child

TEEN Mom star Cheyenne Floyd has revealed she’s pregnant with her third child on the show’s season premiere.

Teen Mom: The Next Chapter fans figured out the 32-year-old mom of two’s news ahead of time after catching a tell-tale detail in the background of the season finale teaser.

7

7

7

7

Cheyenne is already mom to Ryder, 8, with ex Cory Wharton, and Ace, 3, with husband Zach Davis, whom she married in 2022.

On the finale’s last moments, Cheyenne tells the camera that she’s going to start fertility treatments in the coming days – but feels she needs to take a pregnancy test ahead of time.

“Oh my God, it says that I’m pregnant,” she says after taking two Clear Blue tests. “Oh my God, I’m shaking!”

In the next scene, she tells Ryder, who becomes so excited and emotional, she bursts into tears.

After the scene aired, Cheyenne announced her pregnancy to her fans on Instagram.

“And when we had nothing left to give, we surrendered it all to God,” she wrote.

“We told Him we couldn’t carry it anymore — and He answered.

“Not in our timing, but in His.

“This little life is proof that even in the waiting, even in the heartbreak, miracles are still being written.”

EMOTIONAL STRUGGLE

Her struggle to get pregnant with her third child was a focus of the show’s latest season.

“Zach and I have been trying to get pregnant for a year and a half now and just being told you’re not fertile, it just doesn’t work. It’s hard. It’s really hard,” she told Us Weekly.

“I just want to know, Why didn’t anybody tell me? I’m crying in the bathroom by myself and then calling my best friend.

“What do I do? It’s hard. It’s so hard. But that’s why I wanted to talk about it on the show, and the influx of messages that I’ve got from people that are like, ‘Thank you.’”

In a finale promo, the narrator promised one cast member would reveal their secret pregnancy on the episode.

Fans initially thought the star was Jade Cline, 27, who was two weeks late on her period and bought a pregnancy test on the previous episode.

But a eagle-eyed viewer caught that the pregnancy tests in the promo were placed on a counter that looked to be the same as those in Cheyenne and Zach’s Los Angeles home.

“Shout out to Zach for literally zooming in on the countertop in their house tour video,” a Reddit user said.

In another clue, Cheyenne recently covered up her stomach in a swimsuit on a recent trip to Turks & Caicos for friend Yris Palmer’s birthday.

Kylie Jenner was also on the trip, and spoiled the birthday girl with a massive $39k-a-night beach mansion.

7

7

7

SALT LAKE CITY, May 22 (UPI) — A new Washington state law that requires members of the clergy to report child abuse or neglect, including when the information is revealed in confession, is being investigated by the U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division.

The DOJ claims the law is anti-Catholic and appears on its face to violate the First Amendment. The investigation, which was announced earlier this month, will look at the development and passage of Senate Bill 5375.

The bill, which adds clergy members to the list of mandatory reporters, was passed by the Senate in a 28-20 vote and 64-31 by the House. It was signed into law May 2 by Gov. Bob Ferguson and is to go into effect July 27.

A DOJ news release says the law has no exception for the absolute seal of confidentiality that applies to Catholic priests.

“SB 5375 demands that Catholic Priests violate their deeply held faith in order to obey the law, a violation of the Constitution and a breach of the free exercise of religion cannot stand under our Constitutional system of government,” Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon said in the release.

“Worse, the law appears to single out clergy as not entitled to assert applicable privileges, as compared to other reporting professionals,” Dhillon said.

The bill’s sponsor, Sen. Noel Frame, D-Seattle, disputes those claims and said the law is not anti-Catholic. She pointed out that members of the clergy are defined as a licensed, accredited or ordained minister, priest, rabbi, imam, elder or similarly situated religious or spiritual leader of any church, religious denomination, religious body, spiritual community or sect.

Mandated reporters include law enforcement officers, professional school personnel, social service counselors, nurses, psychologists and licensed childcare providers, among others. If they have reasonable cause to believe a child has suffered abuse or neglect, they are required to report that to law enforcement or the Department of Children, Youth, and Families.

Under the new law, clergy members must report abuse, but cannot be compelled to testify against the penitent in a court case or criminal proceedings.

“We are talking in our case here about really simply just the reporting in real time of known or suspected abuse and neglect of children in real time,” Frame said. “We’re simply saying, if you believe or you know that a child is actively being abused or neglected, call it in so we can go check on that child to make sure that they are safe.”

Archbishop Paul Etienne of the Archdiocese of Seattle descibted the the law as government overreach. After the apostles were thrown into jail for preaching in the name of Jesus Christ, St. Peter responded, “We must obey God rather than men,” he said in a written statement.

“This is our stance now in the face of this new law,” Etienne said. “Catholic clergy may not violate the seal of confession — or they will be excommunicated from the Church. All Catholics must know and be assured that their confessions remain sacred, secure, confidential and protected by the law of the church.”

The Catholic Church in the United States has been reporting incidents of abuse to law enforcement and cooperating with civil authorities for decades, according to Etienne. Those efforts began in 1986 in the Seattle Archdiocese, he said.

“Our policies already require priests to be mandatory reporters, but not if this information is obtained during confession,” Etienne said.

Frame countered that voluntarily complying with part of the law does not make priests mandatory reporters.

“They may be if they are a teacher, for instance, but they are not mandatory reporters in their role as clergy,” she said. “And to say that we’re already mandated reporters has caused great confusion such that people think the only point of this bill was to ‘go after confession.’ Not true.”

The senator has been trying since 2022 to pass legislation to make clergy mandatory reporters. Articles by Investigative West about how a Jehovah’s Witnesses community in Washington allegedly was covering up sexual abuse of children spurred her effort.

The nonprofit news organization reported the community was handling complaints internally and abuse was not being addressed.

Frame, a survivor of childhood sexual abuse by a family member from ages 5 to 10, said children need to know that if they ask a trusted adult such as a faith leader for help, they’ll get it.

