choice

“Reckless war of choice.” US House of Representatives Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries criticised Donald Trump for what he called a failure to adequately prepare for the consequences of launching a war on Iran.

After months of fretting, California Democratic leaders are now truly freaking out about too many of their own running for governor, potentially allowing two MAGA Republicans to advance to the general election.

Someone find me the world’s smallest violin.

It’s the latest mess created by a party that has held supermajorities in the state Legislature and the governor’s mansion for most of the last 15 years, yet has done little to make life better for its constituents while blaming President Trump for everything.

What does it say about them that no Democratic candidate of color is considered a favorite to succeed Gov. Gavin Newsom, when whites are only a third of California’s population? That a party casting itself as the champion of the working poor against Trump’s oligarchic reign isn’t telling a billionaire like Tom Steyer — who spent $341 million of his own money on a failed 2020 presidential run — to bow out and throw his support and moolah behind someone else, just because he’s polling in the top five?

California voters have made the state Republican Party as relevant as the Angels in baseball — yet under Democratic rule, life keeps getting harder for too many. Especially galling is how the state Democratic Party has done next to nothing to help Latinos become household names who can win.

Three Latinos with distinguished resumes — former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, former Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra and State Supt. of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond — are running for governor, yet they stand as much a chance of moving on to the general election as Alfred E. Neuman.

Latinos are a plurality of California’s population and the bedrock of the Democratic Party. Yet there’s a good chance that after November, no Latino will hold a statewide elected position for the first time since 2014.

Yes, Alex Padilla is our senior U.S. senator. But enough California Latino voters became disillusioned with the Democratic platform that Trump made large gains among them in 2024, and Latino GOP legislative candidates stormed Sacramento like never before.

So excuse my schadenfreude upon hearing earlier this week that California Democratic Party Chair Rusty Hicks wants low-polling candidates to drop out of the governor’s race, claiming in an open letter that their continued presence will “imperil” democracy.

Candidates are definitely choosing — to spite Hicks. We all should. He could have made his move long ago, as the top Democrat in the state. Instead, waiting until just before the candidate filing deadline is more amateur than a Little League game.

Worse, his move reeks of el dedazo, the kingmaking process under Mexico’s long-ruling Partido Revolucionario Institucional that translates as “the finger point,” because that’s how undemocratic it was.

“El dedazo is not appropriate in California,” Becerra told me, referring not to Hicks but to other Democrats who have suggested that he and others withdraw. “And I suspect that very few voters in California think that a variety of choices [for governor] is not a good thing.”

Candidate Xavier Becerra chats in a hallway during the California Democratic Party convention in San Francisco last month.

(Christina House / Los Angeles Times)

As of this columna’s publication, not only has no Democratic candidate dropped out, but most are officially filing papers to jump in. Thurmond even posted a video on social media implying that Hicks’ request is racist because almost all the potential spoilers are people of color, while the top three Democratic hopefuls — Rep. Eric Swalwell, Steyer and former Rep. Katie Porter — are white.

“To me, this act doesn’t reflect the Democratic Party of 2026,” Thurmond thundered. “Aren’t we supposed to be the party who embraces democracy?”

Hicks’ move and the embarrassing aftermath reminds me of Will Rogers’ famous quip that Democrats are members of no organized political party — even if I do understand why Hicks and other Dems are so nervous.

No Democrat is towering over the field, which is why party leaders and activists futilely tried to recruit big names like Padilla and former Vice President Kamala Harris. Those who are running are nice enough. But politically, they’re carbon copies of each other. As a group, they’re as inspiring as printer paper.

The subsequent free-for-all has allowed Republicans Steve Hilton and Chad Bianco to occupy two of the top three slots in the latest Public Policy Institute of California poll alongside Porter, with Swalwell and Steyer close behind.

No other candidate polled higher than 5%, but together, the rest of them added up to 30%. Factor in the 10% of voters who are undecided, and that’s a significant slab of the potential electorate. If just two Democrats drop out, that would almost certainly stop both Hilton and Bianco from advancing.

