defends

As always, Usyk took the occasion in his stride. Asked about the secret to his success, he joked: “Hard training and good pasta – double portion.”

The unified champion has previously said he plans to face the winner of Fabio Wardley v Daniel Dubois after Verhoeven, followed by a trilogy fight with Tyson Fury.

However, he said he would step aside if Fury and Anthony Joshua were able to agree a long-discussed bout.

“AJ wins. It’s future undisputed champion,” Usyk said.

For many boxing fans, it was the first extended look at Verhoeven. He has previously sparred with Tyson Fury and trained alongside UFC heavyweight champion Tom Aspinall, and had been lined up to face Joshua before the Briton’s tragic car crash last year, which claimed the lives of two of his friends.

“But this is even bigger and better,” Verhoeven, who came across confident and composed, said.

“Our idea was undisputed versus undisputed. That’s how this fight came about. It’s something very special.”

There had been suggestions the bout could yet be moved because of the ongoing conflict in the Middle East, but organisers insist it will take place at a unique setting by the foot of the pyramids of Giza.

Pushing back on Washington

Petro, however, has highlighted his interdiction efforts as a means of refuting Trump’s claims that he has allowed cocaine to flow unchecked.

The subject reportedly came up during a call between the two heads of state in January. Petro suggested that Trump had been unfamiliar with the amounts of cocaine Colombia has seized.

“The United States doesn’t know anything about that,” he told CBS News after the call.

At other times, Petro has leaned on his interdiction record to push back on Trump’s hardline anti-narcotics policy.

In September, Trump and his allies announced a campaign to bomb boats suspected of carrying drugs, arguing the strategy was more efficient than interdiction.

“Interdiction doesn’t work,” US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said. “What will stop them is when you blow them up, when you get rid of them.”

Since then, the US military has bombed 47 boats, killing at least 163 people. Petro has condemned the strikes as “murders”, arguing they violate due process and international law.

He has also held up his own interdiction strategy as a more effective model.

When Colombia and the US led a joint maritime operation in February that resulted in nearly 10 tonnes of cocaine seized, Petro touted the outcome as proof that anti-narcotics efforts need not be lethal.

“The Colombian Navy seized the submarine without killing anyone,” Petro said during a cabinet meeting.

Still, experts have pointed out that Petro has bent to US demands in other areas.

While Petro had pledged not to target coca farmers, he announced in December that security forces would deploy drones to spray crops with glyphosate, an herbicide.

That plan — to forcibly eradicate coca crops by air — faced strong local opposition due to concerns over the herbicide’s health and environmental impacts.

Rueda said the move, which has yet to be implemented, signalled that Petro, like many presidents before him, had yielded to US pressure.

“The US government always wins,” said Rueda. “It always has more power over us, and we end up having to give in — and so does Petro.”

Whether Petro’s decision holds weight with his electoral base is less certain. While protests initially erupted in coca-growing regions, they subsided after meetings with his administration.

Rueda suspects officials reassured protesters they wouldn’t carry out the fumigations, which could have cost Petro in the upcoming elections.

“Petro’s decision highlights his inconsistencies when it comes to the policy he put forward,” Rueda said. “But in the end, the fumigations never happened, so the political impact likely wasn’t as significant as it could have been.”

April 9 (UPI) — Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum signaled a major shift in the country’s energy policy aimed at reducing its dependence on natural gas imports from the United States, including a possible reopening of hydraulic fracturing under stricter controls.

“Mexico must guarantee its sovereignty. And a fundamental part of sovereignty is energy sovereignty,” Sheinbaum said Thursday during a press conference.

The president said her administration is exploring new domestic production pathways, including using fracking, a technique she previously opposed due to environmental concerns.

Sheinbaum described the move as a “responsible decision” to be carried out under “strict scientific oversight” with the support of a specialized committee.

The proposal centers on creating a technical and scientific panel of experts from the National Autonomous University of Mexico and the National Polytechnic Institute.

The group will have two months to develop a protocol for extracting unconventional reserves, while minimizing environmental impact and prioritizing using treated or non-potable water.

The initiative marks a departure from the policy of former President Andrés Manuel López Obrador, who maintained a strict ban on fracking on environmental grounds.

Mexico currently imports about 75% of the natural gas it consumes, mostly from Texas, exposing the country to price volatility and geopolitical risks that could affect the National Electric System.

