Courts

A BRITAIN’S Got Talent star was accused of a child sex offence just days before she was found dead at home, an inquest heard.

Kerri-Anne Donaldson, 38, reached the semi-final of the ITV show in 2014 as part of the group Kings and Queens.

An inquest heard today Kerri-Anne was arrested on suspicion of “child sex offending” but no further details were revealed.

The dancer was detained on June 4, 2023, and questioned at a police station.

She was discovered dead at home in Farnborough, Hampshire, three days later by her sister Cara Donaldson.

There was a note at the top of the stairs urging Cara not to come inside alongside photos of her dog and family.

SCOTTY’S HELL

‘I was out 7 days a week doing drugs’, says Scotty T as he opens up on arrest

CAUGHT OUT

Sisters stole goods from duty free to fund lavish lifestyles including surgery

The song “You are so Beautiful” was also playing when Kerri-Anne was found, the inquest heard.

The court was told the performer’s cause of death was given as hanging.

A post mortem also found she had non-fatal levels of medication in her blood, which were consistent with an overdose.

The inquest heard evidence yesterday from Detective Constable Benjamin Harris, of Hampshire Constabulary, who led the investigation into the unknown accusation against Kerri-Anne.

He said her accuser had let police know the dancer threatened to take her own life “if someone finds out” about the allegation.

Det Con Harris said he had considered the possibility her comments could be a “form of control” against the complainant.

He said: “In my experience in some offences it can often be said without wanting to carry it out.”

The officer told the inquest the suggestion of self-harm was “something we take very seriously” and he reported it to his senior officers and advised his colleagues who arrested Kerri-Anne.

He said following the interview, he graded the dancer’s risk of self-harm as “standard”.

The officer added: “When I spoke to Kerri, which was after the interview, in the cell she presented to me at that time that she was fine, so normal.

“She had no indication that she wanted to take her own life, when that was spoken about with her she gave no indication that would happen.”

Det Con Harris said Kerri-Anne told him she had seen a counsellor previously and added: “She knew how to get help and she was in no way considering harming herself.”

But he told the court “with the benefits of hindsight” he should have included a question about the complainant’s comments when making the risk assessment.

The inquest heard yesterday how following her release from custody, Kerri-Anne failed to return home – causing her family to report her as a missing person.

She was later found at a Travelodge hotel in Woking, Surrey, after taking an overdose.

Cara said her sister told an emergency doctor at St Peter’s Hospital in Surrey that she had wanted to kill herself.

Recalling the tragic statement, she continued: “I just wanted to hug her.”

Psychiatric liaison nurse Serina Juru, who carried out a mental health assessment after the overdose, said today she assessed Kerri-Anne as at a “high and imminent risk of suicide” and rated her risk as level 10 out of 10.

She told the court the dancer said she could be sent to prison if convicted of the offence and that she “could not face that”.

The nurse added: “She wanted to end her life because she was embarrassed about what had happened.”

Ms Juru said she offered Kerri-Anne an “informal” admission to hospital for further assessment or home care support but she refused both that day leading her to start a “high-risk care plan”.

She said the performer also told her that if she was discharged into the care of her sister Cara, she would wait for her to leave to look after her children and then take her own life.

The inquest heard Kerri-Anne was discharged from hospital the following day into Cara’s care when Ms Juru was not on duty.

Psychiatrist Dr David Enright, who had assessed her, said she was “calm” and no longer thinking about suicide.

But Cara said when she drove her sister home on June 6, the dancer told her she had made the decision to take her own life.

She claimed the family had not been given any care plan or advice on how to assist the star when they left the hospital.

Cara also said she asked her sister about the allegation and was told she was not guilty and that it had “all been constructed”.

She said she spent the evening with her sister and was reluctant to leave her alone, saying: “If you do anything, Kerri, that will always be on my shoulders.”

Cara continued: “[Kerri-Anne] joked ‘I am not going to do that’, so I left.

“One of the last messages was ‘Thanks for everything today’ and she gave a heart emoji, I just thought she was OK.”

But when Kerri-Anne did not answer the phone the next morning, Cara went round to her home and discovered her dead.

Describing her sister, she said: “Heart of gold, full of fun, brought happiness to life, especially mine, career-driven, adored her family, adored her friends, fantastic dance teacher, everyone loved her.”

She said Kerri-Anne had been on television a few times and added: “Her main passion was to choreograph dancing.”

The Kings and Queens Latin dance troupe were a big hit with BGT fans, making it all the way to the semi-final of the ITV show.

Kerri-Anne performed alongside Neil and Katya Jones and Kai Widdrington, all of whom became professionals on Strictly Come Dancing.

Following her death, Neil said: “Kerri Anne Donaldson – remember that name and please never forget it because it belongs to a woman who loved to dance, create and perform, she had the cheekiest laugh and a heart of gold.

“She hated getting in the car with me, but would always listen to my crazy ideas, we shared so many moments and stories and she was always the voice of reason.

“Kerri you were my friend and like my big sister.”

Ex-Strictly dancer Joanne Clifton also paid her respects to the “beautiful dancer”.

She said: “I have no words… This is just heartbreaking.. truly devastating.

“We’ve known you and shared the dance floor with you basically all our lives.

“Dance up there with the angels Kerri.. you beautiful dancer, you beautiful soul.”

Amy Dowden echoed those sentiments, writing: “So shocked and sad. Such a beautiful dancer and kind soul.

“Sending love to all your family and friends. Heaven has certainly gained an angel. Keep dancing up there lovely.”

If you are affected by any of the issues raised in this article, please call the Samaritans for free on 116123.

Judge states Trump administration has made ‘one empty threat after another’ to deport Salvadoran national to Africa.

A United States federal judge has ruled that the administration of US President Donald Trump cannot re-detain Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran national who was wrongfully deported last year and who the federal government has sought to deport again.

US District Judge Paula Xinis stated on Tuesday that a 90-day detention period had passed without the administration presenting a workable plan to deport Abrego Garcia, whose lawyers say he is being punished because his wrongful detention embarrassed the government.

Xinis said that the government “made one empty threat after another to remove him to countries in Africa with no real chance of success”.

“From this, the court easily concludes that there is no ‘good reason to believe’ removal is likely in the reasonably foreseeable future,” he added.

The ruling is a victory for Abrego Garcia, who has been fighting his attempted deportation by US immigration authorities who have tried to send him to African nations such as Uganda, Eswatini, Ghana, and Liberia. Abrego Garcia was released from an immigration detention facility in December.

His wrongful deportation to El Salvador, where he was held in a prison known for poor conditions and widespread abuse, became an early flashpoint in the Trump administration’s push to deport non-citizens from the US, often with few efforts to abide by due process requirements. The Trump administration had also accused Abrego Garcia of being a member of the criminal group MS-13, without offering any evidence.

His mistaken deportation prompted widespread anger and calls for the Trump administration to bring him back to the US. After initially stating that it had no authority to do so, the Trump administration brought Abrego Garcia back to the US in June following a court order mandating his return. It has since charged him with human smuggling, an allegation that he denies.

A United States court has ordered the administration of President Donald Trump to facilitate the return of a Babson College student, Any Lucia Lopez Belloza, who was wrongfully deported last year.

In his ruling on Tuesday, US District Judge Richard Stearns gave the government two weeks to take steps to bring Lopez Belloza back.

He framed the order as an opportunity to correct a “mistake” – but he did not rule out holding the government in contempt if it failed to take the necessary actions.

“Wisdom counsels that redemption may be found by acknowledging and fixing our own errors,” Stearns wrote.

“In this unfortunate case, the government commendably admits that it did wrong. Now it is time for the government to make amends.”

A surprise trip turned deportation

Lopez Belloza, 19, was arrested on November 20 by immigration agents at Boston’s Logan airport.