A Republican governor for California in the Trump era would be embarrassing, terrible and a political self-own without precedent. It would make previous California political earthquakes where conservatives pounced on liberal cluelessness, like Prop. 13, Prop. 187 and the Gray Davis recall, seem as innocuous as a bounce house.

But telling candidates to kill their campaigns to make it easier for people who supposedly have a better chance is the type of least-worst choice that Democratic leaders have forced upon party faithful for too long.

They need a rude awakening. Making them sweat about a gubernatorial primary is a start. That’s why I’m glad Hicks’ plea is going nowhere. If people want to scatter their votes, it’s not only their choice — it’s democracy.

When I asked Becerra if he or his fellow underdog Dems should accept responsibility if a Republican becomes California’s next governor, he brushed off the question.

“That’s more than speculative — it’s not going to happen,” he said, predicting that undecided voters will “crystallize” soon to make the issue moot. He once again joked that there are “too many dedazos in the air.”

Villaraigosa’s answer was more damning: “It would be a collective responsibility that as a party, we failed to convince the electorate.”

Watch out, Rusty — here come your Dems!

AUSTIN, Tex. — The lobby walls of the Driskill Hotel are hung with the portraits of figures of Texas political lore, men like Sam Houston and William B. Travis of Alamo fame. But on a rainy evening, a rather demure-looking woman in a conservative black suit and tidy tucked hairdo is the center of attention.

First, Texas Democratic Party chairman Bob Slagle comes up to hug and say hello. They chat briefly about how well things are going in the presidential campaign.

Then two young women walk by, one whispering to the other, “Is that Sarah Weddington?” They turn back and stop to introduce themselves. As the two say goodby, one adds: “Of course, it goes without saying how much I admire you.”

Weddington is used to this by now. The 46-year-old lawyer gained fame from her first case, Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1972 Supreme Court decision.

Since then, Weddington has spent almost two decades advocating abortion rights. Today, she has been in her adopted hometown of Austin signing copies of her new book, “A Question of Choice: The Lawyer Who Won Roe v. Wade,” for a parade of admirers. Longtime friends presented many of the almost 500 copies she signs; young women like the two who paused to thank her offered others.

Weddington stood for more than five hours at a podium, first at a university bookstore and later in the hotel ballroom, signing in a consistently elegant hand. Everyone is greeted with a smile, some with hugs. An aura of restraint surrounds her, an almost Victorian quality in a woman some see as a sort of virago, a demon of the left who has led the charge for legalized abortion.

Some friends describe her as “ladylike”; almost all say she is very private.

And yet her book begins with a revelation that she had kept a very personal secret. In 1967, while a young, unmarried law student at the University of Texas, this daughter of a minister and graduate of a small Methodist college, traveled to “a dirty Mexican border town to have an abortion, fleeing the law that made abortion illegal in Texas.”

She was accompanied by her then-boyfriend and later husband, fellow law student Ron Weddington. Divorced amicably in 1974, they kept the secret until the publication of the book. “I am a very private person and would never have talked about this if I hadn’t felt that I wanted to do everything I could to help win it again. That I can’t win it in the courts, nobody can. That’s where we have to win is at the ballot box. And it was like I had to give it everything I had and it was the one thing I had never given. . . .

“My own thoughts about it are that if I had to write a caption it would be ‘giving up privacy in order to save it.’ I feel like I’m giving something very precious up and that is the ability to live my life in privacy. . . . We always had an agreement not to talk about this without talking to the other, and he (her former husband) always observed it.”

Journalist Linda Ellerbee, a friend and fellow Texan, suggested that Weddington humanize her book to make it more accessible to readers. The first draft, Weddington acknowledges, was long and perhaps too legalistic: “First, I wanted to write the perfect book, and I couldn’t write that book. Then someone said, ‘Why don’t you practice writing the book,’ and I could do that because I was freeing myself.”

Weddington admits that a more likely publication date would have been 1993, the 20th anniversary of Roe v. Wade. But in the last few years, it became increasingly obvious to her that the landmark decision was in jeopardy: “In the book, I say if anybody had said to me in 1969 or 1973, ‘You will still be talking about this in 1992,’ I would have thought they were crazy.”