“I told the mandated reporter about the abuse and that’s how it was stopped, and that was my teacher,” she said.

The Freedom From Religion Foundation, which advocated for passage of SB 5375 through its FFRF Action Fund lobbying arm, said the law closes a longstanding and dangerous loophole that allowed clergy to withhold information about child abuse.

“FFRF urges the DOJ to immediately drop this politically motivated and legally unsound investigation,” the organization said in a news release. “Protecting children from harm must be a priority that transcends religious boundaries. It is not anti-Christian to hold clergy accountable — it is pro-child, pro-justice and pro-human rights.”

Other states that do not have an exemption for penitential communication as of May 2023 are New Hampshire, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Texas and West Virginia, according to the Child Welfare Information Gateway.

The Utah Legislature passed a bill last year that does not make clergy mandated reporters, but protects them from civil and criminal liability if they report ongoing abuse or neglect even if the information came from a penitent during confession.

Utah Rep. Anthony Loubet, R-Kearns, said he sponsored House Bill 432 after constituents reached out to him. Some religious organizations had implemented their own reporting requirements, but the protection from liability applied only to mandated reporters, which did not include clergy, he said.

Members of the clergy like having this option, Loubet said.

“This made it clear that they could report if they wanted to and if they did, they received the protection,” he said.

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Annual COVID-19 shots for healthy younger adults and children will no longer be routinely approved under a major new policy shift unveiled Tuesday by the Trump administration.

Top officials for the Food and Drug Administration laid out new requirements for yearly updates to COVID shots, saying they’d continue to use a streamlined approach that would make vaccines available to adults 65 and older as well as children and younger adults with at least one health problem that puts them at higher risk.

But the FDA framework urges companies conduct large, lengthy studies before tweaked vaccines can be approved for healthier people. In a framework published Tuesday in the New England Journal of Medicine, agency officials said the approach still could keep annual vaccinations available for between 100 million and 200 million adults.

The upcoming changes raise questions about people who may still want a fall COVID-19 shot but don’t clearly fall into one of the categories.

“Is the pharmacist going to determine if you’re in a high-risk group?” asked Dr. Paul Offit, a vaccine expert at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. “The only thing that can come of this will make vaccines less insurable and less available.”

The framework, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, is the culmination of a series of recent steps scrutinizing the use of COVID shots and raising major questions about the broader availability of vaccines under President Trump.

For years, federal health officials have told most Americans to expect annual updates to COVID-19 vaccines, similar to the annual flu shot. Just like with flu vaccines, until now the FDA has approved updated COVID shots when manufacturers provide evidence that they spark just as much immunity protection as the previous year’s version.

But FDA’s new guidance appears to be the end of that approach under Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, who has filled the FDA and other health agencies with outspoken critics of the government’s handling of COVID shots, particularly their recommendation for young, healthy adults and children.

Tuesday’s update, written by FDA Commissioner Marty Makary and FDA vaccine chief Vinay Prasad, criticized the United States’ “one-size-fits-all” approach and states that the U.S. has been “the most aggressive” in recommending COVID boosters, when compared with European countries.

“We simply don’t know whether a healthy 52-year-old woman with a normal BMI who has had COVID-19 three times and has received six previous doses of a COVID-19 vaccine will benefit from the seventh dose,” they wrote.

Outside experts say there are legitimate questions about how much everyone still benefits from yearly COVID vaccination or whether they should be recommended for people at increased risk. An influential panel of advisors to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is set to debate that question next month.

The FDA framework announced Tuesday appears to usurp that advisory panel’s job, Offit said. He added that CDC studies have made clear that booster doses do offer protection against mild to moderate illness for four to six months after the shot even in healthy people.

Perrone and Neergaard write for the Associated Press. The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute’s Science and Educational Media Group and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The AP is solely responsible for all content.

Skai Jackson says Deondre Burgin, the father of her 3-month-old son, has been abusing her since last spring, including suggesting that she drink bleach while she was expecting in order to terminate her pregnancy.

Jackson was granted a temporary restraining order against him Monday, according to court documents. The actor, her son and her dog Otis are covered by the order.

The former Disney Channel star, 23, detailed a litany of alleged abuses by Burgin, 21, in her request filed Monday in Los Angeles County Superior Court. Most of them are from 2024, but the inciting event behind the filing appears to have been an alleged attack on Mother’s Day of this year. Jackson said in her filing that Burgin attacked her on May 11 while she was carrying son Kasai.

“He grabbed me by the hair, slammed my head on the back seat window of my car and hit me in the face while holding my son,” the “Jessie” and “Bunk’d” actor wrote in her filing. “Deondre caused me to have a bloody nose. I don’t feel safe with my son being around him due to his violent history. He also said ‘F’ my child.”

Last June, Burgin took Jackson’s phone so he could check her messages because a man had texted her, the filing says. Jackson said he then broke her iPhone and choked her against a kitchen counter.

“He demanded that I drink bleach to kill our unborn child,” Jackson wrote about the June incident. “He then walked me to the car with a knife in his hand telling me to get in the driver seat and if I called out for help he would stab me in the stomach. He then called his friend … telling him he was about to kill me. He then told me to drive to the doctor to get an abortion. When I tried to he asked me was I crazy and why would I want to kill our child.”

Jackson said she had video documentation from July when he allegedly punched through the door of an upstairs bathroom she had locked herself in for safety and choked her until she couldn’t breathe. Jackson said that in 2024, there was a six-month period where he choked her or slammed her head into a wall about once a week, destroyed a television and punched holes in her walls.

Jackson said Burgin threatened her with a handgun and also has a rifle and a switchblade, the filing says. The “Dragons: Rescue Riders” voice actor said he threatened in September 2024 to have a member of his family come kill her and her mother.

In October, Burgin allegedly threatened to kill her after she asked him to go to therapy, the documents said.