The college freshman had been preparing to board a flight home to her family in Texas to surprise them for the Thanksgiving holiday.

She has since told The Associated Press news agency that she was denied access to a lawyer after her initial detention at the airport. The immigration agent told her she would need to sign a deportation document first, according to Lopez Belloza, who said she denied the offer.

For the next two nights, she said she was kept by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in a holding room with 17 other women, without enough room to lie down.

Then, she was loaded onto a deportation flight, which took her to Texas, then to her native Honduras, on November 22.

“I was numb the whole plane ride,” Lopez Belloza told the AP. “I just kept questioning myself. Why is it happening to me?”

Her lawyers, however, had obtained during that time a court order barring her removal from Massachusetts for 72 hours. Lopez Belloza’s deportation violated that court order.

She has remained in Honduras for the last two and a half months, while legal challenges over her case proceeded.

A legal battle

In court, the Trump administration has apologised for the error in Lopez Belloza’s case, acknowledging that a mistake was indeed made.

“On behalf of the government, we want to sincerely apologise,” prosecutor Mark Sauter told the court.

But Sauter rejected accusations that the government wilfully defied the 72-hour court order, saying that Lopez Belloza’s deportation was the mistake of one ICE agent and not an act of judicial defiance.

The government has also argued that Lopez Belloza was subject to a removal order before her November 20 arrest and therefore should not be returned to the US.

Lopez Belloza was brought to the US from Honduras when she was eight years old, and in 2016, she and her mother were ordered to be deported.

But the college freshman said she had no knowledge of any deportation order and has told the media that her previous legal representation had assured her there was no removal order against her.

Nevertheless, the Trump administration has rejected efforts to bring Lopez Belloza back to the country, even on a student visa.

In a February 6 court filing, US Attorney Leah B Foley wrote that a student visa “is unfeasible as the Secretary of State lacks authority to adjudicate visa applications and issue visas”.

“In any event,” Foley added, “Petitioner appears ineligible for a student visa.” She explained that Lopez Belloza “would remain subject to detention and removal if returned to the United States”.

The filing ended with a warning to the court to “refrain from ordering Respondents to return Petitioner to the status quo because this Court lacks authority”.

The Trump administration has questioned the authority of federal courts to intervene in immigration-related matters.

A series of mistakes

Critics, meanwhile, have accused the Trump administration of repeatedly failing to heed court orders it disagrees with.

Lopez Belloza’s case is not the first instance of an immigrant being wrongfully deported since the start of Trump’s second term.

Trump had campaigned on a pledge of mass deportation, and he has followed through with that promise, leading a series of controversial immigration crackdowns that have been accused of violating due process rights.

One of the most high-profile cases came in March 2025, when his administration wrongfully deported a Salvadoran father named Kilmar Abrego Garcia, who lived in Maryland with his wife, a US citizen.

Abrego Garcia had been subject to a 2019 court order barring his removal from the US on the basis that he could face gang violence in El Salvador.

But he was nevertheless sent back to the country and was briefly held in El Salvador’s Center for Terrorism Confinement (CECOT), a maximum-security prison.

On April 10, the US Supreme Court ruled that the Trump administration must “facilitate” Abrego Garcia’s return, largely upholding a lower court’s decision.

But the Trump administration initially argued Abrego Garcia was outside of its power. Then, on June 6, it abruptly announced Abrego Garcia had been returned, only to file criminal charges against him and seek his deportation a second time.

Another case involved a Guatemalan man, identified only by his initials OCG.

He had been under a court protection order that barred him from being returned to Guatemala, for fear that his identity as a gay man would subject him to persecution.

But the Trump administration detained and deported him instead to Mexico, which in turn sent him back to Guatemala. He subsequently went into hiding for his safety.

In June, OCG was returned to the US after a court ordered the Trump administration to facilitate his return. It also noted that OCG’s deportation “lacked any semblance of due process”.

Lopez Belloza continues her studies at Babson College remotely from Honduras as she awaits the outcome of her legal proceedings.

A United States judge has granted an injunction preventing the Department of Defense from stripping Senator Mark Kelly, a military veteran, of his retirement pension and military rank.

The Defense Department had taken punitive action against Kelly for critical statements he had made against President Donald Trump.

But on Thursday, Judge Richard J Leon, an appointee of Republican President George W Bush, issued a forceful rebuke, accusing the Trump administration of trying to stifle veterans’ free speech rights.

Leon directed much of his ruling at Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, a senior Trump official who announced on January 5 that Kelly would be censured for what he characterised as “seditious” statements.

“Rather than trying to shrink the First Amendment liberties of retired service members, Secretary Hegseth and his fellow Defendants might reflect and be grateful for the wisdom and expertise that retired service members have brought to public discussions and debate on military matters in our Nation over the past 250 years,” Leon wrote.

“If so, they will more fully appreciate why the Founding Fathers made free speech the first Amendment in the Bill of Rights!”

History of the case

Thursday’s decision comes after Kelly, a Democratic member of Congress, filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration on January 12, alleging “punitive retribution”.

He had drawn the Trump administration’s ire with several public statements questioning the president’s military decisions.

Kelly, who represents the swing state of Arizona, had condemned the administration for sending military troops to quell protests in Los Angeles in June 2025.

Then, in November, he was also one of six former members of the US’s military and intelligence communities to participate in a video reminding current service members of their duty to “refuse illegal orders”.

That video quickly attracted Trump’s attention, and the president issued a string of social media posts threatening imprisonment and even the death penalty.

“This is really bad, and Dangerous to our Country. Their words cannot be allowed to stand. SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR FROM TRAITORS!!! LOCK THEM UP?” Trump wrote in one post.

In another, he suggested a harsher punishment: “SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR, punishable by DEATH!”

Shortly thereafter, the Defense Department announced it had launched an investigation into the video and Kelly specifically, given his role as a retired Navy captain.

Hegseth accused Kelly of using “his rank and service affiliation” to discredit the US armed forces, and he echoed Trump’s claims that the video was “reckless and seditious”.

His decision to pen a formal letter of censure against Kelly prompted the senator to sue.

Such a letter serves as a procedural step towards lowering Kelly’s military rank at the time of his retirement, as well as curbing his post-military benefits.

But Kelly argued that such punishment would serve to dampen the rights of veterans to participate in political discourse – and would additionally hinder his work as a member of Congress.

An exclamation-filled ruling

In Thursday’s ruling, Judge Leon determined that Kelly was likely to prevail on the merits of his case – and, citing the folk singer Bob Dylan, he added that it was easy to see why.

“This Court has all it needs to conclude that Defendants have trampled on Senator Kelly’s First Amendment freedoms and threatened the constitutional liberties of millions of military retirees,” Leon said in his often quippy ruling.

“After all, as Bob Dylan famously said, ‘You don’t need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.’”

Leon acknowledged that granting an injunction against the government is an “extraordinary remedy”. But he argued it was necessary, given the gravity of the case.

The judge conceded that the Defense Department does have the ability to restrict the speech of active-service military members, given the need for discipline among troops.

But the Trump administration argued in its court filings that those restrictions extended to retired military veterans as well.

Leon, however, dismissed that assertion with the verbal equivalent of a snort: “Horsefeathers!”

“Speech from retired servicemembers – even speech opining on the lawfulness of military
operations – does not threaten ‘obedience, unity, commitment, and esprit de corps’ in the same way as speech from active-duty soldiers,” Leon wrote.

“Nor can speech from retired servicemembers ‘undermine the effectiveness of response to command’ as directly as speech from active-duty soldiers.”

Leon also acknowledged that Kelly’s role as a lawmaker in Congress compounded the harms from any attempts to curtail his free-speech rights.