As president of the National Abortion Rights Action League, she had witnessed the first skirmishes of what she calls a war of attrition during the early years of the Reagan presidency. But at that point, she says, “We still had the trump card, the Supreme Court.”

Reagan, who she notes signed California’s liberal 1967 abortion law, then began to make conservative appointments to the high court. And at that point, Weddington says, “I began to say I was for mandatory life support systems for older justices.”

The 1989, Webster v. Reproductive Health Services decision was the real turning point, she says, and now she sees the battle lines on three fronts: the Supreme Court, the Congress, which is considering the Freedom of Choice Bill, and state legislatures.

Her book’s publication, just two months before the fall election, is no accident. President Bush, she says, made “a pact with the radical right” in 1988, and abortion-rights advocates cannot risk more of his court appointments: “The sands of time ran out when Clarence Thomas was confirmed.”

Weddington says Bill Clinton would sign the Freedom of Choice Act. But even a Clinton victory will not persuade her to sit back and say the fight is over. The Arkansas governor has supported some restrictions, as Weddington describes them, particularly regarding abortions for minors. “We are trying to educate him; it’s not a natural,” she says. “I don’t think you can elect Clinton and say, ‘Well, let’s forget about that.’ ”

For this activist lawyer, who drew her strength from the women’s movement in the late ‘60s and early ‘70s, the fight is not over on other fronts, either. She sees a need to engage the younger generation and to remind Americans why Roe was so important.

“Intellectually, they believe that choice should be available, but emotionally, they have never known what it was like for it not to be,” Weddington says of younger Americans. “You can’t expect them to have the same emotional memories and commitments, and yet I don’t think you can preach to them.”

The book’s final section is a call to arms, a detailed plan for action that gives Roe defenders a game plan. Weddington expects the fight to continue well into the next century and plans to continue the battle.

“I think this issue is so basic you can’t desert it, and while it’s in trouble, you’ve got to keep plugging,” she says. “I see a new group of people who haven’t been as active, but I think they will be more comfortable with a broader focus.” That focus, she says, should include family issues and support for birth control programs.

*

In one sense, Weddington admits, her career peaked at age 27 when she stood before the U.S. Supreme Court and argued her case for a woman’s right to choose. But the legal fight that began at a garage sale fund-raiser in 1969 and culminated in Roe–and her subsequent service as a special assistant on women’s issues in the Carter White House–was heady stuff for a young woman from Abilene.

She also served as one of the first women in the Texas House of Representatives (1973-1977) and was frequently mentioned as a candidate for statewide office, long before Ann Richards, her former legislative aide, won the governor’s race. Privately, a few friends admit that the stellar political career has passed Weddington by.

Elective office is not likely at this point. “I have a question whether the price is worth it,” she says. “There’s no money, and everybody is in a sour mood. When I ran, I ran to do something, and right now I don’t see that you can do that much. . . .”

For her beliefs, Weddington has paid a high personal price. She is dogged by activists opposed to abortion. At the Austin bookstore signing, several security guards were on hand.

But Roe v. Wade has also given Weddington opportunities to spread her message. For several years, she and Phyllis Schafly toured on a sort of abortion cross-fire show. Apart from not sharing the same views, they never even shared the same car. “We once tried to find something to talk about, and the only thing we agreed on was airplane coffee was usually bad,” Weddington says.

Now, Weddington plans to continue to teach part time at the University of Texas, speak around the country and ready herself for the barrage of publicity next year on the 20th anniversary of Roe. Should Clinton be elected, she would not mind serving as an adviser, but she would not want to have a full-time position in Washington. And she would like to write another book or two.

Not the least of her contributions is the impact Weddington has had on young people, particularly women. Time after time, during her Austin book signing, women in their 20s approach her, say that they had heard her speak before and tell her that she has changed their lives.

And at the last minute, three young women dash in from the rain and ask Weddington to sign their books. All three are recent graduates of the University of Texas law school and all three are Texas Supreme Court clerks. When Weddington asks how many women are in their law class, they say about 150.

Weddington smiles and says there were five when she graduated 24 years ago.

According to President Trump, the United States attacked Iran because the Iranian regime posed “imminent threats” to the U.S. and its allies, including through its use of terrorist proxies and continued pursuit of nuclear weapons.