He stands 6-foot-4 to Jackson’s reported 5-foot-2, according to her application. She asked the court to stop him and his family from posting anything about her on social media, saying that he had threatened to post revenge porn.

The two have brushed up against authorities in the past because of alleged violence between them.

“The Man in the White Van” actor was arrested at Universal Studios Hollywood last August after she and Burgin were detained by security on suspicion of domestic assault. She was arrested by sheriff’s deputies after security footage showed she had pushed Burgin twice. However, the L.A. County District Attorney’s Office didn’t pursue the case.

At the time, Jackson allegedly told authorities that she and Burgin were happily engaged and expecting a baby together.

A permanent restraining order will be considered at a June 9 hearing. The Times was unable to contact Burgin for comment. A representative for Skai Jackson did not respond immediately to The Times’ request for comment.

Former Times staff writer Nardine Saad contributed to this report.

The Trump administration’s executive order to limit birthright citizenship is a serious challenge to the 14th Amendment, which enshrined a radical principle of our democratic experiment: that anyone born here is an American. But the order will most affect average Americans — whose own citizenship, until this point, has been presumed and assured — rather than the intended target, illegal immigrants. The irony is hiding in plain sight.

Contrary to conventional wisdom, birthright citizenship is not entirely settled U.S. law. The executive order states, “the Fourteenth Amendment has never been interpreted to extend citizenship universally to everyone born within the United States” and it is very narrowly drafted to exploit this uncertainty by rejecting citizenship to children born in the United States to parents who are not citizens or legal permanent residents. Federal law and practice has recognized American citizenship to anyone born here since the Supreme Court’s landmark 1898 decision in U.S. vs. Wong Kim Ark. But that case did not specifically protect the birthright of children born in the United States to noncitizen, nonresident aliens.

This is a massive blind spot that states are sleep-walking into. They are depending on weak legal precedent, federal code, policy and hair-splitting over the meaning of “subject of the jurisdiction thereto.” In a brief, the states argue that the “understanding of birthright citizenship has permeated executive agency guidance for decades — and no prior administration has deviated from it.” But that won’t matter to this Supreme Court, which has demonstrated a certain glee in dismantling precedent. There is a clear risk that the justices could fundamentally restrict the definition of birthright citizenship and overturn the 1898 ruling.

The executive order directs the federal government not to issue or accept documents recognizing U.S. citizenship for children born to parents unlawfully present here — but also to parents who are here legally but temporarily. This second group is a potentially vast population (the State Department issued 14.2 million nonimmigrant visas in fiscal year 2024) that includes students, artists, models, executives, investors, laborers, engineers, academics, tourists, temporary protected status groups, ship and plane crews, engineers, asylees, refugees and humanitarian parolees.

A limited change targeting a specific population — nonresident aliens — will have huge effects on those who will least expect it: American citizen parents giving birth to children in the United States. Until this point, a valid, state-issued birth certificate established prima facie evidence of U.S. citizenship to every child born in the country. That would no longer be the case if citizenship depended on verifying certain facts about every U.S.-born child’s parents. With that presumption removed by executive order, citizenship must be adjudicated by a federal official.

I know what that adjudication involves. I was a U.S. consular officer in Latin America, and both of my children were born overseas to married U.S. citizen parents carrying diplomatic passports. But because they did not have the presumption of citizenship conferred by an American birth certificate, we had to go to the U.S. Consulate for adjudication of transmission to demonstrate to the U.S. government that our children were American citizens.

This was document-intensive and time-consuming. Each time, we filled out forms. We photographed the baby in triplicate. We swore an oath before the consular officer. We brandished our passports. We presented the baby to the consular officer. We surrendered the local birth certificate. We demonstrated our hospital stay. Only then did we receive a Consular Report of Birth Abroad and only with that report could we apply for U.S. passports for our children. Without the report or a passport, our children could neither leave the country of their birth nor enter the United States.

That is an evidentiary and bureaucratic burden that all natural-born American citizens have until now not had to bear. The Trump administration’s change, if allowed by courts, will require those same parents to prove their own citizenship to the federal government. Good luck, because showing your birth certificate wouldn’t be sufficient in the new regime: The government would require proof not only that you were born in the U.S., but also that at least one of your parents was a U.S. citizen at the time. (Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh expressed skepticism over this “practical question” during oral arguments last week.)

Americans several generations removed from their immigrant forebears — even those whose ancestors came to North America 10,000 years ago — will suddenly be treated like the unlawfully present parents they thought this rule was designed to exclude.

This rule will lead to chaos, even danger. The federal bureaucracy will have to expand drastically to adjudicate the 3.5 million children born here every year. (For comparison, 1 million people are issued permanent residency status each year and 800,000 become naturalized citizens. This population is typically much better documented than a newborn.) Fearing immigration enforcement, undocumented parents will avoid hospitals for childbirth, dramatically escalating medical risk for mother and baby. Because hospitals also generate birth certificates — as Justice Sonia Sotomayor also noted last week — those babies will form a large, new and entirely avoidable population of stateless children.

It is a truism in some communities that ancestors and family members came to this country legally. But the administration is prepared to dismantle the presumption of citizenship that has been a literal birthright for 125 years. U.S. citizenship is on the brink of becoming a privilege rather than a right, bestowed on those who can afford protracted bureaucratic struggles. Most of the burden will fall on those who least expected it: American parents themselves.

James Thomas Snyder is a former U.S. consular officer and NATO International Staff member.

WASHINGTON — President Trump, alongside his wife, Melania, on Monday signed the Take It Down Act, a measure the first lady helped usher through Congress to set stricter penalties for the distribution of non-consensual intimate imagery online, or “revenge porn.”

In March, Melania Trump used her first public appearance since resuming the role of first lady to travel to Capitol Hill to lobby House members to pass the bill following its approval by the Senate.

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters earlier Monday that the first lady was “instrumental in getting this important legislation passed.”