“We cannot achieve energy sovereignty if we depend on a valve that can be shut outside our borders,” Sheinbaum said.

Government projections estimate gas demand could rise by about 30% by the end of the administration, driven by new power plants, industrial expansion, petrochemicals and fertilizer production, according to local media reports.

Energy Secretary Luz Elena González Escobar outlined a plan Wednesday to strengthen energy security by increasing domestic gas production and reducing reliance on imports.

She also said the government will accelerate its energy transition plan, aiming for renewable sources to account for 38% of electricity generation by 2030 while reducing the share of fossil fuels.

The strategy envisions starting unconventional extraction by late 2027, with a goal of increasing production to more than 8 billion cubic feet per day by 2035 from about 2.3 billion cubic feet.

The administration has invited private sector participation in renewable energy projects and combined-cycle power plants under a mixed model in which the state, through the Federal Electricity Commission and Pemex, retains 54% of generation and strategic control, leaving 46% to private investment.

Officials say the model is designed to attract capital for storage and extraction infrastructure that the public sector cannot fully finance in the short term.

Energy analysts say the policy shift responds in part to nearshoring trends, as multinational companies relocating operations to Mexico require reliable and affordable electricity supply.

The proposal has drawn criticism from environmental groups, which called it a “green setback” and warned that fracking could threaten aquifers in regions already facing severe water stress.

“Little House on the Prairie” alumna Melissa Gilbert remains steadfast in her support for husband Timothy Busfield, the Emmy-winning actor who has been embroiled in a child sex abuse scandal since earlier this year.

Gilbert, in her first sit-down interview since Busfield’s indictment in February, told ABC News’ George Stephanopoulos she trusts her husband “with my children’s lives, my grandchildren’s lives, my nieces and nephews” and said she expects the “Thirtysomething” star will be exonerated at trial next year.

“Believe me, if I thought for a second that Tim Busfield hurt a child, he’d have a lot more to worry about than prison,” she said in part of the interview that aired Monday on “Good Morning America.”

In February, a New Mexico grand jury indicted 68-year-old Busfield on four counts of criminal sexual contact of a child. A month prior, New Mexico officials accused Busfield of of inappropriately touching two child actors, who are brothers, during his time as an actor, director and producer on the Fox crime drama “The Cleaning Lady.”

One child actor alleged that Busfield had first touched his “private areas” multiple times on set when he was 7, according to the complaint. He said Busfield touched him inappropriately again several times when he was 8. The affidavit also detailed a police interview with Busfield in which he suggested that the boys’ mother might have sought “revenge” on the director for “not bringing her kids back for the final season.”

Busfield turned himself in to law enforcement days after the warrant was issued and denied the accusations. He was jailed at the Metropolitan Detention Center in Albuquerque but was released on his own recognizance Jan. 20.

For Gilbert, 61, the allegations and ensuing chain of events have been “hell.” Recent months have brought “the most traumatizing experiences of our lives,” she told Stephanopoulos, adding, “Our life as we knew it is done.”

The couple married in 2013. “The West Wing” actor Busfield has three adult children from two previous marriages and is the stepfather to Gilbert’s two adult sons from her two previous marriages. When the allegations first surfaced, a publicist for Gilbert said the actor would not comment on her husband’s case, denounced “any purported statements” and said that Gilbert was focused on caring for her and Busfield’s family.

During the Monday interview Gilbert said she and her husband are “grieving what we had: all of our plans, all of our dreams, all of our ideas, all of our projects.” She said her husband has become persona non grata — “canceled,” in her words — and that the allegations will continue to cast a shade over his career “even if he’s exonerated.” Busfield’s lawyer Larry Stein and Gilbert both told Stephanopoulos they are confident that will be the case.

When asked what justice for her husband might look like, Gilbert replied: “Exoneration and apology. Free him from this cloud.”

Elsewhere in the interview, attorney Stein doubled down on his belief that the child actors and their parents are “absolutely” making false allegations against Busfield. The actors’ parents did not respond to ABC News’ request for comment.

Gilbert also told Stephanopoulos that before she married Busfield, she was aware he had been accused of sexual harassment twice by different women, once in 1994 and another time in 2012. Those two cases were mentioned in the January complaint against Busfield.

“I didn’t go into my relationship with him blind. I am neither naive nor am I complicit,” she said, adding she and her husband discussed those claims. “I heard his side of the story which no one has ever heard which is the truth. And when the time is right, and that is not now, Tim will tell the truth of all of these past allegations when he needs to.”

