WASHINGTON — The Department of Justice filed a complaint Wednesday against federal judges in Minnesota over their remarks to the media related to the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement surge.
The complaint escalates the department’s battle with the federal judiciary, which has halted administration priorities, dismissed high-profile prosecutions and accused government lawyers in some cases of failing to comply with court orders.
The department is demanding that the judges recuse themselves from all criminal or civil cases involving the Department of Homeland Security, Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche told reporters, because of what he described as “obvious bias they have shown” in recent remarks to the New York Times.
At issue is a September article in which seven federal judges in Minnesota — nominated by Democrats and Republican presidents — spoke on the record about their experience dealing with a flood of cases during last winter’s immigration crackdown that led to thousands of arrests.
The judge at the center of the story, Patrick Schiltz, accused the government in January of failing to comply with nearly 100 court orders. He said in a ruling that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, a part of Homeland Security, “is not a law unto itself.”
Schiltz, who was nominated by Republican President George W. Bush and served as a law clerk for Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, told the newspaper that what happened in Minnesota’s federal court last winter “created a grave threat to the rule of law.”
In a statement Wednesday, Schiltz said he was “acting well within the ethical rules that apply to federal judges in speaking to The New York Times.”
“Indeed, in February of this year, the Committee on Codes of Conduct issued an advisory opinion to emphasize that federal judges” may speak or write “on core judiciary matters such as advocacy for the rule of law and judicial independence,’” Schiltz said. “That is exactly what I did.”
The complaint was filed with the chief judge of the U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, which oversees federal judges in Minnesota.
The Republican administration has railed against what it describes as “activist judges” who officials say are intent on thwarting Trump’s agenda. Yet some of the most critical and unfavorable court rulings have come from judges nominated by Trump and other Republican presidents.
Seven Minnesota judges face ethics complaint after speaking publicly about the US president’s immigration crackdown.
Published On 30 Sep 202630 Sep 2026
The United States Justice Department has filed a misconduct complaint against seven federal judges in Minnesota who spoke publicly about the pressure their courts came under during President Donald Trump’s immigration crackdown.
The judges spoke to The New York Times this month about dealing with a flood of cases during Operation Metro Surge, an immigration crackdown that led to thousands of arrests in the Minneapolis-St Paul area from December to February.
Recommended Stories
list of 4 itemsend of list
The Justice Department says it crossed an ethical line by talking publicly about the cases.
Attorney General Todd Blanche accused the judges of showing “obvious bias” against the Trump administration and called on them to step aside from any cases involving the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
“When we have a situation like we have now, where you have a judge, a couple of judges, just not only violating the canons in our view but also showing bias in what they’re saying, we have no choice but to act,” Blanche told reporters.
The judges say they did nothing wrong. A spokesperson for Minnesota’s federal court system said legal experts had found that the judges were “well within the ethical rules” when they spoke to the newspaper.
The complaint is the latest in a series of clashes between the Trump administration and the judiciary, which has blocked some of the president’s policies and, in several cases, accused government lawyers of failing to follow court orders.
One of the judges named in the complaint, Patrick Schiltz, alleged that the government did not comply with nearly 100 court orders related to immigration enforcement in January alone.
In one ruling, he wrote that US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) “is not a law unto itself”.
Schiltz was nominated by Republican President George W Bush and previously clerked for conservative Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.
He later told The New York Times that what happened in Minnesota’s federal courts during the crackdown “created a grave threat to the rule of law”.
Schiltz also pointed to guidance issued by a federal judicial ethics panel in February, saying that judges can speak publicly about issues such as the rule of law and judicial independence.
Irish taoiseach [prime minister] Micheal Martin said comments made by the Israel Football Association about the Republic of Ireland manager Heimir Hallgrimsson are “unacceptable” and “should be withdrawn”.
Israel’s football governing body accused Hallgrimmson of “ignorance, hypocrisy and stupidity” regarding comments made last week when he said: “We’re not playing with genocide, we’re playing against genocide. We’re playing against Israel, we’re not playing with Israel.”
The teams are set to meet twice in the space of a week in the Nations League, with Israel’s ‘home’ game in Debrecen, Hungary on Sunday, with the return fixture also in a neutral venue of Backa Topola, Serbia on 4 October.
On Monday, the Israel FA posted a message on X, saying: “We have contributed to the world and humanity in countless fields, earning an impressive number of Nobel Prizes along the way.
“Unfortunately, we have not yet found a cure for stupidity, ignorance and hypocrisy displayed by @IrelandFootball team coach.
“We’re not playing with ignorance, hypocrisy and stupidity, We’re playing against the coach who embodies them.”
While the Football Association of Ireland [FAI] did not respond, Martin did comment.
“They are unacceptable remarks and should be withdrawn,” he told reporters in New York, where he is attending the UN General Assembly.
