegseth said he was “taking the politics out of ship naming.”

The ship’s new name will honor Navy Chief Petty Officer Oscar V. Peterson, who was awarded the highest military decoration posthumously for his actions during the 1942 Battle of the Coral Sea in the Pacific.

The decision is the latest move by Hegseth to wipe away names of ships and military bases that were given by President Joe Biden’s Democratic administration, which in many cases chose to honor service members who were women, minorities, from the LBGTQ community and more.

It follows earlier actions by Hegseth and President Donald Trump, a Republican, to purge all programs, policies, books and social media mentions of references to diversity, equity and inclusion in the military and elsewhere.

Hegseth’s announcement comes during Pride Month — the same timing as the Pentagon’s campaign to force transgender troops out of the U.S. military.

“We’re not renaming the ship to anything political. This is not about political activists,” said Hegseth, who earlier this month ordered Navy Secretary John Phelan to put together a small team to rename the USNS Harvey Milk replenishment oiler.

He said Peterson’s “spirit of self-sacrifice and concern for his crewmates was in keeping with the finest traditions of the Navy.”

When Hegseth announced the decision to rename the ship, officials defended it as an effort to align with Trump and Hegseth’s objectives to “re-establish the warrior culture.”

Peterson served on the USS Neosho, which also was an oiler. The ship was damaged during the Battle of the Coral Sea, and even though Peterson was injured, he managed to close the bulkhead stop valves to keep the ship operational. He died of his wounds.

The Navy in 1943 named an escort ship after Peterson. The USS Peterson served for more than two decades and was decommissioned in June 1965.

The USNS Harvey Milk was named in 2016 by then-Navy Secretary Ray Mabus, who said at the time that the John Lewis-class of oilers would be named after leaders who fought for civil and human rights.

Harvey Milk, who was portrayed by Sean Penn in an Oscar-winning 2008 movie, served for four years in the Navy before he was forced out for being gay. He later became one of the first openly gay candidates elected to public office, in San Francisco. He was assassinated in 1978 by a disgruntled former city supervisor.

Baldor writes for the Associated Press.

Project 2025 became a flashpoint during the 2024 presidential campaign. The sweeping conservative policy blueprint aims to overhaul the federal government and reshape United States society.

How closely is President Donald Trump following its direction? And how much does it test the limits of the Constitution?

Marc Lamont Hill talks to Paul Dans, the former director of Project 2025 at the Heritage Foundation.

June 17 (UPI) — Iranian leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is an “easy target,” and Iran should surrender unconditionally, President Donald Trump said Tuesday before Iran’s leader countered with his own warning, “the battle begins.”

As Iran fired two hypersonic missile barrages into Israel on Tuesday night, Khamenei wrote in a post on X, “In the name of the noble Haidar, the battle begins,” along with an image of fire raining down on an ancient city.

In a separate X account, he wrote in English, “We must give a strong response to the terrorist Zionist regime. We will show the Zionists no mercy.”

There were no injuries reported in Iran’s attacks, as Israel Defense Forces issued an evacuation order before a new wave of airstrikes in Tehran.

Earlier Tuesday, Trump urged Khamenei to surrender.

“We know exactly where the so-called ‘Supreme Leader’ is hiding,” Trump said in a Truth Social post.

“He is an easy target but is safe there — we are not going to take him out (kill!), at least not for now,” Trump continued.

“But we don’t want missiles shot at civilians or American soldiers,” he said, adding, “Our patience is wearing thin.”

In a subsequent post, Trump simply stated, “Unconditional surrender!” in all capital letters.

Trump said he hasn’t reached out to Iranian leaders and isn’t “in the mood” to negotiate with them, ABC News reported.

He said Israel has “complete and total control of the skies over Iran” due to “American-made, conceived and manufactured” arms.

Trump posted his comments after Israeli and Iranian forces continued exchanging aerial assaults during the fifth day of the active war between the two nations.

