files

City officials ask how thousands of sensitive LAPD files got leaked

In the aftermath of a recent data breach that saw hackers make off with a vast trove of confidential police records, Los Angeles leaders have sought an explanation from the city’s top lawyer, whose office was targeted.

What they have gotten so far, according to Councilmember Ysabel Jurado, are answers that only leave more questions.

In an interview, Jurado said she had expected City Atty. Hydee Feldstein Soto to appear before the Government Operations committee this week, but instead had received an internal report offering a “high level view” of the breach that left many key details unaddressed.

“When did the city attorney’s office become aware, what actions were taken, and why were city officials not notified promptly?” Jurado said. “Right now, we’re still left to question and trying to assemble the information.”

The Times reported the existence of the hack last week, prompting further scrutiny by public officials — some of whom, like Jurado, said they hadn’t previously been informed. Since then, The Times has reviewed an inventory of 337,000 files that were compromised.

The documents amount to millions of pages, and appear to mostly come from civil lawsuits against the city that have been resolved in court. They range in nature from trip-and-fall cases to police excessive force.

During a brief discussion at the council committee Tuesday morning, Jurado said she had received information that an internal link used by the city attorney’s office to access the files had been clicked at least 5,000 times on the first day of the breach, which is thought to have occurred sometime in March.

The files were not secured by a password, according to sources who spoke previously with The Times and requested anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the ongoing investigation. A senior police official last week assured the department’s civilian bosses, the Police Commission, that none of the department’s own systems had been compromised.

Jurado said she wanted answers for why and how the city had managed to leave exposed sensitive records, such as medical reports, autopsy photos and witness names.

“It’s just horrific to think that that was out there,” Jurado said.

The city attorney’s office responded to questions from The Times by referring to a public report issued April 17, which said a preliminary investigation indicated that “the incident was contained to that third-party environment, and that no other City applications, systems, or department records were accessed or affected.”

The report noted that the hackers teased “small samples” of the data on its dark web site over a week starting March 20, before publishing the whole thing on March 27. The data were taken down after about eight hours, and then reappeared again twice in early April, the report said.

In a separate letter to the police union, the office said it would begin notifying people whose information was compromised “without unreasonable delay.”

The inventory reviewed by The Times shows personnel files for LAPD officers who were accused of using excessive force against a Black military veteran during a traffic stop in 2021. Another file included the identities of witnesses who saw a man die after LAPD officers knelt on him during an arrest, the records reviewed by The Times showed.

Thousands of hours of uncut body camera footage were released. There were also medical records from thousands of cases in which police and other city employees were accused of misconduct. At least 1,060 of the files are labeled as confidential, the inventory says.

The city attorney’s office has said that it alerted senior LAPD officials and the city’s IT department as soon as they discovered the leak, and has in the weeks since been in regular contact with other city departments to assess the scope of the leak. The FBI has begun investigating the matter.

The situation has already cost Feldstein Soto, who is up for reelection, the endorsement of the powerful union for the LAPD’s rank-and-file officers, which withdrew its support after accusing the city attorney of failing to disclose the full extent of the breach.

The leak follows Feldstein Soto’s efforts to weaken the state’s public records law after the release of many police officer photos and other materials, which she demanded be returned.

Several attorneys whose cases were included in the list of compromised files told The Times they have not yet heard from city officials. Some said they could foresee the records leaked being used as justification to reopen old cases — or initiate new ones.

“I’m curious to know what exactly it is that the city attorney’s office had that they may not have disclosed to us in discovery,” Arnoldo Casillas, an attorney for the family of Eric Rivera, a 20-year-old man whose family sued after he was killed by police in Wilmington in 2017 and whose files are among those included in the leak, according to the inventory reviewed by The Times.

The case was later dismissed, but the family has filed an appeal.

Other attorneys whose lawsuits against the city and LAPD were listed among the hacked materials said they wanted to know exactly what was included in the files.

Robert Glassman, who successfully sued for $18 million last year on behalf of two elderly brothers who were badly injured when a speeding LAPD squad car broadsided their vehicle, said he also hadn’t heard from the city attorney’s office.

“You’d think that they would notify [the affected parties] and tell them that they’re working to get their information back,” he said.

Experts said similar cyberattacks on government offices across the country have shown it can take months or years for the dust to fully settle and the full scope of the damage to emerge.

James E. Lee, president of the Identity Theft Resource Center, a nonprofit organization that provides advice and assistance related to identity theft, said last year alone the center documented an all-time high of 3,322 hacks.

That’s almost certainly an undercount, given the number of cases that go undetected or unreported, Lee said. Of the recorded incidents, roughly 165 targeted government agencies — up from 47 in 2020, he said.

In the past, according to Lee, many attacks of government entities were carried out by state-sponsored actors, but the emergence of AI-powered hacking tools have allowed everyday people to carry off such incursions.

“They want data that they can repurpose: anything that’s going to have financial information, anything that’s going to have driver’s license information is going to be very valuable to them,” he said.

Matthew McNicholas, a lawyer who has represented many officers in their lawsuits against the city, said he has fielded numerous calls from clients worried their personnel and medical records were exposed.

The leaked records, the inventory shows, include a case in which McNicholas sued the city on behalf of a victim who said they’d been sexually molested as a minor by an employee at a city-run recreational center.