“We’re very clear and I think [UN secretary-general] Antonio Guterres said it again this morning, he has never in his lifetime seen the level and scale of death and destruction as he witnessed in terms of the Israeli government’s war on Gaza in the aftermath of the horrific Hamas attack preceding the war. Our manager is saying the exact same thing.
“Israel can’t keep denying what the world knows and what the world understands.”
In a matter of days, Ed Sheeran has gone from the most agreeable, defiantly middle-of-the-road singer-songwriter on the pop charts to music’s newest villain. The Times’ August Brown and Mikael Wood gathered to break down what happened — and to figure out what it all means.
August Brown: To recap, Sheeran dropped his tour opener, the rapper Macklemore, after the MC described Israel’s actions in Gaza as a genocide and said “Free Palestine” onstage this month at two New Jersey dates of Sheeran’s ongoing stadium tour. Macklemore, in a statement, cited his long friendship with Sheeran while criticizing the singer for allegedly acquiescing to a demand from Robert Kraft, the owner of the NFL’s New England Patriots, that the rapper not be allowed to perform at the Patriots’ Gillette Stadium outside Boston due to his comments.
Kraft, a Trump-supporting billionaire with his own colorful history, released a statement about the tour, saying he was “ensuring that events held at our venue do not provide a platform for hate speech.”
But Sheeran, who performed at Kraft’s wedding in 2022, arguably made things much worse with his own comments on the decision to drop Macklemore from the tour, which ranged from shifting accountability (“Macklemore coming off tour was the promoter’s decision, it was not mine”) to promising that he held compassionate beliefs on this volatile issue but wouldn’t articulate them publicly (“I am not complicit. I have my personal views on this devastating conflict. Just because I choose not to speak publicly, it doesn’t mean I don’t have them, and it doesn’t mean I don’t care.”)
This prompted Sheeran’s remaining openers — including the musician and producer Finneas, the Danish rock combo Lukas Graham and singer-songwriter Aaron Rowe — to drop off the tour, each giving their plainspoken support for both Macklemore’s advocacy and the Palestinian people as their reasons for leaving. The traditional Irish group Beoga, which backs Sheeran for a portion of his nightly show, also quit the tour, saying it was responding to “the silencing of Macklemore by Zionist lobbies.”
It’s too soon to know how this will affect a CVS-core pop star like Sheeran, but it’s clear that for the first time in his career, he’s chosen the path of maximum conflict and controversy for little gain. What do you think he should he have done instead?
Macklemore
(Morgan Hancock / Getty Images)
Mikael Wood: Not let Macklemore be booted from his tour?
Look, I understand Sheeran’s position here: that he views himself as an artist whose audience comes to his show precisely because they’d like to avoid the messy realities of the world for two or three hours. We can choose a different day to discuss how tenable (or not) that position is here in the era of a reality-TV president who long ago blurred the line between politics and entertainment.
But setting aside one’s views on Israel and Palestine, it’s impossible for me to see how Sheeran ever thought his actions would be seen as anything other than allowing a fellow artist to be silenced — a clear loser in the eyes of both the left and the right.
It would be one thing if Macklemore’s comments in New Jersey truly resembled the hate speech that Kraft accused him of dispensing. (Many online have posted images of a costume the rapper wore onstage in 2014 that resembled an ugly Jewish caricature; Macklemore apologized at the time, saying he understood the criticism.)
And of course I get that the very idea of hate speech is slippery — one reason, perhaps, that the folks at AT&T Stadium near Dallas (where Sheeran is scheduled to perform next month) appear to have no problem hosting a concert in November by Ye, who not so long ago released a song called, uh, “Heil Hitler.”
But given how measured Macklemore’s comments were, Sheeran’s decision to go along with the demands for his removal feels less like a fulfillment of his desire to create a conflict-free zone and more like a capitulation to a rich and powerful friend.
August, what do you make of the various statements from the musicians who’ve opted to leave the tour in the wake of all this?
August Brown: The other openers had the most to lose here by bowing out of a huge tour. Yet they took unambiguous stances in favor of Macklemore’s Palestinian advocacy. (On Wednesday, the rapper said on Instagram that he planned to donate “the entire $1 million of my net earnings” from Sheeran’s tour to six organizations “working directly to support the Palestinian people.” He also invited Kraft to match his donation.)
“Artists must not be silenced when they speak up for the oppressed,” Finneas wrote. “I stand with Palestine and its people.”
Lukas Graham went even harder: “We should be able to speak about war, about civilians being killed, about children who deserve to grow up,” the group wrote. “Money doesn’t give you the right to own the conversation.”
Sheeran could have done what many fans regard as the right thing: Defy Kraft’s demands, cancel the Gillette Stadium dates with Macklemore and reroute the tour to somewhere that would support an opening act’s fairly anodyne support of a popular human rights cause. Sheeran is extremely wealthy, and he’d have been on the right side of history, if for no other reason than to say that billionaires shouldn’t have a veto over an artist’s human rights advocacy onstage.