The president met with military advisers shortly after returning early from the G7 conference in Canada on Tuesday due to the situation in the Middle East.

Israeli forces are targeting ballistic missile launch sites and command centers in central Iran.

“We’ve struck deep, hitting Iran’s nuclear ballistic capabilities,” Israel Defense Forces said in a statement.

“We have delivered significant blows to the Iranian regime, and as such, they have been pushed back into central Iran,” the IDF statement says.

“They are now focusing their efforts on conducting missile fire from the area of Isfahan.”

Meanwhile, Iranian officials have issued warnings to civilians in Tel Aviv and Haifa to evacuate because they are targeted for a “punitive operation.”

“The operations carried out so far have merely been warnings for deterrence,” Iran’s commander-in-chief Abdolrahim Mousavi said on Tuesday. “A punitive operation will be executed soon.”

He referred to the Israeli cities as “occupied territories” and said residents should leave them “for their own safety and not to become victims of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu’s barbaric actions.”

The U.S. embassy in Israel announced it will close Wednesday for three days due to the escalating conflict.

“As a result of the current security situation and ongoing conflict between Israel and Iran, the U.S. Embassy has directed that all U.S. government employees and their family members continue to shelter in place and near their residences until further notice.”

The embassy, located in Jerusalem, said it had no information to assist private U.S. citizens who want to leave the country, adding that Israel’s largest airport, Ben Gurion International Airport near Tel Aviv, is closed.

Beirut, Lebanon – When Israel attacked Lebanon in September 2024, Fatima Kandil left her home in Beirut’s southern suburbs, known colloquially as Dahiyeh. As the area sustained wide-scale Israeli air strikes, many Lebanese fled Dahiyeh for other parts of the country or, like Kandil, sought refuge in Iraq.

Nearly seven months after the November ceasefire between Israel and the armed Lebanese group Hezbollah – an agreement Lebanon says Israel has repeatedly violated – rockets are lighting up the night sky once again. But this time, Hezbollah is not involved. Instead, Israel and Iran are exchanging direct military attacks.

“We don’t know how this will all end, so we are undoubtedly tense,” Kandil, now back in Lebanon, told Al Jazeera. However, she added that she had a feeling of satisfaction seeing missiles rain down on Israel. “Our revenge is being taken,” she said.

While Kandil’s sentiment is shared by some in Lebanon, others – those who see Iran’s support for Hezbollah, a group that has dominated Lebanon militarily and politically for two decades, as nefarious – cheered on the Israeli attacks against Iran. Many people in Lebanon told Al Jazeera they hoped that stability would prevail and that their country wouldn’t be dragged back into a prolonged conflict or subjected to the ferocity and frequency of the Israeli attacks it suffered last year.

“People are taking precautions,” Karim Safieddine, a Lebanese political writer and academic, told Al Jazeera. “Some are readying their bags.”

No intervention … yet

Early Friday, Israel struck Iran and assassinated several top commanders in the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) along with top nuclear scientists. Numerous civilians were also killed, including children, according to Iranian state media.

Hours later, Hezbollah released a statement condemning the Israeli attacks and offering condolences for the slain Iranian officers. But analysts say the statement was a clear sign that Hezbollah would not be entering the battle in support of Iran.

“Currently, there is no need for Hezbollah to intervene, as Iranian missiles are capable of confronting the Israeli occupation,” said Qassem Kassir, a Lebanese political analyst supportive of the group. “However, if the situation escalates into a full-scale war, nothing prevents the situation from changing.”

Hezbollah, founded amid the Lebanese civil war in 1982 with Iranian backing and funding, draws much of its support from Lebanon’s Shia Muslim community. The group began firing rockets at Israel on October 8, 2023, after the start of Israel’s war on Gaza.

Israeli attacks in Lebanon between October 2023 and November 2024 largely targeted areas where Shia live, killing around 4,000 civilians and fighters, according to Lebanon’s Ministry of Public Health.