Why are many Latin American countries shutting down nonprofit organizations? Amnesty International claims it has the answer: in every case, it’s part of a drive to restrict human rights and “tear up the social fabric.”

Amnesty’s new 95-page report (in Spanish, with an English summary), criticizes governments across the political spectrum for attacking what it calls “civil society organizations.” But Amnesty ignores the history of many such organizations and therefore why governments might be justified in closing them.

Here we focus on the report’s deficiencies in relation to Nicaragua, Venezuela (two NGOs interviewed in each) and Cuba (none).

Data-light analysis supports preconceived conclusions

Amnesty’s report is strikingly thin. Unlike many other Amnesty investigations, this one provides scarce case studies or incidents, almost no statistics, few named victims or affected organizations, and little discussion of specific crackdowns. In most cases, substantive content about a particular country is assumed to apply to all countries.

Amnesty conducted interviews with only 15 non-governmental organizations (NGOs) across six countries: Nicaragua, Venezuela, Paraguay, Peru, El Salvador and Ecuador. Its analysis extended to two more, Guatemala and Cuba, where no interviews took place. Yet the six countries alone have around 40,000 NGOs between them, making Amnesty’s sample minuscule. In none of the countries did Amnesty do any direct fieldwork.

Amnesty did not consult with any government sources or individuals close to governments, resulting in a one-sided narrative. According to Amnesty, the issues “should not be interpreted as… differentiation between the countries analyzed.” Thus, countries as politically different as Ecuador and Nicaragua are painted with the same brush.

While claiming to expose the real purpose of these laws, Amnesty fails to explain their political context, despite the widespread and documented use made of NGOs by the US to destabilize countries.

The authors emailed Amnesty with our key criticisms. In a lengthy response, Mariana Marques, Amnesty’s South America Researcher & Advisor, claimed that “the report intentionally prioritizes depth and comparability [between the chosen countries].” However, this is difficult to accept given that the report’s sweeping generalizations are mechanically applied to all six.

The authors also asked Amnesty if they had considered evidence that NGOs in Venezuela, Nicaragua and Cuba have indeed engaged in political activities – that would very likely be illegal in Western countries such as the US? Did they consider whether allegations that NGOs provoked political violence or other criminal activities might be true? In response, Ms. Marques wrote: “The report does not adjudicate case‑by‑case allegations about individual organizations.”

Nevertheless, the report apparently identified “selective enforcement” and “sanctions” that were “disproportionate.” But how could they reach an impartial judgment on the fairness of a government’s actions without considering whether the alleged infractions might have actually occurred?

Destabilization claims go unexamined

If governments justify their laws as efforts to halt foreign-funded destabilization, surely Amnesty should ask whether such claims have merit. Here are some examples that Amnesty might have considered:

• In Cuba, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) spent $15.5 million from 2009 through 2012 running “civil society” programs aimed at secretly stirring up anti-government activism. Then in just one year (2020), the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) – a reported CIA cutout itself masquerading as an NGO even though it is largely funded by the US government – financed 40 civil-society projects in Cuba with sums up to $650,000. According to the Cuban government, these groups were directly involved in violent demonstrations that affected Cuba in July 2021.

• In Nicaragua, which suffered a major coup attempt in 2018, Global Americans reported that the NED was “laying the groundwork for insurrection” even as the violence was taking place. NED and other bodies bragged to Congress about their regime-change efforts, and the Council on Hemispheric Affairs described in detail how NGOs indoctrinated young Nicaraguans.

• In Venezuela, USAID corroborated the use of NGOs to further US regime-change activities; since 2017 it provided “more than $158 million in humanitarian aid in Venezuela” through questionably “impartial” organizations.

Well-substantiated examples of Washington’s huge investment, extending over many years, to create or infiltrate NGOs in the three countries and use them to provoke anti-government violence, were of no interest to Amnesty researchers.

Rather, the report focuses on restrictions on access to foreign funding, which allegedly have “chilling effects on legitimate human‑rights work.” Amnesty’s refusal to “map individual donors” prevents scrutiny about the purpose of Washington’s funding for NGOs, which are often framed in vague terms such as “promoting democracy” or “strengthening civic society.”