The bill makes it a federal crime to “knowingly publish” or threaten to publish intimate images without a person’s consent, including AI-created “deepfakes.” Websites and social media companies will be required to remove such material within 48 hours after a victim requests it. The platforms must also take steps to delete duplicate content.

Many states have already banned the dissemination of sexually explicit deepfakes or revenge porn, but the Take It Down Act is a rare example of federal regulators imposing on internet companies.

The bill, sponsored by Sens. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), received overwhelming bipartisan support in Congress, passing the House in April by a 409-2 vote and clearing the Senate by unanimous consent.

But the measure isn’t without critics. Free speech advocates and digital rights groups say the bill is too broad and could lead to censorship of legitimate images, including legal pornography and LGBTQ+ content. Others say it could allow the government to monitor private communications and undermine due process.

The first lady appeared at a Capitol Hill roundtable with lawmakers and young women who had explicit images of them put online, saying it was “heartbreaking” to see what teenagers and especially girls go through after this happens to them. She also included a victim among her guests for the president’s address to a joint session of Congress the day after that meeting.

After the House passed the bill, Melania Trump called the bipartisan vote a “powerful statement that we stand united in protecting the dignity, privacy and safety of our children.”

Her advocacy for the bill is a continuation of the Be Best campaign she started in the president’s first term, focusing on children’s well-being, social media use and opioid abuse.

In his speech to Congress in March, the president said the publication of such imagery online is “just terrible” and that he looked forward to signing the bill into law.

“And I’m going to use that bill for myself, too, if you don’t mind,” he said. There’s nobody who “gets treated worse than I do online. Nobody.”

Superville writes for the Associated Press.

VICK Hope has kept her pregnancy under wraps for months now – but dropped some major hints that left fans speculating.

The Radio 1 presenter and husband Calvin Harris, who tied the knot on their Ibiza farm in 2023, will become parents later this year.

10

10

Vick shared the news live on Radio 1 today, telling Jamie Laing: “I should probably also say this is my final week before I go on maternity leave.”

Jamie told her: “You’re an amazing friend, an amazing person, and you’re just going to be an amazing mum,.”

She replied: “Oh, thank you.”

But many fans had already guessed that the DJ was pregnant months ago.

Here we take a look at some of the clues that Vick subtly dropped to hint at her pregnancy.

BABY SHOWER

10

Vick appeared to celebrate her baby shower a couple of weeks ago as she shared a picture playing a baby shower game – during a meal with friends.

Vick and Calvin certainly have solid foundations to give a baby the best possible early life.

Calvin and Vick have a stunning 138-acre organic farm in Ibiza, known as Terra Masia.

The Spanish estate produces fruit, vegetables, eggs, and wine, and represents Harris’s shift from jet-set lifestyle to a more rural affair.

A source told The Sun in 2022: “Calvin employs an expert team, including farmers and chefs, but he’s also hands-on, regularly getting involved in planting and other farm activities. He’s truly passionate about the project.”

They also have a 10-acre estate in the Cotswolds, which Calvin purchased for £3.6m in 2019.

Over the last few years a bespoke new mansion has been built on the Oxfordshire site which will become the family’s primary residence.

Architect Ben Pentreath, a favourite of the royals, designed the property which will be completed this year.

A source told the Mail: ” There’s no expense spared and it’s going to be amazing.”

VICK’S BRITS LOOK

10

10

The popular radio star looked incredible when she walked the BRITs red carpet in March wearing a plunging dress halterneck satin gown.

The stunning frock also featured cut out details along the stomach, which appeared to show a growing bump.

The former Strictly Come Dancing contestant was joined on the red carpet by her superstar DJ husband Calvin Harris.

The couple put their arms around each other and posed for pictures, with Vick beaming at the cameras.

UNDER WRAPS

10

10

10

Over the past few months, Vick has been attending various events, including Radio 1’s Big Weekender Launch party in March.

She attended the star-studded event in London wearing an oversized plaid coat.

Underneath she opted for a brown mini dress but her winter jacket was pulled tightly together to conceal her stomach.

Earlier this month, Vick shared a post of her recent work highlights.

One snap showed her smiling with Radio 1 co-star Jamie Laing while wearing a baggy grey jumper.

She also posed for a team photo with her new Countryfile family.

Vick wrapped up in a big black puffer coat, cream jumper and grey beanie hat.

In other recent snaps, the radio star is seen sitting behind a desk or wearing oversized baggy t-shirts.

And just a few weeks ago, Vick hosted with Greg James at the London Marathon as they cheered on their co-presenter Jamie.

Vick was seen wearing an oversized white teddy bear coat which kept her bump under cover.

UNOFFICIAL ANNOUCEMENT

10

10

Just two weeks ago, Vick shared a photo of her blossoming bump.

Although the star had not officially announced her pregnancy, Vick was inundated with messages of congratulations from celeb pals.

Lisa Snowden wrote: “Congratulations darling. So happy for you both.”

Kate Thornton posted: “Congratulations on your beautiful news.”

Ashley James shared her excitement, commenting: “Omg Vick,” with a string of red heart emojis.

Vick was also seen cradling her bump during an interview with Florence Pugh two weeks ago.

Vick and Calvin’s love story was a longtime coming, with its origins going back to 2007, when Calvin was in his ‘Acceptable in the ‘80s’ era.

He had a crush on BBC star Vick, but when he worked up the courage to ask her out, she rejected him.

She told You Magazine: “It’s something that we laughed about on our first proper date… 

“We still laugh about it now.” 

Vick later confessed on Capital Radio: “I went off with either Scouting for Girls or The Wombats. I don’t know which. 

“I thought they were going to be bigger, but no, it turns out Calvin Harris was going to turn into an Adonis.”

Despite Calvin’s failed attempt at a date in the mid 2000s, he did eventually get the girl. 

The couple made their first official outing at The Chelsea Flower Show in May 2022. 

People couldn’t help but notice a sparkling diamond sitting on Vick’s ring finger – just five months after they got together.