I’m sympathetic to the idea that crews’ livelihoods and fans’ investment in the shows are meaningful things to toss out. But an artist as big as Sheeran can make up the difference. Even a hypothetical statement like “I stand for Macklemore’s freedom of speech and the rights of the Palestinian people. My team’s livelihoods depends on the shows happening, so I will play the Gillette dates as planned,” with a promise for a donation or a benefit show with Macklemore down the line — even that would have smoothed this over.
But his actions here — deflecting accountability, being vague yet defensive about his own politics — and his history with Kraft suggest his sympathies might not lie with the causes his opening acts stand for.
It’s interesting that Beoga and Aaron Rowe, both Irish acts, acknowledged their own country’s history of colonial occupation as reason to stand up for Palestinians (and free speech around it). “Ed has been a friend to me and has changed my life, I could never thank him enough for this,” Rowe wrote in his statement. “But as Irish people we know all too well about genocide, forced famine, and violent occupation.”
Even Lukas Graham cited the band’s roots in Christiania, a Danish enclave with a history as an anarchist commune, as an example they’re following by bailing on this tour. Sheeran likes to say that, through his father, he is culturally Irish though he was born and raised in England. In a country that rallied for Kneecap, the Irish rap group and advocates for Palestinians, his reputation is likely taking a real hit. Whether that extends to his ultra-mainstream U.S. fan base remains to be seen.
Not every artist is obliged to comment on contentious issues — though the success of Olivia Rodrigo’s Daisy Chain Fields festival, which raised money for an array of abortion-rights advocacy groups, showed that A-listers can speak out when they want to. But whatever he actually believes, Sheeran’s long-cultivated neutrality is in tatters. Taking a stand would have been the path of least resistance. Instead, he committed the most basic onstage error: a failure to read the room.
NEW YORK: Three supporting acts have quit Ed Sheeran’s tour after Macklemore was removed for his pro-Palestinian comments onstage.
Hours after Sheeran said he refused to be drawn into a discussion about the war in Gaza, Aaron Rowe, the band Beoga and Finneas all posted Tuesday on Instagram that they would withdraw from Sheeran’s tour.
Rowe was one of Macklemore’s replacements for Sheeran’s remaining U.S. dates, while Beoga was serving as Sheeran’s touring band. Finneas was due to tour with Sheeran in South America later this year.
Emails seeking comment were sent to Sheeran and Macklemore’s other replacement, the Danish band Lukas Graham.
Ed Sheeran has weighed in on Macklemore
Ed Sheeran has weighed in on Macklemore being dropped as his opening act after the rapper made pro-Palestinian comments onstage during their tour, saying the decision was made by the promoters alone. The British singer also said he refused to be drawn into a public discussion about the war in Gaza.
“Macklemore coming off tour was the promoter’s decision, it was not mine,” Sheeran wrote on Instagram on Tuesday. “I would never let down the fans who had made plans, nor would I abandon the touring crew and the other support acts and musicians who rely on me for work and to make a living.”
The tour’s promoter, the Messina Touring Group, did not immediately respond to emailed requests for comment Tuesday. Macklemore’s publicist also did not immediately respond.
Sheeran’s statement came a day after Macklemore said he was kicked off the Loop Tour after exclaiming “Free Palestine!” during the Sept. 5 date at New Jersey’s MetLife Stadium while introducing his protest song “Hind’s Hall.”
“To all of my Jewish brothers and sisters, criticism of Israel, criticism of apartheid, being against genocide, it in no way is criticism of you,” he said during the concert.
Macklemore said Monday on Instagram that several U.S. venues told the promoter they would prohibit him from performing as Sheeran’s opening act, rallied by Robert Kraft, owner of NFL’s New England Patriots. His Kraft Group also owns Gillette Stadium, where the Patriots play.
In statement Monday, Kraft said the decision to cancel Macklemore was a result of his recent comments “and a broader history of antisemitic rhetoric and imagery that we believe has been deeply offensive and hurtful to the Jewish community.”
Sheeran said in his latest post that he “spoke with the venues at length all week to try to build a bridge,” but that “the venue’s and promoter’s decision was final.”
A growing chorus of organizations and experts say Israel’s wartime actions in Gaza amount to genocide — an accusation Israel vehemently rejects.
Macklemore was scheduled to perform at eight of the 10 shows Sheeran has remaining on his stadium tour, which will resume Saturday in Philadelphia, with Lukas Graham and Aaron Rowe now on the bill. Ahead are stops at Gillette Stadium, Atlanta’s Mercedes-Benz Stadium and Indianapolis’ Lucas Oil Stadium.
Sheeran said he tries to use his music to “bring people from all backgrounds and cultures together” and that while he has personal views about “this devastating conflict,” he chooses not to speak publicly because people who come to his shows “do not expect a political forum.” He added: “I am not complicit.”