“If legislators do not feel free to express their views and the views of their constituents without fear of reprisal by the Executive, our representative system of Government cannot function!” he wrote, in one of his many exclamatory statements.

The judge was also harshly critical of the Trump administration’s arguments that Kelly’s rank and retirement benefits were solely a military matter, not a judicial one.

Leon described Hegseth’s letter of censure as making Kelly’s punishment a “fait accompli” – a foregone conclusion – given that such a document cannot be appealed and could itself serve as the basis for a demotion.

“Here, the retaliation framework fits like a glove,” Leon said, appearing to validate the crux of Kelly’s lawsuit.

At another point, he rejected the government’s arguments by saying, “Put simply, Defendants’ response is anemic!”

The injunction he offered, though, is temporary and will last only until the lawsuit reaches a resolution.

Trump administration responds

In the wake of the injunction, Kelly took to social media to say the short-term victory was a win for all military veterans.

“Today a federal court made clear that Pete Hegseth violated the Constitution when he tried to punish me for something I said,” Kelly said in a video statement.

“But this case was never just about me. This administration was sending a message to millions of retired veterans that they, too, can be censured or demoted just for speaking out.”

He added that the US faces a “critical moment” in its history, warning of the erosion of fundamental rights.

Kelly then proceeded to accuse the Trump administration of “cracking down on our rights and trying to make examples of anybody they can”. He also acknowledged that the legal showdown had only just begun.

“I appreciate the judge’s careful consideration of this case,” Kelly said. “But I also know that this might not be over yet, because this president and this administration do not know how to admit when they’re wrong.”

Within a couple of hours of Kelly’s post, Hegseth himself shared a message on social media, confirming that the Trump administration would forge ahead with contesting Thursday’s decision.

“This will be immediately appealed,” Hegseth said of the injunction. “Sedition is sedition, ‘Captain.’”

Kelly is considered a Democratic contender for the presidency in 2028.

EMMERDALE actress Lisa Riley said Robin Windsor’s “glow had gone” after he was dropped from Strictly, an inquest heard.

The professional dancer, 44, was found dead in a hotel room in Shepherd’s Bush, West London, in February 2024.

An inquest heard Windsor left a suicide note saying the way he was treated by the BBC “destroyed me”.

The pro added: “It started me on the road I’m still on.

“All I wanted from life was to be happy.

“I loved my job more than anyone else.”

Riley was Windsor’s dance partner in the penultimate series he appeared on in 2012.

After being paired with Windsor, Riley said they were “joined at the hip”.

“To say we hit it off was an understatement,” the actress said in a written witness statement read to West London Coroner’s Court on Wednesday.

“I had only just lost my mum in the July. I, myself, was in a very difficult place.

“Robin was my rock.”

The Latin and ballroom dancer joined Strictly in 2010 and danced with actresses Patsy Kensit, Anita Dobson and Riley, and Dragon’s Den’s Deborah Meaden in four series until 2013.

He could not perform in the 2014 series because of a back injury and was dropped in 2015, but still appeared in the Christmas special that year, dancing alongside TV presenter Alison Hammond.

“It was from this moment, on to the time of his death, he kept slipping deeper and deeper into depression,” Riley said.

“His glow had gone.”

The actress recalled how she and Windsor had built up an “incredible trust” and remained friends.

“He literally told me everything,” she said.

“I trusted him and he trusted me.

“There were many, many happy times to begin with and together we did have so much fun.”

Riley said Windsor told her of times of “never feeling good enough” and “imposter syndrome”.

“Robin was and always has been very influenced by other men,” she added.

“It became a standing joke that he fell in love after three days.”

Riley said Windsor was insecure about his body and took steroids which, combined with alcohol, would put him in a bad place, jurors heard.

The court was also told how he was “drowning in debts” and “frantically” spent on designer items he could not afford.

Riley added: “Money problems also played a part of his darker days.”

She said her last contact with Windsor was around Christmas 2023, when they texted after Riley saw him share a “really dark” post on Facebook.

Riley continued: “I of course text him straight away and he replied saying he was ‘fine, just usual ups and downs of life’.”

The inquest also heard Robin was “obsessed” with watching Strictly prior to his death.

His panto co-star Terry Gleed said Robin spent his free time during rehearsals watching the show.

The star added: “I could feel that he really wanted to be there more than where we were. He missed it dearly.”

The court heard Robin had suffered a back injury in late 2013 which resulted in him needing surgery to remove a disc.

He missed the 2014 series while he recovered.

Next year telly bosses chose not to renew his contract.

Pal Kristina Rihanoff, 48, told the hearing yesterday she was “extremely upset” after learning Robin had not been asked back for the 13th series.

She added “the psychological impact was very severe” because he “couldn’t do what he loved” due to his back pain.

Kristina described it as “heartbreaking” to see him “deeply sad, subdued and burdened”.

The inquest continues.

If you are affected by any of the issues raised in this article, please call the Samaritans for free on 116123.

Two lawsuits accusing the world’s largest social media companies of harming children begin this week, marking the first legal efforts to hold companies like Meta responsible for the effects their products have on young users.

Opening arguments began today in a case brought by New Mexico’s attorney general’s office, which alleges that Meta failed to protect children from sexually explicit material. A separate case in Los Angeles, which accuses Meta and the Google-owned YouTube of deliberately designing their platforms to be addictive for children, is set to begin later this week.

TikTok and Snap were also named in the original California lawsuit but later settled under undisclosed terms.

The New Mexico and California lawsuits are the first of a wave of 40 lawsuits filed by state attorneys general around the US against Meta, specifically, that allege that the social media giant is harming the mental health of young Americans.

New Mexico case

In the opening argument in the New Mexico case, which was first filed in 2023, prosecutors told jurors on Monday that Meta – Facebook and Instagram’s parent company – had failed to disclose its platforms’ harmful effects on kids.

“The theme throughout this trial is going to be that Meta put profits over safety,” said lawyer Donald Migliori, who is representing the state of New Mexico against Meta.

“Meta clearly knew that youth safety was not its corporate priority… that youth safety was less important than growth and engagement.”

Prosecutors say they will provide evidence and testimony that Meta’s algorithms and account features not only enticed young people and made them addicted to social media, but also fostered a “breeding ground” for predators who target children for sexual exploitation.

Late last month, in the process of discovery, the New Mexico attorney general’s office said the company did not put in safeguards to protect children from accessing sexualised chatbots on Facebook and Instagram.

In emails obtained by the court, some of Meta’s safety staff had expressed objections that the company was building chatbots geared for companionship, including sexual and romantic interactions with users, according to the Reuters news agency.

The artificial intelligence chatbots were released in early 2024. The documents cited in the state’s filing do not include messages or memos authored by Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg. In October 2025, Meta added parental controls to the chatbots.

California case

The California case is more wide-reaching and alleges that Meta and YouTube, which is a unit of Alphabet-owned Google, used deliberate design choices that sought to make their platforms more addictive to children to boost profits.

The case centres around a 19-year-old identified only by the initials KGM. The case could determine how thousands of other, similar lawsuits against social media companies will play out.

KGM claims that her use of social media from an early age made her addicted to the technology and exacerbated her depression and suicidal thoughts.

“Borrowing heavily from the behavioral and neurobiological techniques used by slot machines and exploited by the cigarette industry, Defendants deliberately embedded in their products an array of design features aimed at maximizing youth engagement to drive advertising revenue,” the lawsuit says.

Executives, including Zuckerberg, are expected to testify at the trial, which will last six to eight weeks. It is unclear if they will attend the New Mexico case.

The tech companies dispute the claims that their products deliberately harm children, citing a bevvy of safeguards they have added over the years and arguing that they are not liable for content posted on their sites by third parties.