They married in September 2023 at Hulne Priory, Alnwick, Northumberland. 

During the ceremony, the pair shared their personal vows and listened to poems. 

Nile Rodgers and Chic kicked off the reception with Luther Vandross’ 1981 hit Never Too Much, which was followed by songs by Madonna, Beyoncé, Pharrell Williams and David Bowie.

May 19 (UPI) — Two adults are dead, a baby is injured and a 5-year-old is missing after multiple people were struck by a train in northern Ohio, authorities and officials said.

Fremont Mayor Danny Sanchez told reporters at a brief press conference Sunday night that the victims appear to be a family from Indiana on a fishing trip. The two deceased have been identified as a 58-year-old woman and her 38-year-old daughter.

A 1-year-old was transported to the a local hospital, and responders are searching the Sandusky River for the missing 5-year-old, he said. The condition of the baby was not known.

“This is a very, very unfortunate tragedy that has hit our community today,” Sanchez said.

The Fremont Police Department said in a statement online that emergency crews were working near the Miles Newton Bridge, where the incident occurred. The bridge is currently closed, it added.

Crews responded to the scene at about 7:30 p.m. EDT, WTVG reported. The involved train began moving again at about 11 p.m.

This is a developing story.

Eurovision country trio Remember Monday’s are not new to the stage, as they actually competed in The Voice back in 2019

As the UK’s Eurovision 2025 hopefuls gear up for their big moment on the Grand Final stage, fans are learning more about Remember Monday and their surprising showbiz roots. The country trio is comprised of Lauren Byrne, Holly-Anne Hull and Charlotte Steele.

The three women have known each other since their teenage years, when they became friends while studying at The Sixth Form College Farnborough in Hampshire. The trio originally performed under the name Houston, but rebranded as Remember Monday in 2018 as a tribute to the day they all had free periods at college and would spend time singing together.

Long before preparing to take to the stage for Eurovision, all three members had already become acquainted with the world of entertainment. Charlotte was just a child when she played Jane Bank in Mary Poppins on the West End stage.

Meanwhile, Lauren took on the role of Miss Honey in Matilda, and Holly performed in both Les Misérables and The Phantom of the Opera.

Their big break came in 2019 when the trio auditioned for The Voice UK, stunning judges with their powerful harmonies on Seal’s Kiss from a Rose.

All four coaches turned their chairs, but the band ultimately chose to join Team Jennifer Hudson after being swayed by the chance to be mentored by the only female judge on the panel.

The trio went on to win their Battle Round but were knocked out during the Knockout stage after performing their original track Jailbreaker. Despite the early exit from the competition, the group went on to build a loyal fanbase in the UK.

In September 2023 they took a leap of faith and quit their day jobs to pursue music full time. In early 2024 they were reunited with Hudson on her US talk show, where they gave a soulful performance of Hand in My Pocket by Alanis Morissette.

That same year, Remember Monday was announced as the UK’s Eurovision act for 2025, becoming the first girl band to represent the nation in 26 years.

Their entry What The Hell Just Happened? is a track with bold 80s influences inspired by the chaos of a wild night out. BBC Radio commentators admitted to being “nervous” before they heard the band perform, but were quickly “blown away” after watching Remember Monday’s rehearsals.

Richie Anderson shared: “I was a little bit nervous. It’s like when a family member is about to do a school assembly performance – you’re excited, but also so protective. But as soon as they started singing, their vocals were just incredible.”

He went on to say that the girls’ background in musical theatre prepared them well for putting on a show of this magnitude. He added: “They hit every camera, so it feels like they’re performing just for you – it’s very intimate.”

The Eurovision Song Contest continues with the second semi-final on Thursday, May 15 at 8pm on BBC One and BBC iPlayer. The Grand Final will take place on Saturday, May 17 at 8pm on BBC One and BBC iPlayer.

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

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court gave a skeptical hearing Thursday to a lawyer for President Trump who was appealing rulings that blocked his plan to deny citizenship to newborns whose parents were in this country illegally or temporarily.

None of the justices spoke in favor of Trump’s plan to restrict birthright citizenship, and several were openly skeptical.

“Every court is ruling against you,” said Justice Elena Kagan. “There’s not going to be a lot of disagreement on this.”

If his plan were to take effect, “thousands of children will be born and rendered stateless,” said Justice Sonia Sotomayor.

But Thursday’s hearing was devoted to a procedural question raised by the administration: Can a single federal judge issue a nationwide order to block the president’s plan?

Shortly after Trump issued his executive order to limit birthright citizenship, federal judges in Maryland, Massachusetts and Washington state declared it unconstitutional and blocked its enforcement nationwide.

In response, Trump’s lawyers asked the court to rein in the “epidemic” of nationwide orders handed by district judges.

It’s an issue that has divided the court and bedeviled both Democratic and Republican administrations.

Trump’s lawyers argued that on procedural grounds the judges overstepped their authority. But it is also procedurally unusual for a president to try to revise the Constitution through an executive order.

Thursday’s hearing did not appear to yield a consensus on what to do.

Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh said the plaintiffs should be required to bring a class-action claim if they want to win a broad ruling. But others said that would lead to delays and not solve problem.

Justice Neil M. Gorsuch said he was looking for a way to decide quickly. “How we get to the merits expeditiously?” he asked.

One possibility was to have the court ask for further briefing and perhaps a second hearing to decide the fundamental question: Can Trump acting on his own revise the long-standing interpretation of the 14th Amendment?

Shortly after the Civil War, the Reconstruction Congress wrote the 14th Amendment, which begins with the words: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.”

Prior to that time, Americans were citizens of their states. Moreover, the Supreme Court in the infamous Dred Scott decision said Black people were not citizens of their states and could not become citizens even if they were living in a free state.

The amended Constitution established U.S. citizenship as a birthright. The only persons not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the laws of the United States were foreign diplomats and their families and, in the 19th century, Indians who were “not taxed” and were treated as citizens of their tribal nations.