Many Lebanese are still reeling from the damage left by Israel’s attacks. Some remain displaced from their villages in southern Lebanon, which was razed. Hezbollah’s priority is to ensure that homes and towns are built in the area.

While Israel is still hitting targets around the country, mostly in southern Lebanon but occasionally in the Beirut suburbs as well, any resumption of military activity by Hezbollah would likely draw an even more intense Israeli response and further disrupt reconstruction efforts.

Much of Hezbollah’s military arsenal was reportedly destroyed during the Israeli attacks, though analysts believe they have retained some arms, including ballistic missiles.

Still, Hezbollah’s lack of intervention in the current Israel-Iran conflict is “evidence of their lack of capacity”, Safieddine said. Hezbollah may not have the means to intervene militarily.

The Israeli campaign on Lebanon also left Hezbollah’s political leadership battered. Many of the group’s most senior military figures, including longtime leader Hassan Nasrallah, were assassinated. The group’s political hegemony is now being challenged by the Lebanese state, with pressure from the United States and Israel, as it moves to disarm Hezbollah and bring the use of force under the state’s exclusive authority.

For now, analysts believe there is a consensus and understanding between Tehran and Hezbollah that the group will not intervene.

“Domestic political circumstances make it extremely difficult for Hezbollah to join in Iranian retaliation,” Nicholas Blanford, a nonresident senior fellow with the US-based think tank Atlantic Council, told Al Jazeera. “And the Iranians recognise they can’t call on them.”

The battle within

While Hezbollah is sometimes referred to as an Iranian proxy, many experts say the group is more accurately described as a close ally of the IRGC and the Iranian government with shared interests and a similar ideology.

During Israel’s heavy bombardment of Lebanon between September and November 2024, Iran’s intervention was relatively limited. Israel invaded southern Lebanon, and while Israeli troops have pulled out of most of the Lebanese territory they entered during the war, they still occupy five points.

“There’s resentment and unhappiness toward Iran by Hezbollah because they feel Iran let them down in the recent conflict,” Blanford said. Iran reportedly asked Hezbollah not to use some of its more lethal weapons, which analysts linked to fears of an Israeli response on Iranian territory.

As for Israel’s attacks on Iran, there’s no indication that Tehran has asked Hezbollah to get involved yet, according to Kassir, the analyst thought to be close to Hezbollah. But that might change if a protracted war draws in actors from around the region.

Blanford said he doesn’t expect to “see Hezbollah joining in full scale”, but noted that if Israel starts to struggle in its fight against Iran, it could lead to “some activity along the Blue Line”, the line traversing Lebanon’s southern border. If that happens, Blanford said, Hezbollah may look to carry out operations in the Israeli-occupied areas of Lebanon.

Israel’s plans for Lebanon and Hezbollah remain unclear, but the sound of Israeli drones, an ever-present buzz during the most severe days of the war, has returned to Beirut’s skies in the last few days.

“I wouldn’t rule out [Hezbollah’s intervention] entirely,” said Blanford. “But for now, it looks like they will stand on the sidelines and keep an eagle eye on what is going on.”

Hosts Tim Lovejoy and Simon Rimmer were forced to reveal that one of their guests, Yungblud, would not be appearing on the Channel 4 show

Sunday Brunch experienced an unexpected shake-up after a guest had to cancel their appearance due to medical advice.

The popular Channel 4 programme was back on the telly on Sunday (June 15), serving up its usual mix of culinary delights, banter and tunes. Presenters Tim Lovejoy and Simon Rimmer were joined by a fresh set of celebs.

During the episode, the duo engaged in conversation with stars such as Josh Groban, Gabriel Howell, Tom Hughes, Yinka Bokinni, and Lesley Joseph, while chart-topping sensation AJ Tracey delivered a musical performance.

However, singer Yungblud was notably absent from the line-up, having been forced to withdraw from the show following his doctor’s orders.