Had the researchers talked to actual NGOs doing humanitarian work, they might have heard testimony such as this one from Rita Di Matiatt with Master Mama, a Venezuelan NGO dedicated to offering support to breastfeeding mothers: “NGOs that conspire against the stability and rights of a nation or its citizens, as well as everything that does not comply with the norms and laws of a country must be held accountable.” Venezuelan National Assembly deputy Julio Chávez expressed concern about such NGO’s working “to generate destabilization.”

And, indeed, the current NED president, Damon Wilson, recently confirmed that Nicaragua, Cuba and Venezuela are his highest priorities in the region.

Comparison with other countries

Amnesty claims a “global” trend toward laws resembling Russia’s “foreign agents” legislation. However, a more relevant comparison is the US Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) which is really the model.

The US has some of the world’s strongest and most detailed regulatory powers governing NGOs. Indeed, the US typically closes around 44,000 nonprofits annually that fail to comply. This is not unusual. The Charity Commission in Britain closes around 4,000 nonprofits each year. New regulations have led to large-scale closures in India, Turkey, South Africa and elsewhere.

Washington’s foreign agents act is not unique: The Library of Congress has examples of 13 countries with similar legislation. In Britain, the government has consulted on the introduction of a “Foreign Influence Registration Scheme,” which is similar to FARA, as are regulations which apply in the European Union.

However, it does not suit Amnesty’s narrative to make comparisons with Western countries that might caste the laws in Cuba, Nicaragua and Venezuela in a different light.

Amnesty’s longstanding bias

Amnesty has a long history of bias against countries such as Venezuela, Cuba, and Nicaragua. Ecuadorian-Canadian journalist Joe Emersberger documents how Amnesty minimizes the impact of US sanctions – illegal under international law – which target all three countries.

While Amnesty refused to recognize Nelson Mandella as a prisoner of conscious, because he failed to renounce violence in self-defense against the South African apartheid regime, Amnesty readily bestowed the honor on Leopoldo López, who fomented a number of violent coup attempts in Venezuela.

María Corina Machado is arguably Amnesty’s most lauded Venezuelan. Her legitimacy is based largely on her victory in an opposition primary. However, the contest was conducted by her personal NGO, Súmate, rather than the official Venezuelan electoral authority as is customary. This is relevant to NGO law, because Súmate received NED funds. Machado won that privately run primary by an incredible 92% landslide in a crowded field of eight candidates. When the runner-up, Carlos Prosperi, cried fraud, the ballots were destroyed to prevent an audit of the vote.

Camilo Mejia, a US military resistor and an Amnesty “prisoner of conscience,” published an open letter expressing his “unequivocal condemnation of Amnesty International with regards to the destabilizing role it has played in Nicaragua, my country of birth.”

Amnesty has long been accused of bias on an international scale. Journalist Alexander Rubinstein documented Amnesty’s collaboration with US and UK intelligence agencies dating back to the 1960s. Francis A. Boyle, human rights law professor and founding Amnesty board member, observed: “You will find a self-perpetuating clique of co-opted Elites who deliberately shape and direct the work of AI and AIUSA so as to either affirmatively support, or else not seriously undercut, the imperial, colonial, and genocidal policies of the United States, Britain, and Israel.”

NGOs and the “human rights industry”

Alfred de Zayas, former UN independent human rights expert, argues in The Human Rights Industry that there are few fields that are “as penetrated and corrupted by intelligence services” as NGOs. “The level of NGO interference in the internal affairs of states and their destabilizing impact on the constitutional order has become so prevalent that more and more countries have adopted… legislation to control this ‘invasion’ of foreign interests, or simply to ban them.”

While de Zayas recognizes Amnesty International when it does good work, he points out that in Latin America it ignores the struggle of sovereign nations “to shake off the yoke of US domination.” In a general comment that might apply specifically to Amnesty’s Tearing Up the Social Fabric, de Zayas condemns “entire reports… compiled from accounts of US-backed opposition groups.”

Nicaragua-based writer John Perry publishes in the London Review of Books, FAIR, CovertAction and elsewhere. Roger D. Harrisis with the Task Force on the Americas and the Venezuela Solidarity Network. Both authors are active with the Nicaragua Solidarity Coalition.

The views expressed in this article are the authors’ own and do not necessarily reflect those of the Venezuelanalysis editorial staff.

Following the Carabao Cup final defeat by Manchester City earlier this month, defender William Saliba confirmed he would not be joining up with France because of an ankle injury.