“Recently, a number of lawsuits have attempted to place the blame for teen mental health struggles squarely on social media companies,” Meta said in a recent blog post. “But this oversimplifies a serious issue. Clinicians and researchers find that mental health is a deeply complex and multifaceted issue, and trends regarding teens’ well-being aren’t clear-cut or universal.

Narrowing the challenges faced by teens to a single factor ignores the scientific research and the many stressors impacting young people today, like academic pressure, school safety, socio-economic challenges and substance abuse.”

A Meta spokesperson said in a recent statement that the company strongly disagrees with the allegations outlined in the lawsuit and that it is “confident the evidence will show our longstanding commitment to supporting young people”.

Jose Castaneda, a Google spokesperson, said the allegations against YouTube are “simply not true”.

“Providing young people with a safer, healthier experience has always been core to our work,” he said in a statement.

High stakes

The outcome of the cases could shape the future of social media.

“In my mind, an existential question for social media services is whether they’re liable for harm suffered by users from using the services. If so, the damages could be more money than the defendants have, Eric Goldman, a professor at the Santa Clara University School of Law, told Al Jazeera.

“We’re talking about massive financial stakes, and we’re also talking about the ability of the plaintiffs to veto or potentially override editorial decisions by the services about what’s in the best interests of their audiences,” he said.

“It’s essentially taking away power from the services to decide and handing it to plaintiffs’ lawyers. So, not only could there be existential damages, but there could also be a massive loss of editorial control over their services. The stakes could not be higher for social media services or the internet.”

Goldman said this was because the same argument could be used to shape claims against video game makers and generative AI, which refers to AI that can create original content, including text and video.

“If these theories work against social media, they might also work against video games, against generative AI, and who knows what else. That’s why I said the stakes are so high for the internet,” he added.

There are already lawsuits that claim that interactions with OpenAI’s ChatGPT led to instances of suicide and murder-suicide.

On Wall Street, Meta stock is trending up by more than 3 percent in midday trading.

SIR Idris Elba is due to give evidence in the trial of a woman who allegedly stalked him and his wife.

The defendant is to face court next year after being arrested and charged.

The Sun told last year how actor Idris, 53, and his wife Sabrina, 36, had allegedly received unwanted emails and other communications.

The woman was also said to have turned up at private events in London, which the couple attended separately on different days.

A source said: “These events were seriously distressing for Idris and his family.

“He had no choice but to report it to the authorities.”

BECKS & BUCKS

How Nicola Peltz’s dad built £1.7bn empire… & the ‘huge test’ Brooklyn passed

SUGDEN EXIT

Emmerdale’s Isabel reveals she’s RELIEVED to be leaving soap after 20 years

The woman, in her 30s, was arrested in October and in November denied five harassment-related charges at Kingston crown court, South West London.

She has been released on bail.

Luther star Idris is expected to take the stand in the trial pencilled in for May 2027.

The Met Police said: “A woman has been charged following an investigation.

“The charges follow an arrest on Sunday, 26 October, 2025.”

Caracas, February 6, 2026 (venezuelanalysis.com) – Venezuelan Acting President Delcy Rodríguez held meetings with oil executives from Repsol (Spain) and Maurel & Prom (France) on Wednesday as part of ongoing efforts to secure energy investments amid US pressure and unilateral sanctions.

“We discussed the models established in the reformed Hydrocarbon Law to strengthen production and build solid alliances toward economic growth,” Rodríguez wrote on social media.

State oil company PDVSA, represented at the meetings by its president, Héctor Obregón, touted the prospects of establishing “strategic alliances” and “win-win cooperation” with the foreign multinational corporations. 

The Rodríguez administration recently pushed a sweeping reform of Venezuela’s Hydrocarbon Law. Corporations are set to have increased control over crude extraction and exports, while the Venezuelan executive can discretionally reduce taxes and royalties and lease out oil projects in exchange for a cut of production.

Venezuelan leaders have defended the pro-business reform as a step forward to attract investment for a key industry that has been hard hit by US coercive measures, including financial sanctions and an export embargo, since 2017, as part of efforts to strangle the Venezuelan economy and bring about regime change.

Former President Hugo Chávez had overhauled oil legislation in 2001 to reestablish the state’s primacy over the sector with mandatory majority stakes in joint ventures, increased fiscal contributions, and a leading PDVSA operational role. Increased revenues financed the Bolivarian government’s aggressive social programs of the 2000s, which dramatically reduced poverty and expanded access to healthcare, housing, and education for the popular classes. 

Repsol and Maurel & Prom currently hold stakes in several oil and natural gas joint ventures in the South American country. The two firms, as well as Italy’s Eni, have operated in a stop-start fashion in recent years as a result of US sanctions. 

The European companies have consistently lobbied for increased control and benefits in their projects in the molds now established in the reformed energy legislation.

Since launching military attacks and kidnapping Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro on January 3, the Trump administration has vowed to take control of the Venezuelan oil sector and impose favorable conditions for US corporations. Senior US officials have praised Caracas’ oil reform.

According to reports, the White House has dictated that proceeds from Venezuelan crude sales be deposited in US-run accounts in Qatar, with an initial agreement comprising 30-50 million barrels of oil that had built up in Venezuelan storage as a result of a US naval blockade since December.

On Tuesday, the US Treasury Department issued a license allowing Venezuelan imports of US diluents required to upgrade extra-heavy crude into exportable blends. On January 27, Washington issued a sanctions waiver allowing US companies to purchase and market Venezuelan crude. The exemption requires payments to be made to US-controlled accounts and bars dealings with firms from Russia, Iran, Cuba, and North Korea.

The US Treasury is additionally preparing a license to allow US companies to extract Venezuelan oil, according to Bloomberg.

The White House has urged US corporations to invest in the Venezuelan oil sector and promised favorable conditions. However, executives have expressed reservations over significant new investments. According to Reuters, US refiners have likewise not been able to absorb the sudden surge of Venezuelan heavy crude supplies, while Canadian WCS crude remains a competitive alternative. 

Vitol and Trafigura, two commodities traders picked by the White House to lift Venezuelan oil, have offered cargoes to European and Asian customers as well. India’s Reliance Industries is reportedly set to purchase 2 million barrels. In recent years, the refining giant has looked to Venezuela as a potential crude supplier but seen imports repeatedly curtailed by US threats of secondary sanctions.

US authorities have reportedly delivered US $500 million from an initial sale to Venezuelan private banks, which are offering the foreign currency in auctions that are said to prioritize private sector food and healthcare importers. Nevertheless, Venezuelan and US officials have not disclosed details about the remaining funds in a deal estimated at $1.2-2 billion.

Besides controlling crude sales, the Trump administration has also sought to impose conditions on the Venezuelan government’s spending of oil revenues. On Tuesday, US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent told House Representatives that the flow of oil funds will be subject to outside audits. 

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio had told a Senate committee last week that US authorities would scrutinize Caracas’ public expenditure and claimed that Venezuelan leaders needed to submit a “budget request” in order to access the country’s oil proceeds.

Washington’s attempted takeover of the Venezuelan oil industry also has an expressed goal of reducing the presence of Russian and Chinese companies. On Thursday, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov told media that the country’s enterprises are being “openly forced out” of the Caribbean nation at the behest of the US.

In mid-January, the US’ naval blockade drove away Chinese-flagged tankers on their way to Venezuela. With crude shipments partly used to offset longterm oil-for-loan agreements, Beijing has reportedly sought assurances of the repayment of debts estimated at $10-20 billion. For their part, independent Chinese refiners have moved to replace Venezuelan supplies with Iranian heavy crude.

American Idol alum Rhonetta Johnson appears worse for wear in a new mugshot linked to an arrest for prostitution years after appearing on the hit talent show.

Johnson, now 44, became a viral sensation after a disastrous audition during American Idol’s Season 5 in 2006, when she had a fiery clash with judge Paula Abdul.

