controversial

The penalty awarded against the Senegalese national team in the final moments of their match against Belgium on Wednesday caused widespread controversy after it led to their elimination from the Round of 32 at the 2026 World Cup, in a harsh turn of events that saw the “Lions of Teranga” go from leading 2-0 to losing 3-2.

Honduran referee Said Martinez awarded a penalty kick at the end of the second period of extra time, after a VAR review, following a challenge by Senegal’s Lamine Camara on Belgian captain Youri Tielemans, with the score tied 2-2 and the match heading towards a penalty shootout.

The “Archivo VAR” platform, which specialises in analysing refereeing decisions, said that VAR intervened excessively during the match, confirming that it was Tielemans who extended his foot in front of Camara, causing the contact.

The platform added, via its account on “X,” that the incident did not warrant VAR intervention, explaining that it was the Belgian player who forced the contact entirely, and that the situation did not amount to the clear and obvious error needed to justify the referee reviewing the decision.

The decision triggered a wave of controversy on social media, with one fan writing: “This is 100% robbery. Senegal have been robbed. How is this a penalty? Belgium do not deserve to go through corruption.”

Sports content creator Sneako blamed the result on match ‘”rigging”.

“Rigged! Senegal should storm the pitch right now. Leave the pitch and go home. This is rigged!”

Another sports fan wrote: “I’m sorry, but this was never a penalty. Camara went to clear the ball, but it was Tielemans who got in his way. Senegal was robbed, and it should have been Belgium going out.”

Spanish sports journalist Manolo Lama commented: “They stole the Africa Cup of Nations from them, and now they’re stealing all the solidarity with Senegal at the World Cup too.”

Egyptian journalist Mohamed Saeed linked the incident to what happened in the 2025 Africa Cup of Nations final against Morocco, writing: “You can feel that the penalty awarded against Senegal in the final seconds was a harsh lesson and a difficult test. After the scenes from the Africa Cup of Nations final, I think that if it weren’t for the change in the rules around the withdrawal incident, this scene could have repeated itself.”

Another sports fan, Fares Ahmed, wrote that football ”teaches lessons” and the outcome brought back the memory of Senegal at the tournament in Morocco.

“They took advantage of the tournament’s vulnerable position and the host’s need to make it a success, and used that to impose their pressure,” Ahmed wrote. “Today, the scene was almost repeated against Belgium — a penalty in the final minutes, objections, and disbelief over the decision — but this time there was no threat of withdrawal, because you can’t risk penalties like that in a tournament the size of the World Cup.”

Drawing a connection between the two events, one follower wrote on “X”: “When there was a clear penalty in the Morocco final, they rebelled against the decision and tarnished the reputation of African football, just because the tournament was in Morocco. But when an unclear penalty came along that eliminated them from the World Cup, they stayed silent, because this time it was in the West.”

After the dramatic penalty was awarded, Tielemans stepped up to take it and scored successfully, netting Belgium’s third goal and capping off an unexpected comeback that eliminated the Lions of Teranga.

But back on the pitch, Senegal had the run of play for 85 minutes. The African team held a two-goal lead, and had all but secured a spot in the round of 16 at the World Cup.

Within five minutes, it crumbled and the players were feeling it.

“We were at the heart of writing the beautiful pages of the history of our football in this world,” defender Krepin Diatta said. “And we have to accept that we failed at our mission.”

Senegal midfielder Habib Diarra said. “We had a good first half, but it wasn’t enough. A match lasts 90 minutes, and we’re devastated. It’s very tough. I don’t know what to say. When you’re on the pitch, you have to give your all, and that’s not what we did. We’ve only got ourselves to blame.”

Mercedes’ George Russell took his second win of the season with victory from pole position at the Austrian Grand Prix.

Max Verstappen recovered from a crash in the final part of qualifying to finish second at Red Bull’s home race, with championship leader Kimi Antonelli in third.

Russell’s win moves him back up to second in the drivers’ standings, 40 points behind team-mate Antonelli.

BBC F1 correspondent Andrew Benson answers your latest questions before this weekend’s British Grand Prix at Silverstone.

I think a pole position under a yellow flag sets a dangerous precedent, because it’s clear that from now on, everyone will continue to push hard after a small slow down, or else their lap will be cancelled. I’d be curious to hear your opinion – Lorenzo

George Russell’s pole position at the Austrian Grand Prix, the foundation for his victory on Sunday, came about in controversial circumstances.

According to the rules, Russell did nothing wrong.

Marshals trackside initially waved a single yellow flag when Max Verstappen crashed at Turn Nine.

Kimi Antonelli mis-read the light board as a double yellow, and backed out of his lap – the correct response for what he thought to be the case. Under a double yellow, drivers have to “slow down and be prepared to stop”.

But under a single yellow, a driver does not have to abandon their lap. They only have to not set a fastest time in the relevant section of the track.

Russell complied with this, but the rest of his lap was fast enough to put him on pole anyway.

The concern here is less the specifics of these rules, but whether the correct flag was shown in the circumstances.

The answer to that has to be no.

Verstappen crashed at the fastest corner on the track, which is taken at close to 140mph.

Turn Nine is notoriously challenging, with its downhill entry, and an exit kerb that’s easy to over-run.

Both Verstappen and Antonelli questioned the decision to show only a single yellow at the time, when Verstappen’s car was in the barrier at this corner as other drivers were seeking to set what would be their fastest laps of the weekend.

Verstappen described it as “quite crazy”.

Antonelli said: “There was a car in the wall in a fast corner. I don’t know why it didn’t go double-yellow straight away, because it’s a super-quick corner, and if you go off at the same time, it can end up very badly. That was a bit confusing.

“For sure it’s something that needs to be reviewed, especially when it happens in a high-speed corner.

“If it’s a slow-speed [corner], single yellow can be OK but fast corners should be double yellow straight away.”

To underline the point, within 20 seconds, race control upgraded the flag to a double yellow, but everyone had completed their laps by then.

Proponents of a tax on California billionaires vowed on Thursday to move forward with their November ballot measure despite mounting opposition from many of the state’s most powerful political forces.

A labor union spent $31 million gathering signatures to qualify the measure for the ballot in an effort to offset federal healthcare funding cuts that will affect millions of California’s most vulnerable residents. A representative for the campaign supporting the ballot measure pushed back at opposition to the effort as self-entitled wealthy Californians and entrenched Sacramento interests.