His centre-back partner Gabriel then withdrew from the Brazil squad with a knee problem.

They were later joined by England forward Eberechi Eze (calf), Norway midfielder Martin Odegaard (knee) and Netherlands defender Jurrien Timber (groin) – who all missed the cup final defeat at Wembley through injury – as well as Belgium forward Leandro Trossard (hip).

After players joined up with their respective countries, five more from Arsenal withdrew – England trio Declan Rice (knock), Bukayo Saka (knock) and Noni Madueke (injured his knee against Uruguay) as well as Spain’s Martin Zubimendi (knee) and Ecuador’s Piero Hincapie (undisclosed).

Arteta said his players were “desperate” to play for their countries.

“When you are fit and available to play for the national team, you have to play,” he added.

“It makes us so proud that we had that many players in the national team.

“Players are desperate to play for their nation. I know how important it is to them. We are fully supportive of that and when we can do it, we do it.”

Premier League leaders Arsenal are in FA Cup quarter-final action on Saturday as they visit in-form Championship side Southampton (20:00 BST).

Arteta confirmed Eze will miss the game through injury, but Odegaard and Timber are in contention to return, while Madueke’s injury is not as bad as first feared and is a doubt.

Asked how many of those 11 players who withdrew from international duty will be available for selection against the Saints, Arteta added: “You will see. I will let you do the speculation. You can judge afterwards.

“We are in a position right now where we need to make the strongest line-up we possibly can to win every competition.

“We are two or three games away from the FA Cup and we know how important that competition is for us.”

The US defence secretary designated the AI company a ‘supply chain risk’ after it refused to remove guardrails on its technology.

The administration of United States President Donald Trump has said in a court filing that the Pentagon’s blacklisting of Anthropic was justified and lawful, opposing the artificial intelligence company’s high-stakes lawsuit challenging the decision.

The administration made its comments in a court filing on Tuesday.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth designated Anthropic, the maker of popular AI assistant Claude, a national security supply chain risk on March 3 after the company refused to remove guardrails against its technology being used for autonomous weapons and domestic surveillance.

The Trump administration’s filing says Anthropic is unlikely to succeed in its claims that the US government’s action violated speech protections under the US Constitution’s First Amendment, asserting that the dispute stems from contract negotiations and national security concerns, not retaliation.

“It was only when Anthropic refused to release the restrictions on the use of its products — which refusal is conduct, not protected speech — that the President directed all federal agencies to terminate their business relationships with Anthropic,” the administration’s legal filing said. The filing, from the US Justice Department, said that “no one has purported to restrict Anthropic’s expressive activity”.

Anthropic’s lawsuit in California federal court asks a judge to block the Pentagon’s decision while the case plays out. Some legal experts say the company appears to have a strong case that the government overreached.

In a statement, Anthropic said it was reviewing the government’s filing. The company said that “seeking judicial review does not change our longstanding commitment to harnessing AI to protect our national security, but this is a necessary step to protect our business, our customers, and our partners.”

The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Supply chain risk

Trump has backed Hegseth’s move, which excludes Anthropic from a limited set of military contracts. But it could damage the company’s reputation and cause billions of dollars in losses this year, according to its executives.

The designation came after months of negotiations between the Pentagon and Anthropic reached an impasse, prompting Trump and Hegseth to denounce the company and accuse it of endangering American lives with its use restrictions.

Anthropic has disputed those claims and said AI is not yet safe enough to be used in autonomous weapons. The company said it opposes domestic surveillance as a matter of principle.

In its March 9 lawsuit, Anthropic said that the “unprecedented and unlawful” designation violated its free speech and due process rights, while running afoul of a law requiring federal agencies to follow specific procedures when making decisions.

The Pentagon separately designated Anthropic a supply chain risk under a different law that could expand the order to the entire government.

Anthropic is challenging that move in a second lawsuit in a Washington, DC, appeals court.

Caracas, March 17, 2026 (venezuelanalysis.com) – The Trump administration has opposed a motion from Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and First Lady Cilia Flores for the dismissal of US criminal charges on the grounds of the US Treasury blocking their legal defense funds.

In a court filing, US Justice Department prosecutors argued that “the defendants and their former regime” have been sanctioned by the US government for several years and that regulations from the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) “expressly prohibit” that funds from a “sanctioned entity” be used to pay a “sanctioned person’s” legal expenses.