However, Congress changed that rule in 1924 and extended birthright citizenship to Native Americans.

Since 1898, the Supreme Court has agreed that birthright citizenship extended to the native-born children of foreign migrants living in this country. The court said then “the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth, notwithstanding the alienage of parents” had been established by law.

The decision affirmed the citizenship of Wong Kim Ark, who was born in San Francisco in 1873 to Chinese parents who were living and working there, but who were not U.S. citizens.

But several conservative law professors have disputed the notion that the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States means simply that people living here are subject to the laws here.

Instead, they say it refers more narrowly to people who owe their undivided allegiance to this country. If so, they contend it does not extend broadly to illegal immigrants or to students and tourists who are here temporarily.

On Jan. 20, Trump issued an executive order proclaiming the 14th Amendment does not “extend citizenship universally to everyone born within the United States.” He said it would be U.S. policy to not recognize citizenship for newborns if the child’s mother or father was “not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth.”

Immigrants rights groups sued on behalf of several pregnant women, and they were joined by 22 states and several cities.

Judges wasted no time in declaring Trump’s order unconstitutional. They said his proposed restrictions violated the federal law and Supreme Court precedent as well as the plain words of the 14th Amendment.

In mid-March, Trump’s lawyers sent an emergency appeal to the Supreme Court with “a modest request.” Rather than decide the “important constitutional questions” involving birthright citizenship, they urged the justices to rein in the practice of district judges handing down nationwide orders.

They have “reached epidemic proportions since the start of the current administration,” they said.

A month later, and without further explanation, the court agreed to hear arguments based on that request.

The justices are likely to hand down a decision in Trump vs. CASA, but it may not come until late June.

WASHINGTON — Democrats and Republicans alike raised concerns on Wednesday about deep staffing cuts, funding freezes and far-reaching policy changes overseen by U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

A bipartisan group of lawmakers questioned Kennedy’s approach to the job, some saying that he has jeopardized vaccine uptake, cancer research and dental health in just a few short months.

In combative and at times highly personal rejoinders, Kennedy defended the Trump administration’s dramatic effort to reshape the sprawling, $1.7-trillion-a-year agency, saying it would deliver a more efficient department focused on promoting healthier lifestyles among Americans.

“There’s so much chaos and disorganization in this department,” Kennedy said on Wednesday during the Senate hearing. “What we’re saying is let’s organize in a way that we can quickly adopt and deploy all these opportunities we have to really deliver high-quality healthcare to the American people.”

During tense exchanges, lawmakers — in back-to-back House and Senate hearings — sometimes questioned whether Kennedy was aware of his actions and the structure of his own department after he struggled to provide more details about staffing cuts.

“I have noted you’ve been unable, in most instances, to answer any specific questions related to your agency,” said Sen. Angela Alsobrooks, a Maryland Democrat.

The secretary, in turn, pushed back — saying he had not had time to answer specific questions — and at points questioning lawmakers’ own grasp of health policy.

Kennedy testified to explain his downsizing of the department — from 82,000 to 62,000 staffers — and argue on behalf of the White House’s requested budget, which includes a $500-million boost for Kennedy’s “Make America Healthy Again” initiative to promote nutrition and healthier lifestyles while making deep cuts to infectious disease prevention, medical research and maternal health programs.

He revealed that he persuaded the White House to back down from one major cut: Head Start, a federally funded preschool program for low-income families across the country.

But lawmakers described how thousands of job losses at the health department and funding freezes have impacted their districts.

One Washington state mother, Natalie, has faced delays in treatment for Stage 4 cancer at the National Institutes of Health’s Clinical Center, said Democratic Sen. Patty Murray. The clinical center is the research-only hospital commonly known as the “House of Hope,” but when Murray asked Kennedy to explain how many jobs have been lost there, he could not answer. The president’s budget proposes a nearly $20-billion slash from the NIH.

“You are here to defend cutting the NIH by half,” Murray said. “Do you genuinely believe that won’t result in more stories like Natalie’s?” Kennedy disputed Murray’s account.

Democrat Rep. Bonnie Watson-Coleman of New Jersey asked “why, why, why?” Kennedy would lay off nearly all the staff who oversee the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, which provides $4.1 billion in heating assistance to needy families. The program is slated to be eliminated from the agency’s budget.

Kennedy said that advocates warned him those cuts “will end up killing people,” but that President Trump believes his energy policy will lower costs. If that doesn’t work, Kennedy said, he would restore funding for the program.

Sen. Lisa Murkowski, a Republican of Alaska, said those savings would be realized too late for people in her state.

“Right now, folks in Alaska still need those ugly generators to keep warm,” she said.

Murkowski was one of several Republicans who expressed concerns about Kennedy’s approach to the job throughout the hearings.

Like several Republicans, Rep. Chuck Fleischmann of Tennessee praised Kennedy for his work promoting healthy foods. But he raised concerns about whether the secretary has provided adequate evidence that artificial food dyes are bad for diets. Removing those food dyes would hurt the “many snack manufacturers” in his district, including the makers of M&M’s candy, he said.

Rep. Mike Simpson, a dentist from Idaho, said Kennedy’s plan to remove fluoride recommendations for drinking water alarms him. The department’s news release on Tuesday, which announced the Food and Drug Administration plans to remove fluoride supplements for children from the market, wrongly claimed that fluoride “kills bacteria from the teeth,” Simpson noted. He explained to Kennedy that fluoride doesn’t kill bacteria in the mouth but instead makes tooth enamel more resistant to decay.

“I will tell you that if you are successful in banning fluoride … we better put a lot more money into dental education because we’re going to need a lot more dentists,” Simpson added.

Kennedy was pressed repeatedly on the mixed message he’s delivered on vaccines, which public health experts have said are hampering efforts to contain a growing measles outbreak now in at least 11 states.