“While a few morally bankrupt billionaires and their buddies in Sacramento want to see California’s hospitals close, and tax breaks for billionaires protected — I assure you, the vast majority of voters do not,” said Debru Carthan, a spokesperson for the Billionaire Tax Now Coalition, which is funded by the Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers West, the sponsor of the proposal.

The California secretary of state is expected to officially certify the measure for the Nov. 3 ballot on Thursday evening.

Carthan said their effort has support in public opinion polls, and from lawmakers, unions, community organizations and volunteers across the state, “something the billionaires and their buddies will never have.”

However, a coalition of healthcare, education, public safety, housing, business and labor leaders opposed to the proposal warned that it would make the state’s notoriously unstable budget even more unpredictable.

“The dangerous wealth tax directly threatens vital funding for education and schools, healthcare and clinics, public safety, and infrastructure projects by making California’s revenue even more volatile,” the leaders of the California Medical Assn., the California Primary Care Assn. and the California School Boards Assn. said in a statement. “That’s why so many leaders – both Democrats and Republicans – are joining us and saying NO. We look forward to ensuring voters have the facts, know the stakes, and resoundingly reject this reckless experiment in November.”

Supporters of the one-time proposed 5% tax on the assets of the state’s wealthiest residents pitched the effort as a stop-gap measure to offset devastating federal healthcare funding cuts passed by the GOP-led Congress and signed by President Trump nearly one year ago. The federal legislation is expected to result in $100 billion in cuts that would affect California’s most vulnerable residents.

The proposed tax, which would be retroactive to billionaires who lived in the state as of Jan. 1, drew predictable opposition from the wealthy, notably Silicon Valley tech leaders.

But it notably divided liberals. While Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Fremont) supported the proposal, Gov. Gavin Newsom was among the Democrats who opposed it because of fears about the potential impact on the state’s volatile budget.

Despite being the fourth largest economy in the world — the home of Hollywood and Silicon Valley — California’s budget is extremely dependent on the state’s most prosperous residents.

Newsom and others who generally support increasing taxes on the wealthiest Americans also argued that the proposed billionaire tax in California was poorly crafted and that any such levies ought to be enacted nationally, because varying state policies would be ineffective.

Opponents also argued that the political priority in the 2026 midterm election should be squarely focused on efforts to make sure Democrats regain control of Congress to serve as a counter balance during the final two years of Trump’s presidency.

“It’s disappointing. This is a critical election where we need to concentrate on flipping the house and undoing the damage that was done” by Trump’s legislation that led to the healthcare funding cuts, said Jodi Hicks, chief executive and president of Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California. The wealth tax “is short term and doesn’t address what is the long-term problem. And I’m not even sure the policy is a viable solution. It’s so critical to be sending the right message — holding Congress accountable and how we need to find long-term solutions to make sure Californians have access to healthcare.”

Rob Lapsley, co-chair of Californians Against Tax Increases and president of the California Business Roundtable, argued that the proposed wealth tax would ultimately affect every Californian.

“Strip away the spin, and this measure forces every California taxpayer, not just billionaires, to file a sworn declaration of their net worth with the Franchise Tax Board under penalty of perjury,” Lapsley said in a statement. “And it hands the Legislature the power to extend the wealth tax to all Californians and every kind of property, including home equity, retirement savings without ever returning to the voters – effectively gutting” voter-approved caps on property tax increases.

Supporters of the tax submitted nearly 1.6 million signatures in April to qualify the proposal for the ballot, roughly double the number required. However, support for the effort has grown increasingly shaky. Newsom’s team created a broad coalition of opponents, including healthcare and education activists, that undercut the foundational argument for the tax.

The union that crafted the proposal responded last week by proposing a legislative alternative that would create a 2% tax on billionaire’s assets. It was flatly refused by the Newsom administration. No deal was reached by the Thursday evening deadline for the union to withdraw the proposal from the November ballot.

Two efforts that were crafted to sink the proposed billionaire tax — dubbed as poison pills — also qualified for the Nov. 3 ballot, according to the California Secretary of State’s office. One would bar new state taxes on personal property, while the other prohibits any new taxes being exempted from existing state spending rules and to be regularly audited. If the billionaire tax proposal is approved by voters but either of the other proposals receives more votes, the tax measure would be voided.

The proposed billionaire tax would apply to more than 200 Californians, some of whom proactively left the state or moved their companies out of California because of the proposal.

The prospect of the wealthy fleeing the state is among the reasons that prominent Democrats such as Newsom opposed it, given California’s budget being so reliant on the state’s most prosperous residents.

Sergey Brin, a co-founder of Google, is among the billionaires who have reportedly moved out of California because of the tax proposal. He donated at least $82 million to an organization that is funding efforts to invalidate the proposed billionaire tax.

Ballot measure proponents had a Thursday evening deadline to withdraw their proposals.

Other policy proposals that will appear on the Nov. 3 ballot include:

• Requiring government-issued voter identification to cast ballots in elections.
• Reforming the California Environmental Quality Act, once a third-rail in Democratic politics that has become increasingly scrutinized in the rebuilding in the aftermath of the Palisades and Eaton wildfire.
• Creating a $11.3-billion affordable housing bond.

Two notable proposals were pulled off the ballot after negotiations between the California Hospital Assn. and labor unions:

• An effort to limit healthcare executives’ compensation.
• A union proposal by the same union backing the billionaire tax that would have required many healthcare clinics to spend 90% of their revenue to serve low-income and underserved residents.

Two years after deadly Gen Z protests forced Kenya’s government to withdraw a tax bill, lawmakers have approved another controversial package of financial measures. President William Ruto’s administration says it is needed to raise $770 million ahead of the 2027 elections.
Al Jazeera’s Reem Takieddine has more.

SACRAMENTO — Gov. Gavin Newsom vetoed legislation to require proposed data centers to provide estimates of their water usage last year, saying he was “reluctant to impose rigid reporting requirements” without understanding the impact on businesses and consumers.

Opposition to the mammoth tech hubs and their massive thirst of water, power and land has only escalated throughout the state and nation ever since. In just a matter of months, Newsom again could find himself in the political crosshairs.

Several bills to regulate the facilities and increase public transparency on their impacts are progressing in the California Legislature, which could create a conundrum for a governor who has long aligned with the tech industry but also paints himself as an environmental and social justice advocate.