“OFAC’s denial of that request does not mean the [US] government violated the defendants’ due process rights. The motions to dismiss should be denied,” the statement read.

Last month, Maduro and Flores’ legal teams urged Judge Alvin Hellerstein to throw out the cases over the US government’s interference with their “ability to retain counsel.” Defense attorney for the Venezuelan president, Barry Pollack, argued that Washington’s actions violated Maduro’s Sixth Amendment rights.

In a sworn statement handed to the court, Maduro declared that under Venezuelan law he is “entitled” to have his legal expenses covered by Caracas and confirmed that Pollack is his “counsel of choice.”

Pollack further added that, on January 9, OFAC issued permission for the Venezuelan government to cover Maduro and Flores’ legal fees, only to withdraw it hours later. The high-profile attorney has announced plans to invoke Maduro’s immunity as a sitting president as part of his legal strategy.

US prosecutors have claimed that the defendants are allowed to use “personal funds” to pay their attorneys’ fees. However, both Maduro and Flores, as well as multiple immediate relatives, are under OFAC sanctions, making it illegal for US persons and entities to engage in financial transactions with them.

The Venezuelan Communications Ministry did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Venezuelan officials, including Acting President Delcy Rodríguez, have yet to weigh in on the Trump administration’s efforts to hamper Maduro and Flores’ defense efforts.

President Maduro and his wife, who is also a National Assembly deputy, were kidnapped by US Special forces on January 3 amid a bombing campaign against Caracas and nearby areas. Rodríguez, as sitting vice president, assumed the presidency on an acting basis after the Venezuelan Supreme Court decreed that Maduro’s abduction constituted a “temporary absence.”

Maduro was indicted on charges of “narcoterrorism conspiracy, cocaine importation conspiracy, possession of machineguns and destructive devices, and conspiracy to possess machineguns and destructive devices against the United States.” Flores faces the latter three counts. Both pleaded not guilty in their arraignment hearing on January 5. The next hearing is scheduled for March 26.

Despite reiterated “narcoterrorism” accusations, US officials have not presented evidence tying Maduro and other high-ranking officials to narcotics activities. Specialized reports have likewise found Venezuela to play a marginal role in global drug trafficking.

Following the January 3 attacks and presidential kidnapping, Rodríguez has fast-tracked a diplomatic rapprochement with the Trump administration. The acting president has hosted several US officials in Caracas while promoting a pro-business overhaul of the country’s oil and mining laws aimed at courting  Western corporations.

Caracas and Washington reestablished diplomatic ties on March 5 following a seven-year hiatus, with the White House formally recognizing Rodríguez as Venezuela’s “sole leader” last week. 

Since January 3, Venezuelan government supporters have staged multiple demonstrations to condemn the US attacks and demand the immediate release of the Venezuelan president and first lady. 

US-based solidarity movements have also organized rallies in support of Maduro and Flores, including outside the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn where they are detained.

Edited by Lucas Koerner in Fusagasugá, Colombia.

Katie Price appeared on Good Morning Britain on Monday, where she said no topic was ‘off limit’ during the bombshell interview

Katie Price appeared on Good Morning Britain on Monday to set the record straight on several details in her life, insisting no topic was ‘off limit’.

Katie, 47, recently left her family reeling when she announced she’d got hitched for the fourth time to businessman Lee Andrews, 43, who she had only known for a week. Her shocked mum and sister only found out after she announced the news on social media.

Since the reveal of her new relationship and marriage, the couple have been forced to hit back at a series of claims. Only recently, Katie spoke out to defend her husband Lee, hitting back at claims he’s a conman and insisting she has seen proof of his wealth.

Appearing on Monday’s Good Morning Britain, Katie encouraged hosts Susanna Reid and Ed Balls to grill her, insisting that no topic was ‘off limit’.

Real marriage date and Lee Andrews relationship

Katie said: “I’m doing really good. Really good. Really happy. I’m so excited to be here today for you to ask me anything you want”, adding: “The reason I say that is because there’s been so much speculation in the media, online, and no one can really hear my voice. So I’m glad I’ve got you guys. As you know, you can ask me anything.”

Talking about marrying Lee so quickly, she said: “Now, do you ever really know anyone? If you look at my past marriages, did I ever know they would be what they would be? And sometimes, I don’t think you can ever know who anyone is.”