Responding to Sen. Chris Murphy, a Democrat of Connecticut, Kennedy refused to recommend that parents follow the nation’s childhood vaccination schedule, which includes shots for measles, polio and whooping cough. He, instead, wrongly claimed that the vaccines have not been safety tested against a placebo.

Sen. Bill Cassidy, a Republican of Louisiana and chairman of the health committee, had extracted a number of guarantees from Kennedy that he would not alter existing vaccine guidance and work at the nation’s health department. Cassidy, correcting Kennedy, pointed out that rotavirus, measles and HPV vaccines recommended for children have all been tested in a placebo study.

As health secretary, Kennedy has called the measles, mumps and rubella vaccine — a shot given to children to provide immunity from all three diseases — “leaky,” although it offers lifetime protection from the measles for most people. He’s also said they cause deaths, although none has been documented among healthy people.

“You have undermined the vital role vaccines play in preventing disease during the single, largest measles outbreak in 25 years,” independent Sen. Bernie Sanders said.

Seitz writes for the Associated Press.

Jamie Lee Curtis didn’t expect to be at the forefront of the artificial intelligence debate in Hollywood. But she didn’t have a choice.

The Oscar-winning actor recently called out Meta Chief Executive Mark Zuckerberg on social media, saying the company ignored her requests to take down a fake AI-generated advertisement on Instagram that had been on the platform for months.

The ad, which used footage from an interview Curtis gave to MSNBC about January’s Los Angeles area wildfires, manipulated her voice to make it appear that she was endorsing a dental product, Curtis said.

“I was not looking to become the poster child of internet fakery, and I’m certainly not the first,” Curtis told The Times by phone Tuesday morning.

The ad has since been removed.

What happened to Curtis is part of a larger issue actors are dealing with amid the rise of generative AI technology, which has allowed their images and voices to be altered in ways they haven’t authorized. Those changes can be wildly misleading.

Images and likenesses of celebrities including Tom Hanks, Taylor Swift and Scarlett Johansson have been manipulated through AI to promote products and ideas they never actually endorsed.

AI technology has made it easier for people to make these fake videos, which can proliferate online at a speed that is challenging for social media platforms to take down. Some are calling on social media firms to do more to police misinformation on their platforms.

“We are standing at the turning point, and I think we need to take some action,” Curtis said.

Curtis first became aware of the fake AI ad about a month and a half ago when a friend asked her about the video. The “Everything Everywhere All At Once” and “Halloween” actor then flagged the ad for her agents, lawyers and publicists, who directed her to send a cease and desist letter to Meta, the owner of Facebook and Instagram.

Nothing happened.

“It’s like a vacuum,” Curtis said. “There are no people. You can’t reach anybody. You have an email, you send an email, you never get anything back.”

Two weeks later, another friend flagged the same fake AI video. When Curtis wrote to her team, they assured her they went through the proper channels and they did everything they could do, she said.

“I went through the proper channels,” Curtis said. “There should be a methodology to this. I understand there’s going to be a misuse of this stuff, but then there’s no avenue of getting any satisfaction. So then it’s lawlessness, because if you have no way of rectifying it, what do you do?”

Curtis was concerned about the nefarious ways that people could alter the voices and images of other people, including Pope Leo XIV, who has identified AI as one of the challenges facing humanity. What if someone used AI to attribute ideas to the pope that he didn’t actually support?

Inspired by the danger of that possibility, she made her scathing Instagram post, tagging Zuckerberg, after she was unable to directly message him.

“My name is Jamie Lee Curtis and I have gone through every proper channel to ask you and your team to take down this totally AI fake commercial for some bulls— that I didn’t endorse,” Curtis wrote in her post on Monday. “… I’ve been told that if I ask you directly, maybe you will encourage your team to police it and remove it.”

The post generated more than 55,000 likes.

“I’ve done commercials for people all my life, so if they can make a fake commercial with me, that hurts my brand,” Curtis said in an interview. “If my brand is authenticity, you’re co-opting my brand for nefarious gains in the future.”

After she posted, a neighbor shared with her an email of someone at Meta who could help her. Curtis emailed that person (whom she declined to name), copied her team and attached the Instagram posts. Within an hour of sending the email, the fake AI ad was taken down, Curtis said.

“It worked!” Curtis wrote on Instagram on Monday in all caps. “Yay internet! Shame has [its] value! Thanks all who chimed in and helped rectify!”

Meta on Monday confirmed the fake ad was taken down.

“They violate our policies prohibiting fraud, scams and deceptive practices,” said Meta spokesman Andy Stone in an email.

As the technology continues to become more widely available, there are efforts underway at tech companies to identify AI-generated content and to take down material that violates standards.

Organizations like actors guild SAG-AFTRA are also advocating for more laws that address AI, including deep fakes. Both the writers’ and actors’ strikes of 2023 hinged in part on demands for more protections against job losses from AI.

Curtis said she would have wanted the fake AI ad to be taken down immediately and would like to see technology companies, not just Meta, come up with safeguards and direct access to people policing “this wild, wild west called the internet.”

“It got the attention, but I’m also a public figure,” Curtis said. “So how does someone who’s not a public figure get any satisfaction? I want to represent everyone. I don’t want it to just be celebrities. I wanted to use that as an example to say this is wrong.”

WASHINGTON — House Republicans proposed sweeping tax breaks Monday in President Trump’s big priority bill, tallying at least $4.9 trillion in costs so far, partly paid for with cuts to Medicaid, food stamps and green energy programs used by millions of Americans.

The House Ways and Means Committee named its package “THE ONE, BIG, BEAUTIFUL BILL” in all capital letters, a nod to Trump himself. It seeks to extend the tax breaks approved during Trump’s first term — and boost the standard deduction, child tax credit and estate tax exemption — while adding new tax breaks on tipped wages, overtime pay, Social Security benefits and auto loans that Trump promised during his campaign for the White House.