“YUNGBLUD sadly isn’t here,” Tim announced. He elaborated: “He was going to be on last week’s show and he was ill. Then he was going to be on this week’s show and he’s ill again.”, reports the Manchester Evening News.

Simon contributed: “He’s sent us a sick note Tim. A little handwritten sick note.”

Tim then presented Yungblud’s forthcoming album, Idols, which featured a handwritten note on the reverse.

As Simon read out the note, he conveyed: “In summary, he said, ‘Dear Tim and Simon, I regret to inform you that I Yungblud will not be able to appear on your show this Sunday again. Doctors are insisting I spend the week horizontal.'”.

Simon disclosed: “He’s got tonsils,” before resuming with Yungblud’s note: “Enclosed is a £20 note in the hope that you will shamelessly promote my album that comes out this Friday, it’s really good.”

Last week saw Yungblud bow out, with pop and Indie sensation Jerub stepping in at the eleventh hour to fill the void.

Taking a seat for a chat on the couch with the hosts, Jerub admitted it had been a “tight squeeze” managing to pencil in his studio appearance, but he jumped at the chance when approached, eager to “make it work.”

Sunday Brunch airs every Sunday at 10am on Channel 4.

The United States Marines have deployed to Los Angeles following criticism and legal battles over whether President Donald Trump had the authority to use the military to quell civilian protests without state approval.

On Friday, Major General Scott Sherman of the US Army confirmed that 200 Marines were arriving in southern California to protect a federal building. A total of 700 Marines have been authorised for deployment to the region.

“I would like to emphasise that the soldiers will not participate in law enforcement activities,” Sherman said during a briefing.

Later in the day, the news agency Reuters confirmed with the military that the Marines had carried out their first-known detention, restraining a civilian with zip ties. The Trump administration has said the Marines will accompany Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) on raids and arrests.

“Any temporary detention ends immediately when the individual can be safely transferred to the custody of appropriate civilian law enforcement personnel,” a military spokesperson told Reuters.

Federal law generally prohibits the military from participating in civilian law enforcement activities, and military officials have been careful to draw a line between temporary detentions and formal arrests — the latter of which they cannot do.

The Marines join National Guard troops already in the Los Angeles area following the eruption of protests on June 6, when residents took to the streets to express their displeasure with President Trump’s immigration raids, some of which targeted local hardware stores and other workplaces.

While many of the demonstrations were mostly peaceful and limited to a small part of the city, the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) did experience tense clashes with some protesters, who hurled objects and set driverless Waymo vehicles on fire. Police responded with flashbangs, tear gas and rubber bullets.

Trump, meanwhile, dubbed the protesters “bad people” and “insurrectionists” and announced the deployment of the National Guard on the evening of June 7.

The president cited Title 10 of the US Code, which allows a president to call up the National Guard if there is a “rebellion or danger of rebellion” against the federal government. Trump and his allies framed the demonstrators as part of a migrant “invasion” imperilling the US.

“To the extent that protests or acts of violence directly inhibit the execution of the laws, they constitute a form of rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States,” Trump wrote in a presidential memorandum.

A legal battle

It was the first time since 1965 that a US president had authorised the National Guard’s deployment to a state without the governor’s permission. The last time was to protect civil rights protesters who were marching through segregated Alabama and faced threats of violence.

Presidents have called up the National Guard to address domestic unrest in the years since, but only with the cooperation of local authorities. In 1992, for instance, then-President Bill Clinton answered a request from California’s governor at the time to send National Guard members to address the Rodney King protests in Los Angeles.

Trump’s decision to circumvent the authority of California’s present-day governor, Gavin Newsom, has led to a legal fight over whether he exceeded his powers as president.

Newsom filed a lawsuit to block the use of military troops outside of federal sites, and on Thursday, a pair of court decisions left the future of the recent deployment unclear.

First, on Thursday afternoon, District Court Judge Charles Breyer of San Francisco sided with Newsom, calling Trump’s actions “illegal” and a violation of the US Constitution.