She added: “So for me, I’ve gone through so much, as everyone knows, so much, so many different relationships. And I normally went from one to the other, to the other. And I recently, well, two years ago, I did relationships, healthy relationships”, adding that before then, she had always been in “toxic” relationships.

Katie continued: “But now, like two years ago, I now know signs of red flags. And you know, all of this, I’ve been there, done it. Now, I am older, I can make my own decisions. And there’s nothing to say that you have to wait for anything. So I’ve met Lee. It’s hard for anyone to understand.”

It was at this point that Katie revealed when she first met Lee, which was January, and when they got married, saying: “We got married two weeks ago. Although it looked like we did the ceremony in January, we did get engaged then.”

Meanwhile, over the weekend, Lee denied a claim that he sent a voice note begging for cash, days after Katie claimed she’s seen proof he’s a millionaire.

Lee has been accused of sending desperate voice notes of him begging for cash and complaining about surviving on 20 ready meals days before his lavish proposal to Katie in January and whirwild wedding. It has been claimed that in one voice note, Lee claims he’s “desperate” and “trying to survive”.

Lee has denied the claims in an Instagram post, simply commenting on a post making the claims: “This is not me”.

Meanwhile, Lee also took to his Instagram story to double down on claims that fake voice notes featuring his voice are circulating. He shared a screenshot of three Instagram accounts pretending to be him and wrote on top: “Warning Ignore the fake accounts and fake voice notes”.

This is a breaking showbiz story and is being constantly updated. Please refresh the page regularly to get the latest news, pictures and videos.You can also get email updates on the day’s biggest stories straight to your inbox by signing up for our newsletters.

Good Morning Britain continues on weekdays at 6am on ITV and ITV X.

For the latest showbiz, TV, movie and streaming news, go to the new **Everything Gossip** website.

The outgoing Director General for the BBC, Tim Davie, has spoken out in the defence of the licence fee, which has risen to a huge £15 a month, making it more expensive than multiple streaming services

The BBC is in “crisis,” departing Director General Tim Davie has said. The broadcaster has been criticised for its planned increase to the licence fee, which will rise to £180, from April 1.The increase, required by the 2022 Licence Fee Settlement, will rise by £5.50 for the year. This means a standard colour TV licence will now cost each home £15 a month, more than a subscription to various streaming platforms.

Speaking on The Rest Is Entertainment podcast, Davie insisted that the BBC – and other institutions – are certainly in “crisis”. He says: “Trust is built and I’m semi-obsessed by this – trust is built by people absolutely believing that someone is acting in their interest and that they listen to them. And if you think about an old-school broadcaster, it broadcasts….

“I think there have been too many instances where institutions and the BBC is definitely not exempt from this – where, call it what you will, metropolitan, a certain lens on life.”

According to Davie, as long as the BBC is providing value, then there should be no problems about an increase in the licence fee.

“We’re at a consultation phase, but we have set out a very clear preference which is and I would do this to the point about restarting where we’re at – I think there is a model which says: look, if we can deliver value for every household and really work at that, then everyone contributes fairly, and I think that is a model that’s worth fighting for,” he says.

“I don’t see it as something potentially trapped in the past. I actually think it could be something exciting for the future – quite enlightened. You don’t have to go exactly where the market is going currently. You have to make markets, and I think we can do that.”

The BBC have been hit by serious allegations that one of their Panorama documentaries misled viewers by editing a speech by Donald Trump. The BBC’s director general Tim Davie and head of news Deborah Turness both resigned in November.

It had been alleged in a leaked internal BBC memo that those working on the Panorama programme edited two parts of the speech together so that Trump appeared to explicitly encourage the Capitol Hill riot back in 2021. Trump has since launched a multi-billion dollar lawsuit against the BBC, which is scheduled to go to trial in February 2027.

He did not explicitly reference any specific errors the BBC had made under his tenure but he said the world was in an age of “weaponisation”, where the broadcaster was under strict scrutiny over one thing – but not referencing all the good work they’ve done.

“We’ve made mistakes, sometimes serious mistakes, which we regret. But weaponisation is selectively taking one fact – it may be a fact, so you’re standing on a fact – but what you’re not standing on is any effort to be proportionate,” he says.

“You’re not saying, look, a thousand stories run, we’re running, and one didn’t get it right, or overall this is where there’s no balance of data. It’s literally just selecting a fact to make a case.”

*Watch or listen to The Rest Is Entertainment however you get your podcasts.

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