The U.S. Sun can exclusively reveal she was taken into custody at the end of January after skipping previous court dates.

She was booked in North Carolina’s Mecklenburg County after an outstanding order for arrest tied to a long-running prostitution case was finally served at the courthouse.

She was issued multiple release orders, had a public defender appointed, and was placed on a $2,500 unsecured bond, which was later posted.

The arrest traces back to a separate prostitution case filed in 2018, which dragged on for years after Johnson repeatedly failed to appear in court.

Johnson was caught on October 4 in an undercover sting at a massage parlor that led to multiple prostitution arrests in Charlotte, according to charlottealertsnews.com.

Officers found her at the Continental Inn on West Sugar Creek Road, where she allegedly agreed to have sex with an undercover officer for $35, cops said.

During the encounter, Johnson reportedly made a spontaneous statement admitting she had a crack pipe, which officers later found in her bag, leading to an additional charge, the outlet reported.

The charge was later dropped, and only the prostitution charge was filed.

Following her initial arrest, Johnson repeatedly missed court appearances, prompting several warrants, and she was taken into custody and released multiple times in 2019 on secured bonds reaching $2,000.

Despite the drawn-out proceedings, prosecutors ultimately dismissed the prostitution charge with leave in February 2020, formally ending the case, though unresolved paperwork allowed it to resurface years later.

LONG RAP SHEET

Johnson’s legal troubles date back even further.

In June last year, the Columbus Police Department also issued a missing persons plea after she reportedly disappeared.

A post on Facebook shows they later updated followers, saying she had been located in “good health.”

In 2012, she was cited for possessing up to half an ounce of marijuana and charged with soliciting for prostitution, court filings show.

After failing to appear in court multiple times, she was finally arrested in August 2014.

The case was resolved the following month when she pleaded guilty to the marijuana charge and was sentenced to 27 days in jail, all credited as time already served, while the prostitution charge was dismissed.

Court records later show she was hit with $170 in attorney-fee judgments, which remained unpaid and were flagged for state debt collection in July 2025.

The U.S. Sun can also confirm she has had multiple run-ins with the law dating back as far as the 1990s, before her time on the show.

WILD CONTESTANT

Johnson first grabbed attention as a contestant in 2006, auditioning in Greensboro, North Carolina.

She didn’t make it to the Hollywood rounds, but her audition became infamous, not for her singing, but for her reaction after being rejected by the judges.

Johnson lashed out at Abdul, claiming she could be “bigger” than stars like JLo, Janet Jackson and Mariah Carey, and even refused Abdul’s offer of water, mocking the judge on camera.

Clips of the audition went viral, earning Johnson a spot in reality TV lore and even a humorous mention during that season’s finale.

She never launched a mainstream music career, though she did release a self-produced remix EP in 2014.

The United States Supreme Court has ruled in favour of a California redistricting measure meant to net the Democratic Party more congressional seats, rejecting a challenge from the state Republican Party.

There was no dissent in Wednesday’s decision, and the conservative-majority court did not offer any explanation for its decision.

Instead, its order was comprised of a single sentence, stating that the Republican application “is denied”.

Previously, in December, the Supreme Court had allowed a similar redistricting measure, designed to benefit Republicans in Texas, to move forward.

Democratic officials in California have applauded Wednesday’s decision as fair, given that Republican President Donald Trump has led a nationwide push to redraw congressional districts in his party’s favour.

“Donald Trump said he was ‘entitled’ to five more Congressional seats in Texas,” California Governor Gavin Newsom said in a written statement.

“He started this redistricting war. He lost, and he’ll lose again in November.”

California’s Attorney General Rob Bonta echoed Newsom’s remarks, blaming Trump for launching a kind of redistricting arms race that threatened to disenfranchise Democratic voters.

“The US Supreme Court’s decision is good news not only for Californians, but for our democracy,” Bonta said in the statement.

The Supreme Court’s decision marks a win for Democratic efforts to counter the Trump-led redistricting efforts, which began last year in Texas.

In June last year, reports emerged that Trump had personally called Texas state politicians to redraw their congressional districts to give Republicans a greater advantage in Democrat-held areas.

Each congressional district elects one person to the US House of Representatives, which has a narrow Republican majority. Out of 435 seats, 218 are held by Republicans, and 214 by Democrats.

Texas, a Republican stronghold, proceeded to approve a newly revamped congressional map in August, overcoming a walkout by Democratic legislators.

That, in turn, prompted Newsom to launch a ballot initiative in California to counteract the Texas effort.

Just as the new Texas congressional map was designed to increase Republican seats by five, the California ballot initiative, known as Proposition 50, was also positioned to increase Democratic representation by five.

Voters in California passed the initiative overwhelmingly in a November special election, temporarily suspending the work of an independent redistricting commission that had previously drawn the state’s congressional maps.

Newsom, a possible 2028 presidential contender, framed Proposition 50 as a means of fighting “fire with fire”.

The new map approved under Proposition 50, however, will only be in place through the 2030 election, and Newsom has pledged to repeal it, should Republicans in Texas do the same with their new map.

The push to redistrict for partisan gain — a process known as gerrymandering — has long faced bipartisan pushback as an attack on democratic values.

Normally, redistricting happens every 10 years, after a new census is taken, to reflect population changes.

But this mid-decade redistricting battle comes before the pivotal 2026 midterm elections, which are slated to be a referendum on Trump’s second term as president. Trump has already expressed fear that he might be impeached, should Congress switch to Democratic control.

Partisan gerrymandering is not necessarily illegal, unless it purposefully disenfranchises voters on the basis of their race. That, in turn, is seen as a violation of the Constitution and the Voting Rights Act, an important piece of civil rights legislation from 1965.

In response to the passage of Proposition 50, Republicans in California sued Newsom and other state officials in an effort to overturn the new congressional map.

They argued the new map was created “specifically to favor Hispanic voters” and would dilute the representation of Republican voters in the state.

The Trump administration joined the lawsuit on November 13, backing the state Republicans.

But Bonta, the California attorney general, argued the redistricting process was legal. In court filings, he also maintained that Trump’s backing of the lawsuit was driven by self-interest.

“The obvious reason that the Republican Party is a plaintiff here, and the reason that the current federal administration intervened to challenge California’s new map while supporting Texas’s defense of its new map, is that Republicans want to retain their House majority for the remainder of President Trump’s term,” his court filing said.

Bonto also called on the Supreme Court not to “step into the political fray, granting one political party a sizeable advantage” by overturning Proposition 50.

The victory for California Democrats on Wednesday comes as redistricting fights continue across the country.

Already, states like North Carolina, Ohio and Missouri have adopted new congressional maps to favour Republicans. There has been pushback, though.

In December, Indiana’s Republican-led legislature voted down a partisan redistricting measure, despite pressure from Trump to pass it.

Maja T was part of a group that attacked participants at Budapest’s ‘Day of Honour’, a major neo-Nazi event.

A Hungarian court has jailed a German anti-fascist activist for eight years for attacking participants at a far-right rally in Budapest.

Maja T, 25, was sentenced on Wednesday after being convicted of involvement in violence ahead of the annual “Day of Honour” commemoration in Budapest. The event is one of the biggest neo-Nazi rallies in Europe.

The defendant was accused of attempted aggravated bodily harm causing life-threatening injuries and assault committed as part of a criminal organisation.

“We all know what verdict the prime minister of this country wants,” Maja T told the court before the guilty verdict was given.

Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban has previously designated anti-fascist groups linked to the attacks as “terrorist” organisations.

Orban’s spokesman, Zoltan Kovacs, welcomed the sentence in a message on X, branding Maja T an “antifa terrorist” – a reference to the left-wing protest movement.