“Its menacing activities directly endanger the United States, our troops, our bases overseas and our allies throughout the world,” he said in a recorded statement Saturday.

According to leading Democrats in Congress, Trump’s justification is questionable, especially given his claims of having “completely obliterated” Iran’s nuclear capabilities in separate U.S. bombings last year.

“Everything I have heard from the administration before and after these strikes on Iran confirms this is a war of choice with no strategic endgame,” said Rep. Jim Himes (D-Conn.), ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee and part of a small group of congressional leaders — the Gang of Eight — who were briefed on the operation by Secretary of State Marco Rubio.

That divide is bound to remain an issue politically heading into this year’s midterm elections, and could be a liability for Republicans — especially considering that some in the “America First” wing of the MAGA base were raising their own objections, citing Trump’s 2024 campaign pledges to extricate the U.S. from foreign wars, not start new ones.

The debate echoed a similar if less immediate one around President George W. Bush’s decision to go to war in Iraq following the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, also based on claims that “weapons of mass destruction” posed an immediate threat. Those claims were later disproved by multiple findings that Iraq had no such arsenal, fueling recriminations from both political parties for years.

The latest divide also intensified unease over Congress ceding its wartime powers to the White House, which for years has assumed sweeping authority to attack foreign adversaries without direct congressional input in the name of addressing terrorism or preventing immediate harm to the nation or its troops.

Even prior to the weekend bombings, Democrats including Sen. Adam Schiff of California were pushing Congress to pass a resolution barring the Trump administration from attacking Iran without explicit congressional authorization.

“President Trump must come to Congress before using military force unless absolutely necessary to defend the United States from an imminent attack,” Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.), a member of the armed services and foreign relations committees, said in a statement Thursday.

In justifying the daylight strikes that killed Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei just two days later, Trump accused the Iranian government of having “waged an unending campaign of bloodshed and mass murder” for nearly half a century — including through attacks on U.S. military assets and commercial shipping vessels abroad — and of having “armed, trained and funded terrorist militias” in multiple countries, including Hezbollah and Hamas.

Trump said that after the U.S. bombed Iran last summer, it had warned Tehran “never to resume” its pursuit of nuclear weapons. “Instead, they attempted to rebuild their nuclear program and to continue developing long-range missiles that can now threaten our very good friends and allies in Europe, our troops stationed overseas, and could soon reach the American homeland,” he said.

Other Republican leaders largely backed the president.

“The United States did not start this conflict, but we will finish it. If you kill or threaten Americans anywhere in the world — as Iran has — then we will hunt you down, and we will kill you,” said Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth.

“Every president has talked about the threat posed by the Iranian regime. President Trump is the one with the courage to take bold, decisive action,” said Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi.

While Iran’s coordination with and sponsorship of groups such as Hezbollah and Hamas are well known, Trump’s claims about its ongoing development of nuclear weapons systems are less established — and the administration has provided little evidence to back them up.

Democrats seized on that lack of fresh intelligence in their responses to the attacks, contrasting Trump’s latest claims about imminent threats with his assertion after the separate summer bombings that the U.S. had all but eliminated Iran’s nuclear aspirations.

“Let’s be clear: The Iranian regime is horrible. But I have seen no imminent threat to the United States that would justify putting American troops in harm’s way,” said Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.), vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee and a member of the Gang of Eight. “What is the motivation here? Is it Iran’s nuclear program? Their missiles? Regime change?”

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said in a statement that the Trump administration “has not provided Congress and the American people with critical details about the scope and immediacy of the threat,” and must do so.

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) said the Trump administration needs congressional authority to wage such attacks barring “exigent circumstances,” and didn’t have it.

“The Trump administration must explain itself to the American people and Congress immediately, provide an ironclad justification for this act of war, clearly define the national security objective and articulate a plan to avoid another costly, prolonged military quagmire in the Middle East,” he said.

After the U.S. military announced Sunday that three U.S. service personnel were killed and five others seriously wounded in the attacks, the demands for a clearer justification and new constraints on Trump only increased.

Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Fremont) said Sunday he is optimistic that Democrats will be unified in trying to pass the war powers resolution, and also that some Republicans will join them, given that the strikes have been unpopular among a portion of the MAGA base.

Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), who partnered with Khanna to force the release of the Epstein files, has said he will work with him again to push a congressional vote on war with Iran, which he said was “not ‘America First.’”

Benjamin Radd, a political scientist and senior fellow at the UCLA Burkle Center for International Relations, said that whether or not Iran represented an “imminent” threat to the U.S. depends not just on its nuclear capabilities, but on its broader desire and ability to inflict pain on the U.S. and its allies — as was made clear to both the U.S. and Israel after the Hamas attacks on Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, which Iran praised.

“If you are Israel or the United States, that’s imminent,” he said.

What happens next, Radd said, will largely depend on whether remaining Iranian leaders stick to Khamenei’s hard-line policies, or decide to negotiate anew with the U.S. He expects they might do the latter, because “it’s a fundamentalist regime, it’s not a suicidal regime,” and it’s now clear that the U.S. and Israel have the capabilities to take out Iranian leaders, Iran has little ability to defend itself, and China and Russia are not rushing to its aid.

How the strikes are viewed moving forward may also depend on what those leaders decide to do next, said Kevan Harris, an associate professor of sociology who teaches courses on Iran and Middle East politics at the UCLA International Institute.

If the conflict remains relatively contained, it could become a political win for Trump, with questions about the justification falling away. But if it spirals out of control, such questions are only likely to grow, as occurred in Iraq when things started to deteriorate there, he said.

Israel and the U.S. are currently betting that the conflict will remain manageable, which could turn out to be true, Harris said, but “the problem with war is you never really know what might happen.”

On Sunday, Iran launched retaliatory attacks on Israel and the wider Gulf region. Trump said the campaign against Iran continued “unabated,” though he may be willing to negotiate with the nation’s new leaders. It was unclear when Congress might take up the war powers measure.

Gaza City – Amid the buzz of customers in the Remal neighbourhood in Gaza City, Samar Abu Harbied stops at a small, makeshift roadside stall to buy groceries to prepare an Iftar meal for her family, to break their fast during the Muslim holy month of Ramadan.

With no cash in her purse, the 45-year-old housewife asks the grocer if she could put the bill on credit, until her husband or son could wire the money to him.

“I have not touched a paper note for months. I don’t even have money to pay for a taxi. Now we walk a lot, for long distances,” Abu Harbied said.

Najlaa Sukkar, 48, was trying to catch her breath at the same stall, which is run by her son Abdallah, after a failed journey on foot to see a doctor for a post-surgery check-up and to buy medication.

Najlaa said she did not have enough money to pay the 30 shekel (US$9.5) check-up fees, and the only banknote she had, a 20-shekel bill, was so worn out that the pharmacist turned it down.

“I returned without receiving medical care,” she told Al Jazeera.

“At the pharmacy, they didn’t accept the banknotes as they were frayed. The taxi driver didn’t accept a banknote, only small change, which I don’t have. It is very difficult to get by. What a mess, we don’t know what to do!”

Palestinians in the Gaza Strip are struggling to conduct their daily lives amid a severe cash flow problem imposed by Israel immediately after it embarked on its genocidal war on Gaza in October 2023.

A US-brokered ceasefire that went into effect in October has brought little reprieve to Palestinians, who are still using worn-out currency they had from before the war, or must rely on a new system of electronic payments conducted through smart telephones amid limited internet coverage.

Palestinians in Gaza use the Israeli currency, the shekel, in their daily transactions, and depend on Israel to supply banks with new banknotes and coins.

Electronic payments

Palestinians were forced to turn to a digital payment system as a way to get around a severe shortage of Israeli shekel banknotes, a problem that has been exacerbated by the destruction of an estimated 90 percent of bank branches and cash machines.

The Palestinian Monetary Authority, working with internet service providers, has pushed for mobile-based electronic payments, including PalPay and Jawwal Pay, to help Palestinians overcome the liquidity problem.

Abu Harbeid said her son switched to electronic payments after he faced many problems using the 50 shekels per shift he was receiving while working as a night guard.