“I respect Macklemore’s strength of purpose to stand up and shout for what he believes,” Sheeran added. “However, there is room for multiple approaches to the same end: peace. I choose to use my fame and platform to be a place of safety and sanctuary, to maintain diplomacy and keep conversations open, not closed.”
Seoirse Comerford owns the Comerford bar in Doonbeg. He described the tournament as “unbelievable”.
“If you look at the red double decker buses going up and down the street full of people, we never thought we would have seen the like of that.”
He said the golf course is a big employer and is keeping Doonbeg “alive”.
“Most rural villages in west Clare are all dying a death, young people going away to college, they don’t come back.
“Like there’s over 300 people employed up there at the golf course , it’s a big boost to the local economy. You’ve got big companies in Dublin, like Intel, the golf course is our Intel down here.
“I probably wouldn’t have taken over the bar business other than the golf course being up there.
“We would have had 1,000 plus through the pub on Saturday night and the same Friday night, so there’s a lot of people around the village, which is great to see.”
Giving an answer to a question that is asked at a free-flowing press conference is one thing, but Donald Trump repeated his sentiments a short time later when he was delivering a speech to an invited audience at the US Ambassador’s residence.
In fact it was almost the first thing he mentioned, hinting that maybe he realised he had kicked over a can of worms at his earlier appearance.
The rest of that speech was curious. It was billed as a 20-minute address to Irish and Irish American business leaders, but was about twice that and strayed largely into domestic US matters.
President Trump has a speaking style that he describes himself as “the weave”.
He can bounce from topic to topic during any speaking engagement, veering off the script and then returning to the matter at hand.
Today he lauded his own achievements, as he sees them, such as clamping down on illegal immigration, doing deals and boosting defence production.
He repeated his criticisms once again of what he views as the UK’s lack of support for his military operation in Iran.
ITV bosses have wiped “uncomfortable” footage of Miriam Margolyes from the edition of This Morning that appears on its ITVX service.
Miriam Margolyes’ appearance on This Morning sparked huge backlash(Image: Ken McKay/ITV/Shutterstock)
Miriam Margolyes has been met with a wave of fury after using a highly offensive term to describe Andi Peters’ skin colour during an ‘uncomfortable’ appearance on This Morning.
Viewers have branded the 85-year-old ‘disgraceful’ following her interview on the ITV show and bosses have scrubbed the remarks from the ITVX footage.
In the interview to promote her book, which aired on Thursday’s episode, she began dissecting Christine Lampard’s Northern Irish accent before turning her attention to her co-host.
“What accent would be normal for you? What are you?,” she asked the 56-year-old, leaving him baffled. The presenter responded: ”This is normal. What am I? I’m me!”
“You’re a mix, aren’t you? You’ve got a Black daddy and a white mummy,” she said. He explained that both of his parents are Black, jokingly questioning whether his make-up artist had used a “lighter shade than normal”.
“I think you’re high yella. That’s what they call it in America when someone isn’t deeply black,” she continued, with Andi quipping that he “didn’t even know there were shades”.
The presenter then pointed to his earpiece and revealed that bosses were intervening, explaining that they were “getting nervous”.
“There are shades and this is what we have to incorporate,” the Harry Potter actress added. “Don’t be nervous, we welcome everybody. That’s what I want to write about in my book, it’s about inclusion.”
The Merriam-Webster US dictionary defines the term – sometimes spelt high yaller – as a dated and often offensive piece of slang used to describe a black person with a light complexion.
ITV bosses have yet to issue a statement over the segment but the offensive footage has been removed from the episode on ITVX. However, the rest of her interview still remains.
Viewers were left reeling over the segment and quickly rushed to social media with one saying the term was “super racist” and many calling for further action to be taken.
One person wrote on social media: “That Miriam Margoyles clip is just about the cringiest thing I’ve ever seen. It’s like a scene out of The Office.” Another agreed: “I do not accept that it’s just her age or character. She uses words and phrases that are totally unacceptable. I hope #thismorning never brings her back on the show.”
One posted: “That Miriam Margolyes interview is the most uncomfortable thing to sit through what the hell was she thinking.”
Another said: “Just watched @thismorning interview from this morning Miriam Margolyes is disgrace what she said about Andi Peters is way out of line she should be banned from @ITV @SkyNews @BBCTheOneShow she was way out of order.” They added: “@andipeters i am standing with you [sic].”
The Mirror has approached ITV, This Morning, Andi and Miriam for a comment.
Justice Department files complaint against judges over immigration enforcement surge comments
WASHINGTON — The Department of Justice filed a complaint Wednesday against federal judges in Minnesota over their remarks to the media related to the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement surge.
The complaint escalates the department’s battle with the federal judiciary, which has halted administration priorities, dismissed high-profile prosecutions and accused government lawyers in some cases of failing to comply with court orders.
The department is demanding that the judges recuse themselves from all criminal or civil cases involving the Department of Homeland Security, Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche told reporters, because of what he described as “obvious bias they have shown” in recent remarks to the New York Times.