Maja T was extradited from Germany to Hungary in December 2024. Supporters of the activist have criticised detention conditions, as well as the chances for a fair trial in Hungary.

Last year, Germany’s Constitutional Court ruled that the extradition was unlawful because it could not be guaranteed that the defendant would not be subject to inhumane or degrading treatment in Hungarian custody.

Maja T’s father, Wolfram Jarosch, said the sentence confirmed his “fears” before the hearing. “This was a political show trial,” he said in a statement.

The conviction can be appealed.

Far-right protest

Prosecutors said Maja T was one of 19 members of a multinational far-left group that travelled to Hungary and attacked nine people, including German and Polish citizens, whom they identified as far-right extremists. Victims of the attack suffered broken bones and head injuries.

The annual rally in the Hungarian capital marks the failed attempt by Nazi and allied Hungarian soldiers to break out of Budapest during the Red Army’s siege of the city in 1945.

A number of people accused of participating in the 2023 “Day of Honour” attacks have been tried in Hungary and Germany. One woman received a five-year prison sentence in Germany.

Italy and France have refused to surrender two suspects to Hungary, with courts in both countries citing the risk of “inhumane treatment” in prison.

A judge in the United States has declined to order President Donald Trump’s administration to halt its immigration crackdown in Minnesota, amid mass protests over deadly shootings by federal agents in the US state.

US District Judge Kate Menendez on Saturday denied a preliminary injunction sought in a lawsuit filed this month by state Attorney General Keith Ellison and the mayors of Minneapolis and Saint Paul.

She said state authorities made a strong showing that immigration agents’ tactics, including shootings and evidence of racial profiling, were having “profound and even heartbreaking consequences on the State of Minnesota, the Twin Cities, and Minnesotans”.

But Menendez wrote in her ruling that, “ultimately, the Court finds that the balance of harms does not decisively favor an injunction”.

The lawsuit seeks to block or rein in a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) operation that sent thousands of immigration agents to the Minneapolis-Saint Paul area, sparking mass protests and leading to the killings of two US citizens by federal agents.

Tensions have soared since an Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent shot and killed Minneapolis mother Renee Nicole Good in her car on January 7.

Federal border agents also killed 37-year-old nurse Alex Pretti in the city on January 24, stoking more public anger and calls for accountability.

Tom Homan, Trump’s so-called “border czar”, told reporters earlier this week that the administration was working to make the immigration operation “safer, more efficient [and] by the book”.

But that has not stopped the demonstrations, with thousands of protesters taking to the streets of Minneapolis on Friday amid a nationwide strike to denounce the Trump administration’s crackdown.

Speaking to Al Jazeera from a memorial rally in Saint Paul on Saturday, city councillor Cheniqua Johnson said, “It feels more like the federal government is here to [lay] siege [to] Minnesota than to protect us.”

She said residents have said they are afraid to leave their homes to get groceries. “I’m receiving calls … from community members are struggling just to be able to do [everyday] things,” Johnson said.

“That’s why you’re seeing folks being willing to stand in Minnesota, in negative-degree weather, thousands of folks marching … in opposition to the injustice that we are seeing when law and order is not being upheld.”

Racial profiling accusations

In their lawsuit, Minnesota state and local officials have argued that the immigration crackdown amounts to retaliation after Washington’s initial attempts to withhold federal funding to try to force immigration cooperation failed.

They maintain that the surge has amounted to an unconstitutional drain on state and local resources, noting that schools and businesses have been shuttered in the wake of what local officials say are aggressive, poorly trained and armed federal officers.

Ellison, the Minnesota attorney general, also has accused federal agents of racially profiling citizens, unlawfully detaining lawful residents for hours, and stoking fear with their heavy-handed tactics.

The Trump administration has said its operation is aimed at enforcing federal immigration laws as part of the president’s push to carry out the largest deportation operation in US history.

On Saturday, Menendez, the district court judge, said she was not making a final judgement on the state’s overall case in her decision not to issue a temporary restraining order, something that would follow arguments in court.

She also made no determination on whether the immigration crackdown in Minnesota had broken the law.

US Attorney General Pam Bondi called the judge’s decision a “HUGE” win for the Department of Justice.

“Neither sanctuary policies nor meritless litigation will stop the Trump Administration from enforcing federal law in Minnesota,” she wrote on X.

Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey said he was disappointed by the ruling.

“This decision doesn’t change what people here have lived through — fear, disruption, and harm caused by a federal operation that never belonged in Minneapolis in the first place,” Frey said in a statement.

“This operation has not brought public safety. It’s brought the opposite and has detracted from the order we need for a working city. It’s an invasion, and it needs to stop.”

Press freedom groups decry arrest of former CNN anchor as lawyer pledges to fight charges ‘vigorously’.

Journalist Don Lemon has been arrested in connection with his coverage of a protest against United States President Donald Trump’s deadly immigration enforcement operation in Minnesota.

Lemon’s lawyer, Abbe Lowell, said on Friday that the journalist had been arrested in Los Angeles, where he was covering the Grammy Awards.

It was not immediately clear what charges Lemon was facing. In recent weeks, however, the Department of Justice indicated it would target Lemon for his attendance at a January 18 protest, in which demonstrators disrupted a church service in the city of St Paul, Minnesota.

“Don has been a journalist for 30 years, and his constitutionally protected work in Minneapolis was no different than what he has always done,” Lowell said in a statement.

He pointed to the First Amendment of the US Constitution, which protects the freedom of the press.

“The First Amendment exists to protect journalists whose role it is to shine light on the truth and hold those in power accountable,” Lowell said. “Don will fight these charges vigorously and thoroughly in court”.

US Attorney General Pam Bondi confirmed the arrest on Friday, saying Lemon had been taken into custody with three others in connection with what she described as the “coordinated attack on Cities Church in St Paul, Minnesota”.

Lemon was part of a series of arrests that morning, all related to the church demonstration. They included independent journalist Georgia Fort, as well as activists Jamael Lydell Lundy and Trahern Jeen Crews.

Federal authorities had previously arrested Minneapolis civil rights lawyer Nekima Levy Armstrong and two others in connection with the protest.

Press freedom groups swiftly condemned the action, which they called a major escalation in the administration’s attacks on journalists.

“The unmistakable message is that journalists must tread cautiously because the government is looking for any way to target them,” Seth Stern, the chief of advocacy at the Freedom of the Press Foundation, said in a statement.

The National Press Club also denounced the arrests in a statement. “Arresting or detaining journalists for covering protests, public events, or government actions represents a grave threat to press freedom and risks chilling reporting nationwide,” it wrote.

Lemon had previously been an anchor for the CNN news network, but he was fired in 2023. He has since worked as an independent journalist, with a prominent presence on YouTube.

‘I’m here as a journalist’

During his online report from the church protest, Lemon repeatedly identified himself as a reporter as he interviewed both demonstrators and church attendees.

“I’m not here as an activist. I’m here as a journalist,” he told those present.

Protesters had targeted the church, which belongs to the Southern Baptist Convention, due to its pastor, David Easterwood, who also holds a role as the head of a field office for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

Critics have questioned why the Justice Department swiftly opened a probe into the church protest, while it declined to open a civil rights investigation into an ICE agent’s killing of Renee Nicole Good in Minneapolis on January 7.

The department has not yet said if it will open an investigation into the January 24 killing of US citizen Alex Pretti by border patrol agents in Minneapolis.

“Instead of investigating the federal agents who killed two peaceful Minnesota protesters, the Trump Justice Department is devoting its time, attention and resources to this arrest, and that is the real indictment of wrongdoing in this case,” Lowell said in his statement.

Friday’s arrest comes after a federal judge in Minnesota took the rare move last week of refusing to sign an arrest warrant for Lemon. Justice Department officials nevertheless promised to continue pursuing charges.