In his 36-page decision, Breyer ruled that the Trump administration had failed to show a danger of rebellion in Los Angeles.

“While Defendants have pointed to several instances of violence, they have not identified a violent, armed, organized, open and avowed uprising against the government as a whole,” he wrote. “The definition of rebellion is unmet.”

He added that he was “troubled” by the Trump administration’s argument that a protest against the federal government could be tantamount to rebellion, warning that such logic could violate the First Amendment right to free speech.

“Individuals’ right to protest the government is one of the fundamental rights protected by the First Amendment, and just because some stray bad actors go too far does not wipe out that right for everyone,” Breyer said.

He called for an injunction against Trump’s use of National Guard members, saying “it sets a dangerous precedent for future domestic military activity” and “deprives the state for two months of its own use of thousands of National Guard members”.

Nearly 4,000 members of the California National Guard have been authorised for deployment to Los Angeles under Trump’s command.

But the Trump administration quickly appealed Judge Breyer’s injunction. By late Thursday, the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals had temporarily blocked the injunction, allowing Trump to continue using the National Guard until a hearing could be held on the matter next week.

On Friday, Trump celebrated that decision on his social media platform, Truth Social.

“The Appeals Court ruled last night that I can use the National Guard to keep our cities, in this case Los Angeles, safe,” Trump wrote.

“If I didn’t send the Military into Los Angeles, that city would be burning to the ground right now. We saved L.A. Thank you for the Decision!!!”

Newsom, meanwhile, has continued his call for Trump to end what he framed as illegal control of the National Guard. He has also accused the military presence of heightening tensions with protesters, not dissipating them.

“@RealDonaldTrump, you must relinquish your authority of the National Guard back to me and back to California,” Newsom wrote on social media Thursday.

He has called the Republican president’s federalisation of the National Guard an “unmistakable step toward authoritarianism”.

The California governor is seen as a possible Democratic contender for the presidency in the 2028 election cycle.

Mark Wildblood, the founder of Hear Our Voice – the choir made up of people impacted by the Post Office scandal – says the initiative has been ‘therapeutic’ after a battle with depression.

Hear Our Voice, the choir made up of people affected by the Post Office scandal which placed seventh in the recent series of Britain’s Got Talent, are releasing a new charity single alongside band Will & The People.

The single, Falling Down, is a rendition of the song they performed in their audition for Britain’s Got Talent. And choir founder Mark Wildblood says the initiative has been ‘life changing’ for him, admitting the talent show stint has made a significant impact on his mental health.

“I personally have found it very therapeutic,” said Mark. “I was on antidepressants prescribed by my doctor for a long long time and I spoke to them very early this year and I said, ‘Look [the choir] is really starting to make me feel good and I wouldn’t mind trying to go without [the antidepressants].

“So, at the recommendation of doctors I was told it’s ok to give it a go and I haven’t been back on them since,” he says of the choir’s impact.

Continuing that it has given him ‘purpose’ following dark days, Mark shared, “It’s not difficult to get caught up in dwelling on all of the negatives. So, to be surrounded by the same people that you talk to about it every day and that are seeing the positives as well, I think we’ve done a really really positive thing and a lot of that is thanks to BGT.”

While Mark says the choir has meant he’s managed to let go of ‘anger’ he was holding onto against the post office, he confirms that the ‘concern’ remains. “My concern for the procedure is not eliminated. We still have to make sure that we get closure and closure can only come with compensation.”

Mark was a sub-postmaster at Upton Post Office before he was suspended from the role as one of the thousands of people impacted by the Post Office scandal. The scandal saw the wrongful prosecution of sub-postmasters and postmistresses by the Post Office, who accused them of theft, fraud, and false accounting due to faulty data from the Horizon IT system used by the company.

He founded the choir in May 2024, inviting others impacted by the scandal to take part and raise money for the cause, alongside awareness. As the former tour manager for Will and the People, Mark then enlisted lead singer Will Rendle to get involved as he fronted the act on Britain’s Got Talent.