“I think the governor is in a fragile position,” said Megan Mullin, a public policy professor at UCLA. “Tech has been a long backer of his, but at the same time there is this growing national outcry against data centers.”

Data centers have existed for decades but are rapidly expanding due to the worldwide boom in artificial intelligence. The newer centers built to power AI are far larger than their original counterparts and require immense amounts of water and energy.

The facilities also contribute to fossil fuel emissions, with Cornell University researchers estimating last year that AI growth could add 24 to 44 million metric tons of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere annually by 2030. Fossil fuel emissions are drivers of climate change and linked to a range of health conditions, including asthma, various cancers and birth defects.

Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin announced last week that the Trump administration will not set national environmental requirements or recommendations for the data center industry, leaving it to state lawmakers to determine best policies.

Thad Kousser, a political science professor at UC San Diego, said the nation will likely look to the Golden State for guidance.

“California’s laws will create a national model,” he said. “We’re the home of Silicon Valley and we’re just a massive state — the way we regulate data centers will set the tone.”

The political landscape around data centers has since changed since Newsom’s veto in October, said Dan Schnur, a political science professor who teaches at UC Berkeley and USC.

“No one should assume he will automatically act in the same way,” Schnur said. “Newsom is an incredibly savvy politician so he is clearly aware that voters are a lot more upset or concerned about data centers than they were a year ago.”

A Gallup poll released last month found 7 out of 10 Americans oppose data centers being built in their area.

The facilities can create thousands of jobs for construction workers and generate significant revenue for local governments due to sales and property taxes. The artificial intelligence they power is also — at least temporarily — boosting the stock market, leading to more tax dollars for California.

But residents who live near hyperscale centers have expressed outrage over a range of issues, including health impacts, spiking utility bills, constant noise, dropping water pressure and concerns about potentially losing their land through eminent domain. Meanwhile, community meetings about data centers are growing contentious, with police arresting a farmer in Oklahoma, three women in Wisconsin and a man in California.

Earlier this month, residents of Monterey Park voted overwhelmingly to ban data centers, making the San Gabriel Valley city the first in the nation to do so by public vote.

“Six months ago, politicians of both parties were falling all over each other to bring data centers into their states,” Schnur said. “Now that the public backlash has erupted, they are working just as hard to distance themselves from these projects.”

With Newsom eyeing a presidential bid in 2028, he might be reluctant to brand himself as a defender of an increasingly unpopular industry.

But Schnur said the governor likely also has concerns about angering one of his biggest backers.

“The tech community is a critical part of Newsom’s donor base, so he has to keep fundraising in mind when he makes these decisions,” Schnur said.

A spokesperson for the governor’s office declined to comment on data centers or pending legislation.

Newsom, during an interview at a Center for American Progress conference in May, said the concern that data centers may drive up electricity costs for Californians is a “legit issue,” but not the main one.

“The tech genie is not going to go back in the bottle,” Newsom said. “Just saying that you should not or cannot build a data center is not going to slow this technology down. What can be, will be. Nature of technology. And so we just have to steer it and not make the mistakes we made with social media.”

Among the measures in the Legislature are two bills from Sen. Steve Padilla (D-San Diego). SB 886 would create a corporate tariff to cover the cost of data center-related grid upgrades. SB 887 would ban data centers from receiving ministerial exemptions from the California Environmental Quality Act, known as CEQA.

Neither bill picked up support from Republicans, but both cleared the Senate and were recently referred to the Assembly Utilities and Energy Committee.

Padilla represents Imperial County, a farming community near the border of Mexico where plans for a 950,000–square–foot data center face fierce opposition from residents. The county exempted the proposal from CEQA, which requires projects to undergo an extensive state environmental review before breaking ground.

The city of Imperial sued the county earlier this year, arguing the project should not have received an exemption. The San Diego Chapter of the Sierra Club joined the lawsuit last month. The county board of supervisors last week approved a 45-day moratorium on all new data centers to allow the county to evaluate proposed data center development.

Two other data center-related bills recently passed the Assembly, each picking up support from a few Republicans. They now await action from the Senate.

AB 2619 from Assemblymember Diane Papan (D-San Mateo) would require data center owners to provide an estimate under penalty of perjury about expected water usage and sources before applying for a business license. AB 1577 from Assemblymember Rebecca Bauer-Kahan (D-Orinda) would require data center owners to submit monthly information to a state commission about water and fuel consumption.

Ben Green, an assistant public policy professor at the University of Michigan who is researching how data centers impact communities, said reporting requirements are a “bare minimum” type of regulation, making it especially noteworthy that Newsom vetoed a similar measure last year.

For comparison, several states are weighing more restrictive bills — New York recently sent legislation to the governor’s desk that would enact a one-year moratorium.

“It seems that there was a ton of lobbying pressure that he was getting,” Green said. “The tech industry doesn’t want to have any restrictions.”

Green said data centers could be a hot topic in upcoming elections, as Americans on both sides of the aisle are expressing valid concerns.

“There’s not an easy fix for getting the public on board with data centers because their critiques are grounded in reality,” he said. “This is not just some sort of reactionary NIMBY-ism or pearl clutching.”

A NOUGHTIES pop star looks unrecognisable 23 years after his controversial hit, as he braved the rain at a UK festival.

This US singer, now 54, shot to fame in a quirky Detroit rock band – but can you guess who he is?

The star in question is Dick Valentine, who is known for the band Electric Six, which he founded with friends from high school.

The band launched into the spotlight in the early noughties, and were known for their controversial song Gay Bar.

The tune was released in June 2003, and lead singer Dick, who’s real name is Tyler Spencer, has now revealed how he came up with the song.

Speaking in the rain at Download Festival, he told the Academy Music Group: “The real story, I was in a rock and roll bar. Okay, and so there’s ambient noise, there are people talking, there are drinks clinking.

Read more on noughties stars

a little bit more

Noughties Brit pop star drops huge hint chart topping band will reform

TIMELESS

00s pop star, 44, has barely aged since her smash hit in new fan vid – guess who?

“In the background, on the jukebox, right, you’re hearing the song that they’re playing in the jukebox, but you can’t quite make out the lyrics.

“The song on the jukebox was Girl You Want by Devo, where the lyrics are, ‘She’s just a girl, just a girl, girl you want.’

“Those are the lyrics, those are the actual lyrics.”