At issue is a September article in which seven federal judges in Minnesota — nominated by Democrats and Republican presidents — spoke on the record about their experience dealing with a flood of cases during last winter’s immigration crackdown that led to thousands of arrests.
The judge at the center of the story, Patrick Schiltz, accused the government in January of failing to comply with nearly 100 court orders. He said in a ruling that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, a part of Homeland Security, “is not a law unto itself.”
Schiltz, who was nominated by Republican President George W. Bush and served as a law clerk for Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, told the newspaper that what happened in Minnesota’s federal court last winter “created a grave threat to the rule of law.”
In a statement Wednesday, Schiltz said he was “acting well within the ethical rules that apply to federal judges in speaking to The New York Times.”
“Indeed, in February of this year, the Committee on Codes of Conduct issued an advisory opinion to emphasize that federal judges” may speak or write “on core judiciary matters such as advocacy for the rule of law and judicial independence,’” Schiltz said. “That is exactly what I did.”
The complaint was filed with the chief judge of the U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, which oversees federal judges in Minnesota.
The Republican administration has railed against what it describes as “activist judges” who officials say are intent on thwarting Trump’s agenda. Yet some of the most critical and unfavorable court rulings have come from judges nominated by Trump and other Republican presidents.
Richer writes for the Associated Press.
Source link
Trump administration files complaint against judges over media comments | Civil Rights News
Seven Minnesota judges face ethics complaint after speaking publicly about the US president’s immigration crackdown.
Published On 30 Sep 202630 Sep 2026
The United States Justice Department has filed a misconduct complaint against seven federal judges in Minnesota who spoke publicly about the pressure their courts came under during President Donald Trump’s immigration crackdown.
The judges spoke to The New York Times this month about dealing with a flood of cases during Operation Metro Surge, an immigration crackdown that led to thousands of arrests in the Minneapolis-St Paul area from December to February.
Recommended Stories
list of 4 itemsend of list
The Justice Department says it crossed an ethical line by talking publicly about the cases.
Attorney General Todd Blanche accused the judges of showing “obvious bias” against the Trump administration and called on them to step aside from any cases involving the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
“When we have a situation like we have now, where you have a judge, a couple of judges, just not only violating the canons in our view but also showing bias in what they’re saying, we have no choice but to act,” Blanche told reporters.
The judges say they did nothing wrong. A spokesperson for Minnesota’s federal court system said legal experts had found that the judges were “well within the ethical rules” when they spoke to the newspaper.
The complaint is the latest in a series of clashes between the Trump administration and the judiciary, which has blocked some of the president’s policies and, in several cases, accused government lawyers of failing to follow court orders.
One of the judges named in the complaint, Patrick Schiltz, alleged that the government did not comply with nearly 100 court orders related to immigration enforcement in January alone.
In one ruling, he wrote that US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) “is not a law unto itself”.
Schiltz was nominated by Republican President George W Bush and previously clerked for conservative Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.
He later told The New York Times that what happened in Minnesota’s federal courts during the crackdown “created a grave threat to the rule of law”.
Schiltz also pointed to guidance issued by a federal judicial ethics panel in February, saying that judges can speak publicly about issues such as the rule of law and judicial independence.
“That is exactly what I did,” he said.
Source link
Micheal Martin: Israel FA comments on Heimir Hallgrimsson ‘unacceptable’
Irish taoiseach [prime minister] Micheal Martin said comments made by the Israel Football Association about the Republic of Ireland manager Heimir Hallgrimsson are “unacceptable” and “should be withdrawn”.
Israel’s football governing body accused Hallgrimmson of “ignorance, hypocrisy and stupidity” regarding comments made last week when he said: “We’re not playing with genocide, we’re playing against genocide. We’re playing against Israel, we’re not playing with Israel.”
The teams are set to meet twice in the space of a week in the Nations League, with Israel’s ‘home’ game in Debrecen, Hungary on Sunday, with the return fixture also in a neutral venue of Backa Topola, Serbia on 4 October.
On Monday, the Israel FA posted a message on X, saying: “We have contributed to the world and humanity in countless fields, earning an impressive number of Nobel Prizes along the way.
“Unfortunately, we have not yet found a cure for stupidity, ignorance and hypocrisy displayed by @IrelandFootball team coach.
“We’re not playing with ignorance, hypocrisy and stupidity, We’re playing against the coach who embodies them.”
While the Football Association of Ireland [FAI] did not respond, Martin did comment.
“They are unacceptable remarks and should be withdrawn,” he told reporters in New York, where he is attending the UN General Assembly.
“We’re very clear and I think [UN secretary-general] Antonio Guterres said it again this morning, he has never in his lifetime seen the level and scale of death and destruction as he witnessed in terms of the Israeli government’s war on Gaza in the aftermath of the horrific Hamas attack preceding the war. Our manager is saying the exact same thing.