And detailing how the choir has become a family dynamic, Mark said, “W e always say to each other that we have become family now. The choir is spread out throughout the country and so BGT has given us the opportunity to actually meet five times in a very short space of time and be together.”

Many of the victims are still awaiting compensation from the Post Office, with Mark admitting that despite the success of their campaigning and the recent TV series; Mr Bates vs The Post Office, there’s still a long way to go.

It comes as Simon Recaldin, a Post Office boss who has been backing compensation for the scandal victims, has left his position in the company. Simon is thought to have opted for voluntary redundancy, a move which comes amid the increased pressure on the company to pay victims. Previously, the government announced that those who have had convictions overturned are eligible for £600,000, with hundreds still waiting for the compensation.

“Scandals like these have a commonality where the bureaucracy of closure takes so long that many people pass away by the time that the situations are resolved – I just hope that we don’t get into that situation,” says Mark of those yet to be paid. “We’ve already lost a lot of people in the Post Office scandal and we can’t afford to lose more without getting a speed up, so I would say to those in power, please change the system. It’ll be better for everyone all round and cost a lot less money if they just do it now as it should be,” pleaded Mark.

With fellow choir member Maria Lockwood joking that the unit would be keen to front the Glastonbury stage this summer, Mark says he isn’t opposed to the idea. “We wouldn’t say no to anything where we had the opportunity to get together in person again and Glastonbury would be amazing, that would be phenomenal.”

Falling Down, the single by Hear Our Voice choir and Will and The People, is available on all platforms from tomorrow, 10 June. 100% of profits after costs from the single are going to the Horizon Scandal Fund and Lost Chances—two organisations supporting victims and their families.

Defending champions Spain face 2019 winners, and Iberian rivals, Portugal in Sunday’s Nations League final in Munich.

Portugal captain Cristiano Ronaldo acknowledged that he was “another generation” to Spain starlet Lamine Yamal but said Sunday’s Nations League final was more than just a battle between the duo.

The final in Munich has been framed as a showdown between veteran Ronaldo, 40, one of the game’s biggest names, and 17-year-old Yamal, the most exciting young talent in world football.

Ronaldo scored the winner to send Portugal past Germany into the final, and Yamal was named man-of-the-match after bagging a brace in Spain’s wild 5-4 semifinal win over France.

Ronaldo, however, said the focus on the two individuals was overblown, calling Spain “maybe the best national team in the world”.

“There are different generations, one is coming in and another is exiting the stage. If you want to see me as another generation, then that’s OK.

“When you talk about a clash between Cristiano and someone else, that’s not how it works. The media always try to hype things up, which is a normal thing, but it’s one team versus another team.”

“You’ve been talking about Lamine a lot and you’re right to do so because he’s very good,” Ronaldo told journalists, adding, “but I’d like to talk about the team.

“They’ve got Nico Williams, great midfielders like Pedri and their coach [Luis] de la Fuente is very good, very strong, very disciplined.”

Portugal last beat their Iberian neighbours in a competitive fixture 21 years ago, in a match which Ronaldo started.

Like Yamal, Ronaldo burst onto the scene at a young age.

Aged just 18, Ronaldo impressed so much for boyhood side Sporting in a 3-1 win over Manchester United in a friendly in Lisbon that the English club decided to buy him, bringing him to Old Trafford less than a week later.

Like a young Ronaldo, Yamal has consistently impressed since bursting onto the scene, winning a league and cup double with Barcelona this season after lifting the Euro 2024 title in Germany last year.

The Portuguese veteran asked the media to allow the teenager to grow and improve without pressure, reminding them the Spanish star “with funny hair” was just “three years older than my son”.

“The kid has been doing very well, but what I ask is for you to let him grow, not put him under pressure. For the good of football, we need to let him grow in his own way and enjoy the talent he has.”

Spain coach Luis de la Fuente said Yamal was “only 17, but very mature for his age. Well-prepared, intelligent – he lives life as if it’s all normal, and that’s what we want for him”.