Continuing with his story, Dick said: “But I thought he was saying, ‘She’s just a girl, just a girl in a gay bar.’

“And so I started singing that, and my friend was like, ‘No, no, no, what are you singing?’

“So then I’ve got this lyric now about a girl in a gay bar, right, I’ve got this, and it hasn’t been used, so now this is mine.

“So that was the genesis of it. It was just a misheard lyric in a pub, and it worked out really well for me!”

When Gay Bar was released over twenty years ago, the track certainly caused a stir.

While the song and music video got a lot of airplay the lyrics mentioning the Iraq war, which was ongoing at the time, were edited because they were perceived to have been offensive at the time.

Meanwhile, Electric Six shot to fame with their first single, Danger! High Voltage, which soared to No. 2 in the UK charts.

Along with Dick, the original line-up included Cory Martin on drums, Anthony Selph on lead guitar, Joe Frezza on rhythm guitar, and Steve Nawara on bass.

Over the years the band has experienced various changes in members, but Dick has always remained at the helm.

Electric Six continue to perform, and are currently on tour right now in the UK.

A controversial proposal to tax California billionaires to fund healthcare has tenatively qualified for the November ballot, setting the stage for a more intense and expensive battle over whether the state should squeeze the ultra-rich.

Supporters say the proposed tax is crucial to compensate for federal healthcare funding cuts, approved by President Trump and the Republican-controlled Congress, that will harm millions of the state’s most vulnerable residents.

In April, supporters of the billionaire tax submitted nearly 1.6 million signatures, roughly double the number needed to qualify. The California secretary of state’s office on Wednesday declared that enough valid signatures were submitted. The initiative will officially qualify for the Nov. 3 ballot on June 25 unless the proponents withdraw it beforehand.

The initiative would impose a one-time tax of up to 5% on taxpayers and trusts with assets valued at more than $1 billion, with some exceptions, such as property. The levy could be paid over five years. Ninety percent of the revenue would fund healthcare programs, and the remaining funds would be spent on food assistance and education programs. The proposal would cost the state’s richest residents about $100 billion if a majority of voters support it.

Opponents of the measure say the proposal is an ineffective attempt to address the long-term effects of the healthcare cuts and would destroy California’s economy and budget.

The state budget in California is already largely dependent on income taxes paid by its highest earners. Because of that, revenues are prone to volatility, hinging on capital gains from investments, bonuses to executives and windfalls from new stock offerings, and are notoriously difficult for the state to predict.

The proposal already triggered a fierce debate, accentuating the divide between the rich and poor in a state that’s expensive to live in.

The Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers West and other supporters of the billionaire tax say that it would raise $100 billion, offsetting federal funding cuts to healthcare as well as funding education and state food assistance.

But supporters face strong opposition from billionaires with deep pockets. Tech executives and other business leaders oppose the idea and have threatened to move to other states. Opponents say taxing billionaires would harm California’s economy while not addressing underlying financial issues.

The proposal also has divided politicians within the Democratic Party. California Gov. Gavin Newsom spoke out against the billionaire tax, expressing fears that billionaires would move out of the state. But U.S. lawmakers such as California Rep. Ro Khanna and Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders have backed a billionaire tax, saying the rich should pay their fair share to fund essential services.

Business executives have already poured millions of dollars into groups that oppose the billionaire tax or are promoting alternative solutions to wealth inequality.

Tech executives, venture capitalists and business leaders have donated roughly $118 million to a nonprofit called Building a Better California, according to data on the secretary of state’s website. Most of the funding comes from Google co-founder Sergey Brin, who has given more than $82 million to the group. Executives from DoorDash, Ripple, Stripe and other companies also have contributed.

The group says it supports policies such as expanding access to affordable housing, protecting innovation, requiring government transparency and securing more stable education funding.

PayPal and Palantir co-founder Peter Thiel has contributed $3 million to the California Business Roundtable, which opposes the tax. Former Google Chief Executive Eric Schmidt donated $1 million to that group as well.

California would probably collect tens of billions of dollars from the wealth tax if it passed, but it could also lose other tax revenue, a December letter from the state legislative analyst’s office said. The office also mentioned that it’s tough to predict the exact amount the state would collect because of factors that can affect a billionaire’s wealth such as fluctuating stock prices.

California billionaires who were residents of the state as of Jan. 1 would be affected by the ballot measure if it passes. Some wealthy residents announced plans to moves out of state. On Dec. 31, venture capitalist David Sacks announced that he was opening an office in Austin, Texas, the same day Thiel publicized his firm had opened a new office in Miami.

ADAM Thomas has revealed that he was ROBBED in a local corner shop by the owner.

The actor, who appeared on the latest I’m A Celebrity All Stars, explained that he was charged £100 for a couple of bags of sweets.

Adam was left stunned when he confronted the shopkeeper, who told him he didn’t think the soap star “needed the money” after his latest stint on the ITV jungle show, where he received a sizeable fee for his appearance.

The Emmerdale star said he spotted the error on the card reader after he had already paid for it.

Speaking on At Home with the Thomas Bros podcast, Adam said: “I got robbed the other day!’

“Listen right, so I went to my local off-licence, I was buying some sweets for the kids, and I went to pay for it, and I paid for it, and then I looked at the card machine, and it said £100, and I was like ”bro what are you doing?” 

relish the chance

How Adam Thomas plans to reinvent himself after I’m A Celeb fallout

MOVING ON

Adam Thomas says ‘weight has lifted’ after I’m A Celeb feud drama

He went: ”Come on you don’t need it!” and I was like ‘what do you mean I don’t need it?’”

Adam went on to say that the owner told him: ”You’ve just come off the jungle man, you don’t need it’.”

He continued: “I looked him dead in the eyes, and don’t get me wrong I had a banter with this guy, we have a little bit of a laugh back and forth and everything. I was just a bit caught off guard.

“That’s what I think, he’s getting his money back. But I was like ‘bro you can’t do that’.

‘He said ‘oh come on man, you don’t need, I need some money, I need some.’

“I said ‘I listen, I like you and everything, but don’t take the p**s out of me’.”

The Waterloo Road star revealed that the owner finally paid him back and apologised for it.

“Weeks passed and everything, and I sort of forgot about it, and I was walking through my village again, and I went in there, and he was like ‘bro where have you been? You’ve not been back, I’ve been wanting to give you the money, come in, come in, come in,’ and he was so apologetic. 