There’s also a tripling of the state and local tax deduction, called SALT, from $10,000 up to $30,000 for couples, which certain high-tax state GOP lawmakers from New York and California already rejected as too meager. Private universities would be hit with a hefty new tax on their endowments, as much as 21%, as the Trump administration goes after the Ivy League and other campuses. And one unusual provision would terminate the tax-exempt status of groups the State Department says support “terrorists,” which civil society advocates warn is a way to potentially punish those at odds with the Trump administration.

Overall, the package is touching off the biggest political debate over taxes, spending and the nation’s priorities in nearly a decade. Not since 2017 has Congress wrestled with legislation as this, when Republicans approved the Trump tax cuts but also failed to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare. The cost assessments are only preliminary, and expected to soar.

“Republicans need to UNIFY,” Trump posted on social media before departing for a trip to the Middle East.

Trump said when he returns to Washington, “we will work together on any and all outstanding issues, but there shouldn’t be many — The Bill is GREAT. We have no alternative, WE MUST WIN!”

But one key Republican, Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri, implored his party not to impair Medicaid, arguing that cutting healthcare to pay for tax breaks is both “morally wrong and politically suicidal.”

“If Republicans want to be a working-class party — if we want to be a majority party — we must ignore calls to cut Medicaid and start delivering on America’s promise for America’s working people,” Hawley wrote in the New York Times.

Late Monday, the House Agriculture Committee released its proposals — cutting $290 billion from federal nutrition programs, in part by shifting costs to the states and requiring able-bodied adults without dependents to fulfill work requirements until they are 64 years old, rather than 54, to qualify for food aid.

Round-the-clock work ahead

As Republicans race toward House Speaker Mike Johnson’s Memorial Day deadline to pass Trump’s big bill, they are preparing to flood the zone with round-the-clock public hearings starting Tuesday and stitch the various sections together in what will become a massive package.

The politics ahead are uncertain. The bipartisan Joint Committee on Taxation said Monday that tax breaks would reduce revenue by $4.9 trillion over the decade — and that was before Trump’s new tax breaks were included.

Texas Rep. Chip Roy, a member of the conservative House Freedom Caucus, warned the price tag could climb to $20 trillion, piling onto the deficits and debt.

“I sure hope House & Senate leadership are coming up with a backup plan,” Roy posted on social media, “…. because I’m not here to rack up an additional $20 trillion in debt over 10 years.”

House Republicans have been huddling behind closed doors, working out final provisions in the 389-page tax portion of the package.

The legislation proposes to boost the standard deduction many Americans use by $2,000, to $32,000 per household, and increase the child tax credit from $2,000 to $2,500 for four years. It adds a new requirement focused on preventing undocumented immigrants from benefiting from the credit even if the children are U.S. citizens, which the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a liberal think tank, estimates would affect 4.5 million children who are U.S. citizens or lawful residents.

It would also increase the estate tax exemption, which is now $14 million, to $15 million and index future increases to inflation.

As for the president’s promises, the legislation includes Trump’s “no taxes on tips” pledge, providing a deduction for those workers in service industry and other jobs that have traditionally relied on tips. It directs the Treasury secretary to issue guidance to avoid businesses gaming the system.

The package also provides tax relief for automobile shoppers with a temporary deduction of up to $10,000 on car loan interest, applying the benefit only for those vehicles where the final assembly occurred in the United States. The tax break would expire at the end of Trump’s term.

For seniors, there would be a bolstered $4,000 deduction on Social Security wages for those with adjusted incomes no higher than $75,000 for individuals and $150,000 for couples.

But one hard-fought provision, the deduction for state and local taxes known as SALT, appears to be a work in progress. The legislation proposes lifting the cap to $15,000 for single filers and $30,000 for couples, but with a reduction at higher incomes — about $200,000 for singles and $400,000 for couples.

“Still a hell no,” wrote Rep. Nick LaLota (R-N.Y.) on social media.

Battle over Medicaid, food aid

Meanwhile, dozens of House Republicans have told Johnson and GOP leaders they will not support cuts to Medicaid, which provides some 70 million Americans with healthcare, nor to green energy tax breaks that businesses back home have been relying on to invest in new wind, solar and renewable projects.

All told, 11 committees in the House have been compiling their sections of the package as Republicans seek at least $1.5 trillion in savings to help cover the cost of preserving the 2017 tax breaks, which are expiring at the end of the year.

The final section from the Agriculture Committee proposed cutting the Supplemental Nutrition and Assistance Program, known as SNAP, by expanding work requirements, limiting future expansions of the program and forcing states to shoulder more of the cost.

Along with new work requirements for older Americans, it would also require some parents of children older than 7 to work to qualify, down from 18 years old. Only areas with unemployment rates over 10% would be eligible for waivers.

Some Republicans have already balked at the increased costs to the states, which would be required to contribute at least 5% of the cost of SNAP allotments beginning in 2028.

At the same time, the legislation would invest $60 billion in new money for agriculture programs, sending aid to farmers.

On Sunday, House Republicans on the Energy and Commerce Committee unveiled the cost-saving centerpiece of the package, with at least $880 billion in cuts largely to Medicaid to help cover the cost of the tax breaks.

While Republicans insist they are simply rooting out “waste, fraud and abuse” to generate savings with new work and eligibility requirements, Democrats warn that millions of Americans will lose coverage. In the 15 years since Obamacare became law, Medicaid has only expanded as most states have tapped into federal funds.

A preliminary estimate from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said the proposals would reduce the number of people with healthcare by 8.6 million.

To be eligible for Medicaid, there would be new “community engagement requirements” of at least 80 hours per month of work, education or service for able-bodied adults without dependents. People would also have to verify their eligibility to be in the program twice a year, rather than just once.

There are substantial cuts proposed for green energy programs and tax breaks, rolling back climate-change strategies from the Biden-era Inflation Reduction Act.

Mascaro and Freking write for the Associated Press. AP writers Amanda Seitz, Leah Askarinam and Mary Clare Jalonick contributed to this report.