De la Fuente said the national side were “trying to walk alongside [Yamal] in his education,” but added “you’d be surprised, shocked, how calm he is.

“He’s special. For some people, this would be a situation of maximum stress. But for him, he’s relaxed, he’s in control – he masters the situation.”

The coach also took time to praise Ronaldo, calling him “a legend in football and an example of the values I like: effort, work rate, sacrifice, getting better every day and never letting your guard down.

“Portugal are led by a footballer who will go down in history with an indelible legacy.”

Both Spain and Portugal have already won the Nations League. Spain are the current champions from their win in 2023, while Portugal won the inaugural tournament back in 2019.

Spain have won 16 and drawn two of their past 18 fixtures – and have not lost a competitive match since March 2023.

Spain forward Mikel Oyarzabal told reporters his side “do not think we are better than anyone,” but “we trust ourselves 100 percent and know we can compete in every game.

“We’ve shown that over the years. Our level is very high.”

I think for Man United it’s best to ship [him] out. If I was the manager I’d be a little bit similar to [Ruben] Amorim in the case of I just want team players.

I want a bunch of lads who are good, honest, hard working team players. And I don’t get that vibe from Garnacho, I don’t get that vibe from a few of the players.

You look at the full-time whistle after the Europa League game. You have Brennan Johnson doing an interview.

He looks like he hasn’t had a haircut for about three months, [hair] horrible all over the place, but his interview was incredible.

You could tell he’s a real nice lad, he’s hard working, he does everything for the team. Then you look at Garnacho. Fresh trim a day ago, dyed blonde ready for the final.

The full-time whistle goes, he’s sat on the pitch sulking by himself, not trying to get behind the other lads, picking them up, saying, ‘Well done we got this far’.

“And I think that there is the big contrast. I just want good lads, honest, hard working lads.

Ben FostertalkSPORT

Scholes says Man Utd must KEEP Hojlund

Paul Scholes has fired a rocket at Manchester United, insisting they must BACK under-fire striker Rasmus Hojlund.

Speaking on The Overlap Fan Debate, he said: “I’d keep Højlund.

“I know he’s not been great, but he’s a 22-year-old kid who has been asked to play centre-forward for Manchester United on his own for the last two years.

“He’s had to play every week. He’s the only one there, and he’s a 22-year-old kid.

“With the way they play, Man United should have at least three top centre-forwards, and I’d bring him into that group.

“Get [Victor] Osimhen and [Viktor] Gyokeres. Hojlund has struggled – like mad of late especially but he’s not had the chance to sit down and watch.

“If a striker is lacking confidence the manager should sit him down and say, ‘Have a look, get a bit of hunger back, a bit of feeling back for the game’.

“We all know he has centre-forward qualities — we’ve seen it. Not enough, I know that. But if he had experience around him.

“Say he had Andy Cole and Dwight Yorke around him, it would bring him on so much. He’s been absolutely flogged to death.

“People forget how young he is. A lot of it is confidence.”

John Brenkus, the charismatic TV host who found creative ways to get sports fans to think about science, has died, his production company, Brinx.TV, said Sunday in a statement.

“John, co-founder of Base Productions, founder of Brinx.TV, and co-creator and host of the 6-time Emmy Award-winning ‘Sport Science,’ had been battling depression,” the statement read. “John lost his fight with this terrible illness on May 31st, 2025.”

The statement added that Brenkus’ “heartbroken family and friends request privacy at this time, and encourage anyone who is struggling with depression to seek help.”

Brenkus grew up in Vienna, Va., and was a participant in multiple Ironman Triathlon races. Also a successful businessman and media producer, Brenkus was best known as the host of “Sport Science.”

The show aired from 2007-2017, first on Fox Sports as hour-long episodes for two seasons, then on ESPN in segment form within the network’s other programs. It featured scientific experiments that tested common notions about athletes, their abilities and the capacity of the human body.