“Like counting the money out, and he was giving it to me, and he was like, ‘I’m so sorry, like I was just doing it as a joke. I didn’t really mean to offend you or anything like that.”

“And I felt really bad, and at one point I was gonna go ‘you know what, keep the money, it’s not about the money.”

“And anyway, he gave me my money back, and then I ended up giving him the bacon roll, and the croissant.”

The actor found himself at the centre of a catastrophic row during his time I’m A Celeb as he clashed with co-stars Jimmy Bullard and David Haye.

Last month, Adam said he had finally moved on from his I’m A Celeb feud drama, saying “a weight has been lifted” from his shoulders.

On a recent episode of their podcast, Adam’s brother Scott noted: “Ever since all this jungle stuff, you’ve become a proper man, mate, you’ve got a different presence. You’ve god a new strength, mate, about you.

“Even the way you talk, everything.”

Admitting he agreed, Adam responded: “I don’t know, I feel like, for months, I just feel like there was a big dark cloud over me.

“It was for a while until after the final. And then, literally, about a week and a half after the final, I was like, ‘Oh my god, it’s gone’.”

As Scott, Adam and brother Ryan continued to discuss the tough time, the jungle winner admitted he was finally feeling back to his best.

“I just feel like a big weight has been lifted.

“Even when I did the podcast when I first came out, it was straight after as well so I was resenting it a lot, I was angry a lot, I was sad.

“But now I can see the light between the trees a little bit. I just feel like, you know what? It was what it was, it was meant to be, that was my journey and I feel like a better man for it.”

Following the chaotic I’m A Celeb live final, which saw boxer David and former footballer Jimmy stand against Adam, the actor broke down on tears on his podcast with Ryan and Scott.

At the time, he said: “I’m just tired, I want it all to go away and just be forgotten about.

“The sad truth is that everyone will go on with their lives but for me, this will be in for me the rest of my life”.

Indonesian authorities have shut down several screenings of a new documentary about alleged human rights abuses in Papua, including Indigenous land seizures. Al Jazeera’s Jessica Washington explains the controversy.

The Pyramids of Giza loomed over a purpose-built open-air arena for one of boxing’s most unusual world title fights in recent memory.

A kickboxing heavyweight legend who ruled his sport for more than 4,000 days, Verhoeven sprinted to the ring at around 01:10 local time, flanked by performers dressed as Egyptian pharaohs, before Usyk emerged in a gladiator-style outfit complete with a golden helmet.

Verhoeven, who insisted his unpredictability could trouble Usyk, made a lively start with constant movement and energy, landing a solid right hand to the body.

Usyk responded with a sharp double uppercut in the second, but Verhoeven absorbed it well and fired back with two right hands of his own.

Boxing royalty including Saul ‘Canelo’ Alvarez, Terence Crawford, Gennady Golovkin and Anthony Joshua watched on from ringside, alongside Hollywood star Jason Statham – the man credited with helping to bring the fight together.

Another right hand from Verhoeven landed flush on Usyk in the third round.

Usyk – so often the sport’s master of patience – was forced to dig deep. He briefly responded in the fourth, hurting Verhoeven with a straight right and stinging left.

“Get back to your boxing, you’re getting too greedy, trying to land and getting caught,” Verhoeven’s trainer Peter Fury warned his man.

Verhoeven entered the sixth round for the first time in his fighting career – kickboxing bouts are capped at five rounds, and his only previous professional boxing fight ended inside two.

He stuck to the trainer’s instruction and a lethargic Usyk was rocked again in the eighth by a right hand, but the champion came alive in the 10th and 11th, unleashing a flurry of punches and repeatedly finding the uppercut – the shot that had given him his most success all night.

Verhoeven spat out his gumshield while Usyk immediately protested at the added time his opponent was given to recover.

Usyk surged again and sensed the finish. Verhoeven was visibly hurt and a stoppage may have come in the 12th round had the fight continued.

Arguably, Verhoeven should have been allowed the chance to see it through.

Instead, the referee stepped in and waved off what will go down as a contentious stoppage.

The Netflix show has found itself in the top 10 in multiple countries, bringing in over 13 million views this week

A controversial Netflix show dubbed “super dark” continues to break records in over a dozen countries worldwide.

The Roast of Kevin Hart livestream was finally released on Netflix earlier this month (May 10), having been hosted by Shane Gillis during Netflix is a Joke Fest. Featuring savage punchlines from the likes of Dwayne Johnson, Pete Davidson and Katt Williams, the show continues to divide fans.

Running for just under three hours, a Netflix synopsis reads: “Kevin Hart is in the hot seat and ready for all the smoke as roastmaster Shane Gillis and a dais of A-listers unleash a raw and ruthless night of laughs.”

Despite its controversy, the show has found its way onto Netflix’s Top 10 list, breaking records to sit in top place in 15 countries this week. According to Netflix’s Tudum, from May 11 to May 17, The Roast of Kevin Hart sits in first place in the Top 10 Shows with 13.5 million views.

But views continue to be divided as one person wrote on Rotten Tomatoes: “It’s no different than any other roast.. it’s light but super dark gut wrenching comedy. It’s an enjoyable watch.”

Another said: “This is the edgiest, funniest roast I’ve seen. It was not afraid to push the boundaries of comedy, something we need more of. I applaud the boldness and vision. I’d love to see more like this.”

A third added: “Omg!!! This was a proper roast, crying laughing, whilst walking around the room saying No! No! No! He didnt just say that.”

However, some viewers were unimpressed as one person wrote: “Easily the worst roast ever done. I love Shane, but he was so bad and unfunny. The Rock was the only one that did okay, everyone else was pretty poor. Just awful.”

Another said: “The cringe was high with this one. The few funny moments still didn’t make the 3 hrs worth it.”

A third penned: “Total waste of time. 3-4 funny jokes in 3hrs. Skip!”

Over on Reddit, one viewer stated: “Overall I enjoyed lots of the jokes but many felt like they were simply seeking to push the discomfort to extremes for the sake of edginess rather than for the sake of smart humour. It felt desperate to shock.

“I understand roast culture but this event had an edge I haven’t seen before and there seemed to be an air of discomfort amongst some people.”

The Roast of Kevin Hart can be streamed on Netflix.

The sands of Oceano Dunes — the only state park where visitors are usually allowed to drive on the beach — are unusually quiet right now.