“Israel can’t keep denying what the world knows and what the world understands.”
Source link
Breaking down Ed Sheeran’s tour debacle over Macklemore’s ‘Free Palestine’ comments
In a matter of days, Ed Sheeran has gone from the most agreeable, defiantly middle-of-the-road singer-songwriter on the pop charts to music’s newest villain. The Times’ August Brown and Mikael Wood gathered to break down what happened — and to figure out what it all means.
August Brown: To recap, Sheeran dropped his tour opener, the rapper Macklemore, after the MC described Israel’s actions in Gaza as a genocide and said “Free Palestine” onstage this month at two New Jersey dates of Sheeran’s ongoing stadium tour. Macklemore, in a statement, cited his long friendship with Sheeran while criticizing the singer for allegedly acquiescing to a demand from Robert Kraft, the owner of the NFL’s New England Patriots, that the rapper not be allowed to perform at the Patriots’ Gillette Stadium outside Boston due to his comments.
Kraft, a Trump-supporting billionaire with his own colorful history, released a statement about the tour, saying he was “ensuring that events held at our venue do not provide a platform for hate speech.”
But Sheeran, who performed at Kraft’s wedding in 2022, arguably made things much worse with his own comments on the decision to drop Macklemore from the tour, which ranged from shifting accountability (“Macklemore coming off tour was the promoter’s decision, it was not mine”) to promising that he held compassionate beliefs on this volatile issue but wouldn’t articulate them publicly (“I am not complicit. I have my personal views on this devastating conflict. Just because I choose not to speak publicly, it doesn’t mean I don’t have them, and it doesn’t mean I don’t care.”)
This prompted Sheeran’s remaining openers — including the musician and producer Finneas, the Danish rock combo Lukas Graham and singer-songwriter Aaron Rowe — to drop off the tour, each giving their plainspoken support for both Macklemore’s advocacy and the Palestinian people as their reasons for leaving. The traditional Irish group Beoga, which backs Sheeran for a portion of his nightly show, also quit the tour, saying it was responding to “the silencing of Macklemore by Zionist lobbies.”
It’s too soon to know how this will affect a CVS-core pop star like Sheeran, but it’s clear that for the first time in his career, he’s chosen the path of maximum conflict and controversy for little gain. What do you think he should he have done instead?
Macklemore
(Morgan Hancock / Getty Images)
Mikael Wood: Not let Macklemore be booted from his tour?
Look, I understand Sheeran’s position here: that he views himself as an artist whose audience comes to his show precisely because they’d like to avoid the messy realities of the world for two or three hours. We can choose a different day to discuss how tenable (or not) that position is here in the era of a reality-TV president who long ago blurred the line between politics and entertainment.
But setting aside one’s views on Israel and Palestine, it’s impossible for me to see how Sheeran ever thought his actions would be seen as anything other than allowing a fellow artist to be silenced — a clear loser in the eyes of both the left and the right.
It would be one thing if Macklemore’s comments in New Jersey truly resembled the hate speech that Kraft accused him of dispensing. (Many online have posted images of a costume the rapper wore onstage in 2014 that resembled an ugly Jewish caricature; Macklemore apologized at the time, saying he understood the criticism.)
And of course I get that the very idea of hate speech is slippery — one reason, perhaps, that the folks at AT&T Stadium near Dallas (where Sheeran is scheduled to perform next month) appear to have no problem hosting a concert in November by Ye, who not so long ago released a song called, uh, “Heil Hitler.”
But given how measured Macklemore’s comments were, Sheeran’s decision to go along with the demands for his removal feels less like a fulfillment of his desire to create a conflict-free zone and more like a capitulation to a rich and powerful friend.
August, what do you make of the various statements from the musicians who’ve opted to leave the tour in the wake of all this?
August Brown: The other openers had the most to lose here by bowing out of a huge tour. Yet they took unambiguous stances in favor of Macklemore’s Palestinian advocacy. (On Wednesday, the rapper said on Instagram that he planned to donate “the entire $1 million of my net earnings” from Sheeran’s tour to six organizations “working directly to support the Palestinian people.” He also invited Kraft to match his donation.)
“Artists must not be silenced when they speak up for the oppressed,” Finneas wrote. “I stand with Palestine and its people.”
Lukas Graham went even harder: “We should be able to speak about war, about civilians being killed, about children who deserve to grow up,” the group wrote. “Money doesn’t give you the right to own the conversation.”
Sheeran could have done what many fans regard as the right thing: Defy Kraft’s demands, cancel the Gillette Stadium dates with Macklemore and reroute the tour to somewhere that would support an opening act’s fairly anodyne support of a popular human rights cause. Sheeran is extremely wealthy, and he’d have been on the right side of history, if for no other reason than to say that billionaires shouldn’t have a veto over an artist’s human rights advocacy onstage.