In addition to the participation of numerous sports stars, Brenkus would often take part in the experiments, putting himself “in harm’s way for the sake of scientific discovery,” as ESPN once put it.

“Standing a very average 5’ 8” tall, and tipping the scales at an equally average 160 pounds, Brenkus intersperses his hosting and executive producing duties on Sport Science with performances as the show’s ‘Everyman,’ to help demonstrate what happens when a regular guy steps on the field, into the ring, or on the court with top athletes at the top of their games,” a 2009 ESPN press release stated. “Along the way, he helps audiences understand their own physiologies and how to improve their overall performance, health and well-being.”

ESPN’s Randy Scott remembered his former colleague, who was reportedly 53 when he died, Monday morning on “SportsCenter.”

“John was uniquely talented and singularly brilliant at not only analyzing sports but then translating sports and science to generations of fans in memorable ways, because John was memorable,” Scott said. “… This world was a better place with John Brenkus in it.”

June 2 (UPI) — British Prime Minister Keir Starmer announced plans Monday to inject an additional $20.3 billion into the country’s nuclear weapons program to combat the “threat from Russia” and China and build 12 new nuclear-powered attack submarines.

The new spending is part of a major Strategic Defense Review unveiled by Starmer at a military contractor on Clydeside in Scotland, home to the country’s Trident submarine nuclear deterrent, aimed at restoring Britain’s fighting capability and making it “war-ready” within two years for a conflict in Europe and/or the Atlantic.

“We are moving to war-fighting readiness as the central purpose of our armed forces. When we are being directly threatened by states with advanced military forces, the most effective way to deter them is to be ready, and frankly, to show them that we’re ready to deliver peace through strength,” Starmer said.

“I believe the best way to deter conflict is to prepare for it.”

The plan, was Starmer said, “a blueprint to make Britain safer and stronger, a battle-ready, bomber-clad nation with the strongest alliances and the most advanced capabilities, equipped for the decades to come.”

However, he stressed that it would be a “NATO first” policy, putting the military alliance at the center of everything the United Kingdom did.

In addition to the nuclear warheads program and submarines, which will be built under the AUKUS security pact signed in 2021, other review pledges include six new munitions plants and adding 7,000 new long-range weapons to Britain’s arsenal, a “hybrid” Royal Navy that uses drones alongside warships, submarines and aircraft and invest in improved housing and equipment for members of the armed forces.

While Starmer said he was unable to give assurances that defense spending would reach the government’s goal 3% of GDP by 2034, everything in the defense blueprint was deliverable within the 2.5% figure the government committed to in February, due by Fiscal Year 2027.

Britain’s fiscal year runs April 1 through March 31.

The government has promised $12 billion of the $20 billion will come from economic growth, rather than spending cuts or tax hikes.

The 3% is an “ambition,” and the government’s refusal to set a firm timeline, and again tying it in with economic growth, raised eyebrows.

Starmer rejected suggestions that the failure to commit to a 3.5% minimum by 2032 called for by Secretary-General Mark Rutte and others, demonstrated a lack of commitment to the 32-member-country alliance.

The SDR was slammed by both the opposition Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats.

“With the prime minister unable to even confirm a date for hitting 3% on defense spending, the SDR really is unravelling. How can they deliver what they’ve promised?” Shadow Defense Secretary James Cartledge wrote on X.

Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch accused Starmer’s ruling Labour Party of not being able to “even hold a defense policy together for 48 hours.”

“How can they be trusted to defend Britain? In the most dangerous era in a generation, they found BILLIONS for the Chagos surrender — but can’t commit to properly funding our armed forces,” she wrote in a social media post.

Writing on X, Helen Maguire, defense spokesperson for the Liberal Democrats, called for all-party negotiations to agree on a path forward to 3% of GDP.

“Whilst the prime minister is totally right to recognize the importance of increasing our defense capabilities — without a clear spending plan — the SDR risks becoming a damp squib,” she said.