Too quiet, many locals say, because off-road vehicles and beach camping have been temporarily banished from San Luis Obispo County’s Oceano Dunes State Vehicular Recreation Area since April 14.

Many others, however, are happy about the pause, saying it will be good for the western snowy plover, a threatened sea bird species.

This discord is part of a long-running battle between environmentalists and recreation advocates along this stretch of coastline a few miles south of Pismo Beach. The environmentalists won the most recent round when a federal judge ordered the dunes closed until state parks officials obtain a permit from U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service that allows occasional bird casualties.

State parks officials, who have canceled all camping reservations in the area through May 22, said they hope to reopen it by May 23. But that timetable depends on permit approval by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Camping reservations for May 23 and beyond are still active, according to Jon O’Brien, superintendent of the state parks system’s Oceano district.

(Myung J. Chun/Los Angeles Times)

Meanwhile, along Pier Street in Oceano, business is slow.

At Sun Buggy Fun Rentals, which has been catering to visiting families for more than 20 years, “we’ve had to lay a majority of our folks off,” said owner Randy Jordan. He said he’s counting on state parks officials “doing everything they can” to reopen the area on May 23.

At the Pier Street Deli y Mas, “It’s been really slow,” manager Chelsea Nava said. “Our employees are losing hours.”

In normal times, Nava said, 80% or more of her customers are from out of town, including “a lot of people from Bakersfield and Fresno, [who] come in for the dunes.”

“We aren’t quite sure” what to expect next, Nava said, noting that her family took over the deli in late 2024. “We were doing really great right before the closing,” she said.

The closure was ordered by U.S. District Court Judge Anne Hwang, who ruled April 9 that the state needs to do more to protect the western snowy plover, which is classified as threatened under the federal Endangered Species Act.

Under Hwang’s order, the closed area can reopen when the state files a long-awaited habitat conservation plan and gets an “incidental take” permit from U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service that allows some snowy plover deaths and injuries. Jon O’Brien, superintendent of the state parks system’s Oceano district, said he was confident that the state would obtain the approval and reopen the area almost immediately after May 22.

Camping reservations for May 23 and beyond “are still active,” O’Brien said. “So if you’ve got a camping reservation for May 24, you’re still got a reservation.”

Jim Suty, president of the Friends of Oceano Dunes, which favors recreational use of the area, said he’s hopeful that parks officials can open the area as promised. But even if they do, Suty said, plenty of damage has been done.

“People really need to appreciate that closing the park at this time did nothing to help the endangered species, and did everything to hurt the people,” Suty said, referring to visitors and local businesses that depend on them. “It’s very important to the vitality of the local community.”

“It’s maddening,” said David Hamilton, who lives in nearby Arroyo Grande and said he has been driving the dunes and watching sunsets with his wife for years. “There’s so much coastline and they can’t leave this small stretch open.”

The recreation area’s status has long been crucial to Oceano, an unincorporated community of about 7,000, located just to its north.

Though there are several neighboring small cities along the nearby coast, Oceano merchants say they don’t get much business from Grover Beach, Arroyo Grande or Pismo Beach, which includes more upscale hotels and restaurants with clifftop ocean views.

Oceano Dunes State Vehicular Recreation Area remains the only California State Park where vehicles may be driven on the beach.

(Myung J. Chun / Los Angeles Times)

The judge’s order covers roughly 800 acres of off-highway vehicle area south of Arroyo Grande Creek. Until April 14, O’Brien said, up to 350 campers per night (at $10 per vehicle) were allowed in the area, along with up to 1,720 off-highway and 1,800 street-legal vehicles per day, at $5 per vehicle.

The most recent court case was initiated in 2020 by the Tucson-based Center for Biological Diversity. Zeynep Graves, a senior attorney at the center, said in a statement that state officials “have let off-road vehicles tear through protected habitat at Oceano Dunes, injuring and killing snowy plovers, harassing roosting flocks, and degrading their habitat.”

However, state parks statistics show that the western snowy plover breeding population has grown from at least 32 breeding adults in 2002 to at least 281 in 2024, exceeding state targets since 2013.

In her ruling, Hwang found that California state parks had violated the federal Endangered Species Act by permitting too much activity near the birds without having obtained an “incidental take” permit.

State parks officials responded by saying the closure “will result in thousands of families losing their camping reservations and coastal recreational access, while cutting operational revenue that funds environmental conservation.”

During the closure, Pismo State Beach — which is just north of the off-highway recreation area and Arroyo Grande Creek — will allow a maximum of 1,000 street-legal vehicles per day (and no off-highway vehicles). Pismo State Beach’s two campgrounds (near the beach but not on it) remain open.

Oceano Dunes is the state’s only oceanfront off-highway vehicle recreation area. Drivers have been driving on the beach and dunes there since the early 20th century. The state acquired the land in 1974 and created the Oceano Dunes State Vehicular Recreation Area in 1982.

Through the years, state parks officials have gradually reduced acreage open to off-highway vehicles as recreation advocates and environmentalists have debated how much protection the birds need. Often, the battle has pitted the California Coastal Commission (seeking to curtail vehicle access) against leaders of California State Parks (seeking to continue vehicle access).

Apart from closures, Oceano Dunes recently faced another challenge. Because of CoVID-19 safety measures, the area locked its gates in 2020-21. During that time, rare shorebirds started nesting in areas usually reserved for off-roaders and their beach-riding vehicles. In 2021, the California Coastal Commission sought to permanently end off-road driving in the dunes but was later overruled by court rulings that the agency had overstepped its authority.

Throughout the debate, the area has remained popular. In 2022-23, the most recent fiscal year for which statistics are available, the area drew more than 908,000 visitors, including about 126,000 campers.

Simon Calder described the EU’s Entry Exit System (EES) as ‘passport roulette’

A leading travel journalist has suggested the European Union’s new Entry/Exit System (EES) could be put on hold for the entire summer following reports of chaos and significant delays at airports. Speaking on BBC Breakfast, Simon Calder – who has branded the system ‘passport roulette’ – acknowledged that while some locations had performed ‘really well’, others were ‘struggling’.

EES is an automated system gradually replacing the traditional passport stamp. It requires people from third-party nations such as the UK to have their fingerprints registered and photograph captured before entering the Schengen Area, which encompasses 29 European countries, predominantly within the EU.