France is moving closer to banning social media for users under the age of 15, citing growing concerns over young people’s mental health. The move comes as other European countries consider similar restrictions. Al Jazeera’s Aly Zein Mohamed explains.

The United States Federal Reserve is holding interest rates steady in its first rate decision of 2026.

Rates will remain at 3.5 to 3.75 percent, the Fed said on Wednesday, defying US President Donald Trump’s calls for more aggressive interest rate cuts.

“The Committee seeks to achieve maximum employment and inflation at the rate of 2 percent over the longer run. Uncertainty about the economic outlook remains elevated,” the central bank said in its release announcing the decision.

Wednesday’s decision was widely expected. CME FedWatch, a tool that tracks expectations for monetary policy, forecast a more than 97 percent chance that the central bank would hold rates steady.

The tracker also expects two rate cuts in 2026, with the highest probability for the first cut occurring in June at the earliest.

“Available indicators suggest that economic activity has been expanding at a solid pace. Job gains have remained low, and the unemployment rate has shown some signs of stabilization,” the central bank said.

The decision comes amid signs of stabilisation in the US labour market. The US economy added 584,000 jobs in 2025, marking the lowest annual job growth since 2003. Payrolls rose by 64,000 jobs in October and 50,000 in December. While job growth remains weak, December’s figure represents a modest rebound from October, when the economy lost 105,000 jobs, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

There are indications that the labour market may cool further in the months ahead. This week, both Amazon and UPS announced tens of thousands of job cuts, some of which were driven by a push towards increasing the use of artificial intelligence in the workplace.

Another threat to the US economy and the job market comes in the form of a looming government shutdown. That can happen as early as Saturday, and depending on its duration, it could slow spending as federal workers are temporarily left without paycheques.

Political tensions

The decision to hold interest rates steady comes despite Trump’s increased pressure on the central bank to cut rates. Fed Chairman Jerome Powell has long stressed the Federal Reserve’s independence, and Wednesday’s decision is the first since Powell’s rebuke of a criminal Department of Justice investigation into him. The central bank chair, whose term expires in May, called the inquiry a “pretext” to pressure him.

“The threat of criminal charges is a consequence of the Federal Reserve setting interest rates based on our best assessment of what will serve the public, rather than following the preferences of the president,” Powell said in remarks in early January in response to a subpoena.

Last week, the Supreme Court heard arguments in a case examining whether Trump has the legal authority to remove Fed Governor Lisa Cook amid allegations of mortgage fraud.

Meanwhile, Fed Governor Stephan Miran’s term is set to expire this week. Trump picked Miran to temporarily fill the seat vacated by Adriana Kugler in August while seeking a more permanent replacement.

Miran was one of two central bank governors who voted to lower interest rates alongside Christopher Waller.

The developments come as Trump searches for a new Fed chair. He has explicitly called for further interest rate cuts and for a chairman who shares his views.

“Anybody that disagrees with me will never be the Fed Chairman!” Trump said in a post on Truth Social in December.

The political pressure has caught the attention of global central banks as well.

“The Federal Reserve is the biggest, most important central bank in the world, and we all need it to work well. A loss of independence of the Fed would affect us all,” Bank of Canada Governor Tiff Macklem said on Wednesday. Canada’s central bank held rates steady ahead of the US central bank’s decision.

Macklem was one of the central bank heads who earlier this month issued a joint statement backing Powell. Last September, Macklem said Trump’s attempts to pressure the Fed were starting to hit markets.

The Dow Jones Industrial Average is flat, as is the Nasdaq, and the S&P 500 is down 0.1 in midday trading.

United States President Donald Trump’s $5bn lawsuit against JPMorgan Chase resurfaces his accusations of debanking – the act of removing a person or organisation’s access to financial services.

The complaint, filed in a Florida court on Thursday, alleges that the bank singled him out for political reasons and closed several of his accounts following the attack on the US Capitol on January 6, 2021, which was perpetrated by his supporters.

“JPMC does not close accounts for political or religious reasons. We do close accounts because they create legal or regulatory risk for the company. We regret having to do so, but often rules and regulatory expectations lead us to do so,” the bank said in a statement.

While the lawsuit was filed in his personal capacity, the concept of debanking has long been in the crosshairs of the Trump White House.

Late last year, the White House launched a high-profile effort targeting the nation’s largest financial institutions, accusing them of closing accounts based on political bias. Within days, Trump signed an executive order restricting banks from denying accounts on those grounds.

Trump has long framed “debanking” as a systemic effort targeting conservatives. But evidence for this claim is limited.

A Reuters news agency review of more than 8,000 complaints to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) found only 35 related to political or religious reasons, let alone targeting Christians or conservatives specifically.

The push by banks centres on the use of “reputational risk” as a standard that allows them to weigh the social or political fallout of doing business with a client.

Critics say this practice makes banks arbiters of morality – freezing, withholding, or closing accounts based not on financial considerations but on social and geopolitical concerns. This approach has pulled financial institutions into the middle of cultural and geopolitical debates.

While often cast as a partisan issue, data show that Trump’s core base, evangelical Christians, are not the ones typically targeted by debanking efforts.

A report from the Institute for Social Policy and Understanding (ISPU), a research organisation that looks at the experience of the US Muslim community, found that 27 percent of Muslim Americans and 14 percent of Jewish Americans have faced trouble banking, compared with negligible rates among Christian denominations, especially with Trump’s core base, evangelicals, at 8 percent.

Overall, 93 percent of Muslim Americans reported experiencing trouble with banking access. In one situation involving Citibank, the New York Chapter of the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) accused the financial institution of not opening the account of a Muslim woman because of her husband, whom she wanted to nominate as a beneficiary and who is a Palestinian Muslim. CAIR did not release the name of the woman at the centre of the complaint.

“It [debanking] is a huge barrier for actually Muslims fulfilling philanthropic goals,” Erum Ikramullah, a senior research project manager at the ISPU, told Al Jazeera.

“It’s a huge barrier for the actual Muslim-based, Muslim-led organisations who are managing relief both domestically and overseas.”

Between October 2023 and May 2024, at least 30 US nonprofits providing humanitarian aid to Gaza have had accounts closed.

“Muslim Americans and Armenian Americans have faced de-banking on account of their last names,” Senator Elizabeth Warren, the Democrat from Massachusetts who founded the CFPB in 2013, said in a Senate Banking Committee hearing last year.

But Trump continues to allege that groups like Christians and conservatives are the ones discriminated against.

Among them include the National Committee for Religious Freedom, led by former Republican Senator and Kansas Governor Sam Brownback. Brownback alleges that Chase closed his account on religious grounds, a claim the bank denies.

Regardless, the push to take on the problem of debanking is a rare spot of bipartisanship in Washington, with Trump and Warren both agreeing that banks should change their ways.

Industry turmoil

A US banking regulator said last month that the nine largest US banks put restrictions on industries that it deems risky, but this has been a long-term issue for several industries.

Operation Choke Point, under the administration of former Democratic President Barack Obama, targeted exploitative industries like payday lenders and arms dealers. The initiative pushed banks to consider entire categories of businesses – and the individuals who worked in them – as reputationally risky, even when that view lagged cultural sentiment.

In response, Frank Keating, the then-CEO of the American Banking Association, slammed the move in an op-ed in The Wall Street Journal, saying that the “Justice Department [is] telling bankers to behave like policemen and judges”.

Ultimately, that scrutiny affected people working in several industries over the last decade, most particularly in adult entertainment, cannabis, and cryptocurrency.

Within months of the new guidance from the Obama administration, hundreds of adult performers lost access to banking services from Chase Bank. The ability to keep a bank account persisted for adult performers. In 2022, adult performer Alana Evans penned an op-ed for The Daily Beast describing how Wells Fargo closed her account.