“My son, Shady, was receiving his daily wage in cash, which was worn and torn. We could hardly break it into smaller change or buy anything, as sellers don’t accept overused paper bills,” she told Al Jazeera.

“Moreover, the seller doesn’t accept it unless I spend it all, as they don’t have change. Now, as he is paid into his bank account, we buy everything through bank apps,” she added.

But digital payments have added another layer of hardship to a large segment of the population.

Most Palestinians still do not receive bank-transferred salaries, many lack access to smartphones, and those who have phones struggle to keep them charged in an area where electricity services are in severe crisis.

To add to that, there is still the problem of finding a good internet connection for the transfer process.

Abu Harbeid said a proper trip to the market requires her to have her husband or son with her to pay for goods. But neither can leave work to join her.

“I prefer cash in my hand; I could buy anything on the go,” Abu Harbied said.

Not only a liquidity shortage issue

Analysts say Gaza’s current economic reality started as a liquidity crisis, but has become an issue of transition from a regulated financial system to a fragmented survival economy shaped by scarcity, informality, and political constraints.

“However, as the months passed, the crisis evolved into something far more structural,” Ahmed Abu Qamar, member of the board of directors of the Palestinian Economists Association, told Al Jazeera.

“The black market now plays a dominant role in determining liquidity conditions. A small group of traders effectively manages cash circulation through high-commission cashing operations.”

He said that when money itself becomes a traded commodity, it signals severe distortion in the monetary system. “Cash, like any commodity, becomes subject to supply and demand dynamics. When it becomes scarce, its value increases beyond its nominal worth. From an economic perspective, this represents a structural disruption of the monetary system.

“The formal banking sector and the Palestinian Monetary Authority were sidelined. What we are seeing is the neutralisation of the formal monetary system,” he said.

Abu Qamar said the deeper issue was confidence – not just in cash, but in the financial system as a whole. “Cash is inherently difficult to track, whereas electronic payments are traceable and can be frozen or restricted. Implementing such a transition abruptly produces severe economic and social distortions,” he warned.

“Widespread selling on credit is not a sign of market stability – it is an indicator of declining incomes and weakened purchasing power. When debt expands rapidly without a parallel increase in income, the result is social fragmentation. Approximately 95 percent of households in Gaza depend on aid,” he added.

Profiteering from Gaza’s woes 

The war has paved the way for middlemen to cash in illegally on the financial woes of Gaza, residents said.

Sukkar said that when her husband or sons needed cash, they were often forced to deal with brokers who charge a hefty commission that could reach 50 percent.

“We lose our money to them for nothing; they steal from us under our full consent,” she said.

Many residents, like Abu Harbeid, also do not trust bank transfers, saying they prefer physical cash in hand.

“I ask my sons, where does that money in the account appear?” said Sukkar.

“Who holds our money in their hands? I used to see money and count it, the banknotes and the change. On some days, when there are technical problems with the bank applications, we get nervous about the possibility of losing the money in their accounts,” she added.

Abdallah Sukkar, whose family ran a well-known family store in the Shujayea area in eastern Gaza before the war, said families who receive direct deposit salaries often buy with bank transfers.

“But I don’t like this method; I prefer cash,” he said.

He said he accepts all banknotes, whether new or worn-out ones, and allows people to buy on credit, but admitted that all of that affects his ability to make improvements to the roadside stall he now runs in place of his family’s old business.

He also complained of unpaid debts, adding that debts had soared by more than 500 percent during the war, while his profits barely reach 2 percent. He said he had given out 20,000 shekels’ worth of goods to new customers, “all of [whom] have become customers during the war”.

“People don’t have money; I can’t turn them away when they come to buy food on credit. It’s already catastrophic in Gaza,” he said.

“From the beginning of Ramadan till now, I haven’t had banknotes and change, which affects the sales. I don’t have small change to give to people who have cash, so they turn to other stalls or shops.

“Yesterday, when the bank application stopped, we were terrified that we might lose our money in the bank,” he said.

Neve Campbell helped cement the “Scream” franchise’s legacy in the horror genre, which is why stepping away from the sixth movie was a difficult decision.