For the majority of UK travellers, the procedure takes place at foreign airports. The system saw a soft launch in October 2025 and was meant to be fully operational across all borders by April 10, 2026.

Yet there have been numerous accounts of passengers missing flights and enduring lengthy queues at airports as systems buckle under the sheer volume of people attempting to register. Several countries have suspended EES at various points, with Greece postponing the system for UK travellers over the summer to enhance the travel experience.

Portugal has halted EES for extended stretches to ease travel to and from the country, with speculation mounting that Italy may do likewise. Mr Calder indicated it was not beyond the realms of possibility. “It was always going to be really exciting to see what happens when you roll out a digital borders scheme and you ask 29 national governments to implement it,” Mr Calder said. “They have all gone their own way.

“Some of them have done it really well. Others, well, they are still struggling and we might find that, actually, the whole scheme gets put on a sort of hold for the rest of the summer.

“That’s certainly what a lot of airlines and train operators would like, not to mention the Port of Dover, where they haven’t even started taking biometrics from motorists yet.”

READ MORE: Ryanair issues plea to ‘suspend’ EES rollout amid ‘missing flights’ warningREAD MORE: Ryanair issues warning to customers – and it’s not down to fuel crisis

What’s the problem?

Headlines were made in April 2026 when passengers travelling with both Ryanair and easyJet missed their flights from separate Milan airports owing to EES complications. Footage from one incident revealed a crowd gathering at Milan Bergamo, with exasperated passengers informing staff they had been held at the gate for over an hour, demanding to know what action to take.

It’s understood that approximately 30 passengers were left behind. Ryanair said in a statement: “Due to passport control delays at Milan Bergamo Airport on 16 April, a number of passengers missed this flight from Milan to Manchester.” One passenger claimed they were kept waiting until the aircraft had departed, only to then be informed they would need to arrange their own return flights. A number of travellers on a Ryanair service from Tenerife South to East Midlands on 10 April also missed their homeward journey, once again blaming hold-ups at passport control.

Ryanair recently issued a blistering statement on social media, demanding the EES rollout be postponed until September. The low-cost carrier tore into France, Portugal, Poland, Italy, Spain, and Germany for their failure to ‘ensure that adequate staffing, system readiness, or kiosks are in place’.

Branding the system as ‘half-baked’, the Ryanair statement said: “Despite knowing for over three years that EES would become fully operational from 10 April 2026, France, Portugal, Poland, Italy, Spain, and Germany have failed to ensure that adequate staffing, system readiness, or kiosks are in place.

“As a result, passengers are suffering long passport control queues and, in some cases, missing their flights.

“Ryanair calls on these EU Governments to suspend the rollout of the EU’s passport control Entry/Exit System (EES) until September to ensure that passengers are not needlessly forced to suffer long passport control queue delays at European airports during the peak summer season.”

Paramount Skydance’s proposed takeover of Warner Bros. Discovery cleared a major hurdle Thursday as Warner stockholders overwhelmingly embraced the $111-billion deal.

Approval was expected. Paramount Chairman David Ellison’s proposal would pay Warner investors $31 a share — four times the price of the company’s stock a year ago. Warner Bros. officials did not disclose the precise vote count during the nine-minute special shareholder meeting beyond saying the merger “received sufficient votes and has overwhelmingly passed.”

Paramount offered the generous premium to compete with, and ultimately triumph over, Netflix, which withdrew from the auction in late February after Ellison’s father, Oracle billionaire Larry Ellison, agreed to guarantee the financing of his son’s deal.

The merger would create a new Hollywood behemoth by giving Paramount, which owns CBS and the Melrose Avenue film studio, such valuable assets as HBO, HBO Max, CNN, TBS, Food Network and Warner Bros.’ film and television studios in Burbank. Warner controls beloved TV shows, franchises and movies, including “Casablanca,” Harry Potter, D.C. Comics, “Game of Thrones,” “Euphoria,” “The Pitt,” and “Rooster.”

“Shareholder approval marks another important milestone towards completing our acquisition of Warner Bros. Discovery, building on our successful equity and debt syndications and progress across regulatory approvals,” Paramount said Thursday in a statement. “We look forward to closing the transaction in the coming months and realizing the creation of a next-generation media and entertainment company that better serves both the creative community and consumers.”

Paramount now must secure regulatory approvals in the U.S. and abroad. Ellison, who is poised to honor President Trump with a dinner Thursday evening in Washington, hopes to complete the deal by late summer.

Shareholders, however, made known their disdain for Warner Chief Executive David Zaslav’s proposed golden parachute, which could swell to $887 million, depending on when the transaction closes. His cash, stock and options would be valued at more than $550 million. Warner board members also agreed to pay his tax bill, which could approach $330 million, should the merger be completed by year’s end.

Shareholders, in a non-binding vote, voted against Zaslav’s package.

Paramount’s deal has encountered significant opposition in Hollywood and beyond.

More than 4,000 filmmakers, actors and industry workers, including Ben Stiller, Bryan Cranston, Ted Danson, J.J. Abrams and Kristen Stewart have signed an open letter asking California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta and other regulators to block the deal.

Opponents fear the consolidation would be lead to massive layoffs and diminish the quality of programming that Warner Bros., CNN and HBO are known for. Hollywood has sustained thousands of layoffs over the last six years; the film production economy hasn’t recovered from shutdowns during the 2023 labor strikes.

“This is already an incredibly consolidated industry where writers have seen merger after merger leave fewer and fewer companies in control of what our members can get paid to write,” Michele Mulroney, president of the Writers Guild of America West, said Wednesday during a press briefing organized by Free Press and other progressive groups that oppose the merger.

“A combined Warner Bros. and Paramount would create a media behemoth with tremendous leverage to reduce content, to raise prices, to increase control of production, to suppress member compensation, worsen working conditions and silence the voices of our members,” Mulroney said.

Trump has long agitated for changes at CNN, and few expect his Justice Department to block the transaction. Defense Department Secretary Pete Hegseth echoed the sentiment. “The sooner David Ellison takes over that network the better,” Hegseth told reporters in March.

It’s unclear whether Bonta or other state attorney generals will file a lawsuit to try to stop the deal. Bonta previously told The Times that his office is reviewing the consolidation.