The Free Speech Coalition, an adult industry trade group, found that 63 percent of adult workers have lost access to a bank account because of their work in the legal industry, and nearly 50 percent have been rejected for a loan because of the nature of the profession.

“I think that when I talk to a lot of people about this issue, or when I’ve talked to even legislators about this, they really can’t believe it, because it’s never been anything that they’ve encountered personally. The idea that a bank could shut off your account because they disagreed with the type of work you do is sort of inconceivable to most people,” Mike Stabile, the director of public policy for the Free Speech Coalition, told Al Jazeera.

The cannabis business has faced similar problems. Over the last decade, both laws and public sentiment around marijuana use have drastically changed. Now, more people use marijuana daily than drink alcohol, and recreational use is legal in 24 states as well as Washington, DC.

Yet, legitimate businesses that cater to this growing market share and those who work for them have been subject to debanking.

Kyle Sherman, the CEO and founder of Flowhub, a cannabis payment processing company, testified in front of the Senate Banking Committee last year that his employees are routinely discriminated against in consumer banking. He alleged that one of his employees was denied a mortgage because of what he does for a living, as well as others who have had their personal accounts closed.

While state laws have shifted on marijuana’s stance, federal laws have not kept up, making it harder for banks to navigate the reputational risk.

Trump recently eased pressure on the marijuana industry by reclassifying the substance as Schedule III, which means it is less harmful, but it does not change the legality of sale and interstate commerce on the federal level.

“In some of the states that have recently gone legal with recreational and medical cannabis, the individual entrepreneurs [there] were previously considered outlaws. It is hard for a banker to get over the perception that yesterday, you were an illegal activity, and today, you’re a legal activity,” said Terry Mendez, the CEO of Safe Harbor Financial, a financial services company for the cannabis industry.

There has been a bigger about-face with regard to the cryptocurrency industry. At first, crypto was seen as a safe haven for illicit transactions because the underlying technology allowed for anonymous transfers, making it difficult for banks to determine which transactions were legitimate and legal and which ones were not.

As the industry began to move into the mainstream, the challenges were amplified. Exchanges and startups faced debanking or sudden account closures, and even major platforms like Coinbase struggled to maintain reliable banking partners.

“Historically, banks were kind of more naturally averse to crypto companies, going back to like 2018, to 2020, 2021. Crypto companies would often, when registering for accounts with banks, say that they were software development companies to try and avoid the mention of crypto because of fear of not being able to open a bank account, which, of course, then means it’s harder to make a payroll. It’s hard to take in funds from investors; you can’t pay vendors,” Sid Powell, the CEO of the asset management firm Maple Finance, told Al Jazeera.

That was not helped by the collapse of FTX, the notorious cryptocurrency exchange, pushing banks to pull back from working with the crypto industry.

Sentiment is shifting now. Under Trump, who has embraced crypto, financial regulators last year withdrew guidance that suggested that banks should be careful when working with the crypto industry. Powell says the executive order could help crypto avoid debanking in the future.

“It [the executive order] kind of signals to the FDIC and the OCC that they should act in a more balanced way when it comes to crypto companies and crypto startups, instead of taking a more hostile approach, or the approach of kind of lumping everyone in with the worst of the industry, which tended to happen post-FTX,” Powell added.

Powell was referring to the The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, an independent agency created by Congress to maintain stability in the nation’s financial system, and The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, an independent bureau of the US Department of the Treasury, which charters, regulates, and supervises all national banks, federal savings associations, and federal branches and agencies of foreign banks.

Trump’s personal gripes

Trump has also accused banks of not doing business with him, the primary driver of his interest in the debanking issue.

Banks can generally refuse to create accounts for potential customers who could be deemed as high risk.

“The president’s companies have filed [for] bankruptcy repeatedly. There have been years of reporting about financial institutions’ concerns with suspicious financial activity, and the president was found civilly liable for inflating the value of his assets that served as collateral for loans from financial institutions,” Graham Steele, an academic fellow at the Rock Center for Corporate Governance at Stanford University, told Al Jazeera.

Reuters reported last year that banks gauged Trump as a financial risk due to his plethora of legal challenges after his first term, including the suit brought by E Jean Caroll, which found Trump liable for sexual abuse. He has declared bankruptcy six times.

He also defaulted on loans totalling hundreds of millions of dollars several times, including a loan to Deutsche Bank. In 2024, a New York court ruled that the president fraudulently inflated his financial worth by more than $2bn.

“Notwithstanding the fact that the president is an inherently political figure, a financial institution could reasonably rely on any of these concerns, grounded in financial and legal risks, not ‘political’ beliefs, as a basis for declining to do business with a customer,” Steele said.

That did not stop the president from pointing fingers at banking giants, including Bank of America CEO Brian Moynihan.

“I hope you start opening your bank to conservatives, because many conservatives complain that the banks are not allowing them to do business within the bank, and that includes a place called Bank of America,” Trump told the executive during a Q&A session at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, last year.

The Trump family also sued Capital One last March. The lawsuit alleged that it debanked The Trump Organisation after Trump incited an insurrection at the US Capitol on January 6, 2021, after spreading misinformation alleging that he won the 2020 presidential election even though he had lost by a significant margin.

Trump debanks ‘liberal’ causes

Trump’s rhetoric on debanking is among his latest attempts to punish entities for political bias, while actively pushing actions that punish those who have viewpoints that oppose his own.

Trump has argued that debanking disproportionately targets conservatives and conservative-leaning businesses like firearms manufacturers. His pressure has moved the needle at Citibank. In June, it lifted its ban on banking services to gun sellers and manufacturers, a policy it put in place in 2018 after the shooting in Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, that left 17 people dead.

In March, his administration announced it would shut down a set of climate grants under the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund – known as the “green bank” – a $20bn programme created through the bipartisan Inflation Reduction Act signed by his predecessor, President Joe Biden, in 2022 to channel financing for climate projects into underinvested regions.

Environment and Protection Agency (EPA) administrator Lee Zeldin justified the decision by citing “misconduct, conflicts of interest, and potential fraud”, allegations he offered without evidence, and forced Citibank, which was holding the fund’s money for nonprofit distribution, to return the funds to the EPA.

The decision faced legal hurdles. But earlier this month, a US court of appeals allowed the Trump administration to continue axing the programme. The 2-1 ruling was decided by two judges appointed by Trump.

Last year, the White House also pressured companies seeking federal contracts to abandon diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) programmes, which it has long portrayed, without evidence, as undermining merit-based hiring.

Citigroup, historically one of the most vocal supporters of DEI in the financial services sector, scrapped its programme. Citibank holds multiple federal contracts with agencies including the Department of Defense and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

Bank of America and Wells Fargo followed suit in February, scaling back their initiatives as well, as did many other companies.

As part of the Trump administration’s immigration crackdowns, the White House has also pressured banks to cut financial services to immigrants. The administration is doing so by trying to cancel the social security numbers of migrants who have legal status in the US, which would essentially cut them off from access to basic financial services, including bank accounts and credit cards, The New York Times reported.

At the time, Leland Dudek, then the Social Security Administration’s acting commissioner and a Trump administration appointee, said the move to cut access would end their “financial lives”.

“There’s a real telling disconnect. They are saying, on the one hand, we wanna put a thumb on the scale and ensure that conservative groups are included in the financial system, while actively working to push out liberal coded groups by either freezing them out of the bank accounts when they get government grants, or trying to investigate and potentially bring criminal charges against the payment platform that serves liberal groups,” Steele said.

Steele questioned if taking on political bias would actually help communities that do not align with the Trump administration’s stated values and conservative viewpoints.

“I think one of the other concerns here is that a lot of this depends on how the executive order is going to be enforced,” Steele said.