But it’s one the actor stands by, she told “CBS Mornings” on Tuesday, adding that she “didn’t think I could live with myself walking on set.”

Campbell, the original “Scream” queen, declined to return for the sixth film following a pay dispute.

“I just didn’t feel right. I just knew that my value to this franchise was bigger than what had been offered,” Campbell told the morning show. “For me, I needed to make that choice.”

However, the actor is now back for “Scream 7” after securing a nearly $7-million deal, according to Variety.

The seventh installment is expected to open to a franchise-high $45 million to $50 million in North America this weekend, according to Variety.

But the film’s journey to the big screen wasn’t easy. Melissa Barrera and Jenna Ortega led the sixth movie in lieu of Campbell, both of whom subsequently left the franchise in 2023. Director Christopher Landon also exited the movie shortly after.

Barrera was fired from the seventh film in late 2023 after sharing on social media pro-Palestinian statements regarding the Israel-Hamas war. Ortega then exited the film, citing her conflicting filming schedule for Netflix’s “Wednesday.”

In “Scream 7,” Sidney Prescott is now a mom living a quiet family life; a “pretty bold choice” for the character, Campbell told “CBS Mornings,” “considering what happens to most of the people she loves, but she’s decided not to let her past dictate the way she’s going to live her life now.”

Campbell’s co-stars from the original film, along with fans of the franchise, were quick to voice their support for the actor’s decision in 2022. Matthew Lillard, who starred opposite Campbell, tweeted that the decision was “straight up sexism.”

“When I spoke out about it, it wasn’t really to sort of rally everybody,” Campbell said. “It was really just my truth at the time and the fact that people sort of got behind me, I got lovely support and that was really nice.”

The Great British Bake Off winner Nadiya Hussain, who rose to fame on the 2015 series, has spoken out about her change of career and experiences of working as a teaching assistant

Winner of the Great British Bake Off Nadiya Hussain has spoken out about the television industry and the difficult choice she made to leave her agent and her manager.

Nadiya, 41, who won the Bake Off in 2015, spoke about the industry just days after it was announced that she was leaving her teaching assistant job, as she continues this next phase of her career.

Speaking about the matter, she discussed the “overwhelming whiteness of TV and publishing” and admitted she was tired of working in what she described as a broken industry.

She told the Guardian: “It’s broken. This last year has been really important for me to realise that, really accept that, actually, I can’t fix a broken industry.”

Nadiya also talked about what 2025 was like for her, and how it gave the renowned baker an opportunity to think about the next decade of her life after admitting that she felt like she had “started to feel like a caricature of myself”.

She added: “It has been really enlightening at the same time. I’ve had the opportunity to sit back and look at how I see the next 10 years…It’s been scary, but I’ve also really enjoyed figuring out what that looks like for me.”

Last year Nadiya released a cookbook titled ‘Rooza’, one containing dishes inspired by important elements of the Islamic world and culture, including Eid and Ramadan. She also created another volume titled ‘Nadiya’s Quick Comforts’.

With her decision to take back control of her career has come new freedoms and new locations, with Nadiya announcing earlier this month that she was leaving her teaching assistant job.

However, in a post on Instagram, Nadiya said she was leaving the role because of the negative impact it was having on her health. Nadiya has a weakened immune system and lives with fibromyalgia, a chronic condition that causes musculoskeletal pain and fatigue, among other symptoms.

In the social media post, Nadiya explained why she had to leave a job she had been in for only three months: “I’ve always wanted to work with children in younger years as a teaching assistant and I applied for a few jobs, which in itself was difficult for lots or reasons.

“I applied and got a job as a TA (teaching assistant) at a primary school and I’ve got to say, apart from raising my own children, it was one of the best jobs I’ve ever done.

“I loved every second of waking up in the morning with a spring in my step for these beautiful children. I just loved every second of doing that job.

“But unfortunately doing a job like that as somebody with a weakened immune system it just played havoc with my health…. I was sick all the time and it got to the point where it was affecting my mental health and I just wasn’t performing, giving my best because I was always sick.”

She added: “But unfortunately with a weakened immune system working as a TA in a primary school was just proving impossible and it was one of the hardest decisions I had to make to step away for it.”