“This deal can get blocked. I personally think it will get blocked — or undone,” Alvaro Bedoya, former Federal Trade Commission member who now serves as a senior adviser to the American Economic Liberties Project, told reporters Wednesday. He pointed to other proposed mergers that unraveled due to fierce opposition, including the proposed combinations of grocery giants Kroger and Albertson’s.

David Ellison has promised to keep HBO entact and the Paramount and Warner Bros. movie studios humming. He promised cinema owners last week that a combined Paramount-Warner Bros. would release 30 movies into theaters each year.

“This transaction uniquely brings together complementary strengths to create a company that can greenlight more projects, back bold ideas, support talent across multiple stages of their careers,” Paramount said in a statement to push back on the opposition. The company would have the power to “bring stories to audiences at a truly global scale — while strengthening competition by ensuring multiple scaled players are investing in creative talent.”

To finance the Warner takeover, Ellison’s billionaire father, Larry Ellison, has agreed to guarantee the $45.7 billion in equity needed. Bank of America, Citibank and Apollo Global have agreed to provide Paramount with more than $54 billion in debt financing.

Paramount has enlisted a former Trump administration official, lawyer Makan Delrahim, who served as Trump’s antitrust chief during the president’s first term.

In a confident move, Delrahim filed to win the Justice Department’s blessing in December — even though Paramount didn’t have an agreement with Warner Bros. Discovery’s board at the time. In February, a key deadline for the Justice Department to raise issues with Paramount’s proposed Warner takeover passed without comment from the Trump regulators.

CHLOE Ferry has been criticised by fans and animal charity Peta after her boyfriend surprised her with a new French bulldog puppy.

The Geordie Shore star’s dog Ivy died in October leaving her devastated. In a bid to cheer Chloe up, her boyfriend Alex Swinney bought her a pup she’s named Olive.

Seeing her other dog Narla playing with the new addition immediately brightened Chloe’s mood and she told fans: “After losing my baby Ivy I wasn’t sure I was ready but my boyfriend SURPRISED me with this little one.

“I can’t tell you how happy I am to finally see Narla with her spark back again, just seeing her play has fulfilled my heart so much.

“From grieving to growing she accepted her new sister right away meet baby OLIVE.”

While many fans heaped praise on her property developer partner for the gift and complimented the cute pup, others, including charity Peta, made their reservations known.

CHLOE’S CONFESSION

Sobbing Chloe Ferry says ‘I’m used to being f**ked over’ on Netflix show

CHLOE’S PAIN

Chloe Ferry reveals heartbreaking reason she signed up for Netflix’s Inside

The animal charity commented: “Your boyfriend needs to rethink this. French bulldogs struggle to just breathe, let alone live a happy and healthy life.

“Buying one neglects the tens of thousands of homeless dogs in shelters just waiting to be adopted [broken heart emoji] Tell him to adopt next time.”

Others echoed the sentiment, with one writing: “Puppies are cute, but so, so sad to see people buying breeds with breathing impairments who will never be able to fully enjoy what it means to be a dog. Please stop buying and promoting breathing impaired breeds

“Blue is one of the worst choices when it comes to health issues…”

Another said: “Frenchies can barely breathe, and buying one keeps it going. Shelters are full [broken heart emoji] Adopt next time.”

A third wrote: “If you buy a Frenchie you are asking for heartache. The breeds are not meant to mix and that causes defects. It’s sad but true. Its unfortunate they have become the ultimate chav accessory. Poor babies.”

French Bulldogs are renowned for having breathing difficulties due to the way they’re bred to have flat faces.

They have greater chance of contracting a variety of health conditions and, according to Peta, brachycephalic dogs (flattened faces) have, on average, 40 per cent shorter lifespans than other dogs.

They also struggle to give birth due to the large shape of their heads and narrow hips.

Meanwhile, when Ivy died, Chloe told her followers that the pooch “couldn’t stop being sick” prior to its passing.

She wrote: “Pftt, losing a pet is so hard, it’s just like a human and it [the emotion] comes in waves when you least expect it.

“One day you’re alright the next you’re not.

“Today I’ve just tried to get on with jobs, my house has been a mess, so I’ve tried to clean it.

“It has actually made us feel a little bit better but then you sit and overthink everything, and think could I have done more.

“What makes it worse for me, my other dog Narla, she doesn’t understand.

“I had Ivy first so Ivy was always independent, she didn’t need Narla, but Narla came second and needs Ivy.”

The measure has long been criticised for allowing US intelligence agencies to collect citizen data without a warrant.

The United States Congress has temporarily extended a controversial surveillance law which allows federal intelligence agencies to collect the data of foreigners, including their contacts with US citizens.

The move allows a provision of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) to continue until April 30. The short-term extension was passed by the House of Representatives and approved by the Senate on Friday.

The patch comes after President Donald Trump’s efforts to secure a more lasting extension broke down.

Section 702 of FISA allows the National Security Agency (NSA) and other intelligence services to collect data from foreigners outside of the country.

That could include their interactions with US citizens, a prospect that has alarmed rights advocates.

Collecting such data, which can include correspondence on email and telecommunications platforms, typically requires a warrant approved by a court.

The process has been described by critics as a “backdoor search” that circumvents existing privacy laws.

Speaking after Friday’s vote, Senate Majority Leader John Thune said there was still some openness to reforming the law.

“We’ve got to pivot and figure out what can pass, and we’re in the process ⁠of figuring out how to do that here,” he told reporters.

Supporters of reform, who stretch across party lines, have long sought to repeal or amend Section 702.

While FISA was initially passed in 1978, Section 702 was added as an amendment in 2008.

The addition came amid the US’s “global war on terror”. But during its approval, revelations emerged that the administration of former US President George W Bush had already used the tactics Section 702 legalised.

Supporters, including Trump, maintain that reforming the provision would lead to a lapse in national security.

“I have spoken with many in our Military who say FISA is necessary in order to protect our Troops overseas, as well as our people here at home, from the threat of Foreign Terror Attacks,” Trump wrote in a Truth Social post on Wednesday.

He has pushed for the law to be extended for 18 months without changes. That effort initially appeared on track in the House but was ultimately scuttled by pushback from within Trump’s own Republican Party.

Among the detractors was Republican Congressman Thomas Massie, who has been a regular critic of Trump.

“I will be voting NO on final passage of the FISA 702 Reauthorization Bill if it does not include a warrant provision and other reforms to protect US citizens’ right to privacy,” he wrote ahead of the House vote.