I’m sympathetic to the idea that crews’ livelihoods and fans’ investment in the shows are meaningful things to toss out. But an artist as big as Sheeran can make up the difference. Even a hypothetical statement like “I stand for Macklemore’s freedom of speech and the rights of the Palestinian people. My team’s livelihoods depends on the shows happening, so I will play the Gillette dates as planned,” with a promise for a donation or a benefit show with Macklemore down the line — even that would have smoothed this over.
But his actions here — deflecting accountability, being vague yet defensive about his own politics — and his history with Kraft suggest his sympathies might not lie with the causes his opening acts stand for.
It’s interesting that Beoga and Aaron Rowe, both Irish acts, acknowledged their own country’s history of colonial occupation as reason to stand up for Palestinians (and free speech around it). “Ed has been a friend to me and has changed my life, I could never thank him enough for this,” Rowe wrote in his statement. “But as Irish people we know all too well about genocide, forced famine, and violent occupation.”
Even Lukas Graham cited the band’s roots in Christiania, a Danish enclave with a history as an anarchist commune, as an example they’re following by bailing on this tour. Sheeran likes to say that, through his father, he is culturally Irish though he was born and raised in England. In a country that rallied for Kneecap, the Irish rap group and advocates for Palestinians, his reputation is likely taking a real hit. Whether that extends to his ultra-mainstream U.S. fan base remains to be seen.
Not every artist is obliged to comment on contentious issues — though the success of Olivia Rodrigo’s Daisy Chain Fields festival, which raised money for an array of abortion-rights advocacy groups, showed that A-listers can speak out when they want to. But whatever he actually believes, Sheeran’s long-cultivated neutrality is in tatters. Taking a stand would have been the path of least resistance. Instead, he committed the most basic onstage error: a failure to read the room.
Source link
Arab News | 3 supporting acts quit Ed Sheeran’s tour after Macklemore is dropped over pro-Palestinian comments
NEW YORK: Three supporting acts have quit Ed Sheeran’s tour after Macklemore was removed for his pro-Palestinian comments onstage.
Hours after Sheeran said he refused to be drawn into a discussion about the war in Gaza, Aaron Rowe, the band Beoga and Finneas all posted Tuesday on Instagram that they would withdraw from Sheeran’s tour.
Rowe was one of Macklemore’s replacements for Sheeran’s remaining U.S. dates, while Beoga was serving as Sheeran’s touring band. Finneas was due to tour with Sheeran in South America later this year.
Emails seeking comment were sent to Sheeran and Macklemore’s other replacement, the Danish band Lukas Graham.
Ed Sheeran has weighed in on Macklemore
Ed Sheeran has weighed in on Macklemore being dropped as his opening act after the rapper made pro-Palestinian comments onstage during their tour, saying the decision was made by the promoters alone. The British singer also said he refused to be drawn into a public discussion about the war in Gaza.
“Macklemore coming off tour was the promoter’s decision, it was not mine,” Sheeran wrote on Instagram on Tuesday. “I would never let down the fans who had made plans, nor would I abandon the touring crew and the other support acts and musicians who rely on me for work and to make a living.”
The tour’s promoter, the Messina Touring Group, did not immediately respond to emailed requests for comment Tuesday. Macklemore’s publicist also did not immediately respond.
Sheeran’s statement came a day after Macklemore said he was kicked off the Loop Tour after exclaiming “Free Palestine!” during the Sept. 5 date at New Jersey’s MetLife Stadium while introducing his protest song “Hind’s Hall.”
“To all of my Jewish brothers and sisters, criticism of Israel, criticism of apartheid, being against genocide, it in no way is criticism of you,” he said during the concert.
Macklemore said Monday on Instagram that several U.S. venues told the promoter they would prohibit him from performing as Sheeran’s opening act, rallied by Robert Kraft, owner of NFL’s New England Patriots. His Kraft Group also owns Gillette Stadium, where the Patriots play.
In statement Monday, Kraft said the decision to cancel Macklemore was a result of his recent comments “and a broader history of antisemitic rhetoric and imagery that we believe has been deeply offensive and hurtful to the Jewish community.”
Sheeran said in his latest post that he “spoke with the venues at length all week to try to build a bridge,” but that “the venue’s and promoter’s decision was final.”
A growing chorus of organizations and experts say Israel’s wartime actions in Gaza amount to genocide — an accusation Israel vehemently rejects.
Macklemore was scheduled to perform at eight of the 10 shows Sheeran has remaining on his stadium tour, which will resume Saturday in Philadelphia, with Lukas Graham and Aaron Rowe now on the bill. Ahead are stops at Gillette Stadium, Atlanta’s Mercedes-Benz Stadium and Indianapolis’ Lucas Oil Stadium.
Sheeran said he tries to use his music to “bring people from all backgrounds and cultures together” and that while he has personal views about “this devastating conflict,” he chooses not to speak publicly because people who come to his shows “do not expect a political forum.” He added: “I am not complicit.”
“I respect Macklemore’s strength of purpose to stand up and shout for what he believes,” Sheeran added. “However, there is room for multiple approaches to the same end: peace. I choose to use my fame and platform to be a place of safety and sanctuary, to maintain diplomacy and keep conversations open, not closed.”
Source link
Trump: US president doubles down on united Ireland comments on day two of visit
Seoirse Comerford owns the Comerford bar in Doonbeg. He described the tournament as “unbelievable”.
“If you look at the red double decker buses going up and down the street full of people, we never thought we would have seen the like of that.”
He said the golf course is a big employer and is keeping Doonbeg “alive”.
“Most rural villages in west Clare are all dying a death, young people going away to college, they don’t come back.
“Like there’s over 300 people employed up there at the golf course , it’s a big boost to the local economy. You’ve got big companies in Dublin, like Intel, the golf course is our Intel down here.
“I probably wouldn’t have taken over the bar business other than the golf course being up there.
“We would have had 1,000 plus through the pub on Saturday night and the same Friday night, so there’s a lot of people around the village, which is great to see.”
Source link
Trump: US president’s comments on a united Ireland may have targeted an audience across the Atlantic
Giving an answer to a question that is asked at a free-flowing press conference is one thing, but Donald Trump repeated his sentiments a short time later when he was delivering a speech to an invited audience at the US Ambassador’s residence.
In fact it was almost the first thing he mentioned, hinting that maybe he realised he had kicked over a can of worms at his earlier appearance.
The rest of that speech was curious. It was billed as a 20-minute address to Irish and Irish American business leaders, but was about twice that and strayed largely into domestic US matters.
President Trump has a speaking style that he describes himself as “the weave”.
He can bounce from topic to topic during any speaking engagement, veering off the script and then returning to the matter at hand.
Today he lauded his own achievements, as he sees them, such as clamping down on illegal immigration, doing deals and boosting defence production.
He repeated his criticisms once again of what he views as the UK’s lack of support for his military operation in Iran.
Source link
Miriam Margolyes’ offensive comments about Andi Peters on This Morning wiped by ITV
ITV bosses have wiped “uncomfortable” footage of Miriam Margolyes from the edition of This Morning that appears on its ITVX service.
Miriam Margolyes’ appearance on This Morning sparked huge backlash(Image: Ken McKay/ITV/Shutterstock)
Miriam Margolyes has been met with a wave of fury after using a highly offensive term to describe Andi Peters’ skin colour during an ‘uncomfortable’ appearance on This Morning.
Viewers have branded the 85-year-old ‘disgraceful’ following her interview on the ITV show and bosses have scrubbed the remarks from the ITVX footage.
In the interview to promote her book, which aired on Thursday’s episode, she began dissecting Christine Lampard’s Northern Irish accent before turning her attention to her co-host.
“What accent would be normal for you? What are you?,” she asked the 56-year-old, leaving him baffled. The presenter responded: ”This is normal. What am I? I’m me!”
“You’re a mix, aren’t you? You’ve got a Black daddy and a white mummy,” she said. He explained that both of his parents are Black, jokingly questioning whether his make-up artist had used a “lighter shade than normal”.
“I think you’re high yella. That’s what they call it in America when someone isn’t deeply black,” she continued, with Andi quipping that he “didn’t even know there were shades”.
The presenter then pointed to his earpiece and revealed that bosses were intervening, explaining that they were “getting nervous”.
“There are shades and this is what we have to incorporate,” the Harry Potter actress added. “Don’t be nervous, we welcome everybody. That’s what I want to write about in my book, it’s about inclusion.”
The Merriam-Webster US dictionary defines the term – sometimes spelt high yaller – as a dated and often offensive piece of slang used to describe a black person with a light complexion.
ITV bosses have yet to issue a statement over the segment but the offensive footage has been removed from the episode on ITVX. However, the rest of her interview still remains.
Viewers were left reeling over the segment and quickly rushed to social media with one saying the term was “super racist” and many calling for further action to be taken.
One person wrote on social media: “That Miriam Margoyles clip is just about the cringiest thing I’ve ever seen. It’s like a scene out of The Office.” Another agreed: “I do not accept that it’s just her age or character. She uses words and phrases that are totally unacceptable. I hope #thismorning never brings her back on the show.”
One posted: “That Miriam Margolyes interview is the most uncomfortable thing to sit through what the hell was she thinking.”
Another said: “Just watched @thismorning interview from this morning Miriam Margolyes is disgrace what she said about Andi Peters is way out of line she should be banned from @ITV @SkyNews @BBCTheOneShow she was way out of order.” They added: “@andipeters i am standing with you [sic].”
The Mirror has approached ITV, This Morning, Andi and Miriam for a comment.
Like this story? For more of the latest showbiz news and gossip, follow Mirror Celebs on TikTok , Snapchat , Instagram , Twitter , Facebook , YouTube and Threads .
Source link