McNicholas said he is worried that the leak will expose the private information of police whistleblowers who came forward to reveal discrimination and other misconduct.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Source link

How sensitive LAPD files got leaked online — and what happens next

The disciplinary files of Los Angeles police officers are closely guarded secrets, protected by some of the nation’s strictest confidentiality laws.

But now, many of those secret files have been splashed across the internet, along with tens of thousands of other sensitive records from the L.A. city attorney’s office.

The extent of the data breach is still unclear, and city officials have said they are investigating to find out what was taken, who was responsible and how the city’s cybersecurity was compromised.

A ransomware hacking collective called WorldLeaks, which has gained a reputation for extorting private and public entities by threatening to disclose confidential files on the internet, has claimed responsibility.

The group first announced the breach on March 20. City and LAPD officials did not comment on whether the hackers requested a ransom in return for not releasing the information — or whether the city paid one. Some reports suggest that the group was behind a hack of L.A. Metro last month that forced it to shut down part of its transit network.

The Times spoke with several sources familiar with the investigation into the data breach who requested anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the case publicly, and reviewed a partial inventory of the leaked files, including screenshots of some materials.

Here’s what we know so far.

How did hackers get the LAPD files?

The hacking group appears to have exploited vulnerabilities in a system used by the Los Angeles city attorney’s office, enabling the group to make off with nearly 340,000 files, according to the sources familiar with the case.

In the wake of the George Floyd protests, the sources said, the city was flooded with dozens of lawsuits from protesters who had been injured by LAPD officers. To handle the deluge of new cases, the city created a file-sharing system so that attorneys on both sides could access discovery materials, including some considered private under court orders.

It was akin to Dropbox or Google Drive, the sources said, and access was supposed to be restricted to just authorized users.

But the system, according to two sources familiar with the investigation, was not password-protected because city officials believed that it needed to be accessible to other parties, including outside attorneys hired to assist with civil litigation.

The sources said the system expanded far beyond its initial scope and came to include records from hundreds of lawsuits involving the LAPD.

In a statement issued to The Times on Wednesday, Ivor Pine, a spokesperson for the city attorney’s office, described the hack as “unauthorized access to a third-party tool used by the City Attorney’s Office to transfer discovery to opposing counsel and litigants.”

How did the LAPD and city officials find out?

Few inside the LAPD knew about the extent of the leak until The Times published a story Tuesday revealing files that appeared online.

After the news broke on Tuesday, the department released a brief public statement acknowledging the disclosure of “discovery documents from previously adjudicated or settled LAPD civil litigation cases.” The department noted that the “breach does not involve any LAPD systems or networks.”

Pine said that once the city attorney’s office realized its file-sharing system was compromised, it “took immediate steps to secure the tool and investigate what information was accessed.”

“No other City applications or systems were involved in this incident,” Pine said. “The information was self contained in this application without any links or access to any department records or systems.”

What are the consequences of the massive leak?

The data breach could have political ramifications for embattled City Atty. Hydee Feldstein Soto, who is up for reelection.

Last week, she earned the endorsement of the powerful Los Angeles Police Protective League, which represents rank-and-file LAPD officers. But union officials contend that Feldstein Soto failed to mention the leaked documents to them until they learned of the hack Tuesday evening.

On Wednesday, the union issued a scathing statement.

“To say we are disappointed by the lack of urgency and forthrightness from the City Attorney’s office is an understatement,” the union’s statement said. “We will keep asking the tough questions and once we receive answers we will take appropriate action.”

Feldstein Soto’s challenger in the city attorney’s race, John McKinney, said the public deserves immediate answers.

“The lack of transparency isn’t just concerning, it’s unacceptable,” said McKinney, who currently leads the major crimes bureau at the L.A. County district attorney’s office. “By keeping the public in the dark, witnesses and Los Angeles Police Department families may have been put at risk.”

Lawyers for police officers reported numerous calls from clients worried their personnel and medical records were exposed, raising the prospect of more costly litigation. About 900 officers are currently suing the department over the 2023 release of mugshot-style images and other materials in response to a public records request.

How much information was snatched and what’s in it?

In all, according to posts about the data breach, 7.7 terabytes of information was available for download.

The LAPD statement described the files in the recent hack as coming from closed cases, but at least one of the files reviewed by The Times involved a lawsuit over an alleged sexual assault by a police officer that was set for trial next week.

Also disclosed were personnel files from dozens of current and former officers. Every officer’s personnel records are contained within a system called TEAMS II.

It is a detailed history that includes records on arrests they have made, training sessions they have attended, citizen complaints received against them and lawsuits they have been involved in, along with any history of traffic collisions, shootings or other uses of force, commendations, assignments, workers’ compensation claims and more.

Such records can be turned over as discovery in civil cases, but almost always under a protective order that restricts them from being shared publicly.

An untold number of internet users have downloaded the terabytes of data in the weeks since its release. What surfaces next remains to be seen.

Source link

Todd Bridges officially files to divorce Bettijo Hirschi

Todd Bridges has taken steps to make his split from Bettijo Hirschi official after announcing in January that he and his spouse had separated.

The former “Diff’rent Strokes” actor, 60, filed paperwork asking to end his marriage Tuesday in Arizona, Us Weekly reported Thursday. This will be the second divorce for both parties.

A representative for Bridges didn’t respond immediately to The Times’ request for confirmation and comment.

Bridges announced in January that he and Hirschi were heading their separate ways after getting married in 2022. At the time, he called the decision a “difficult” one for him.

“This was not an easy choice, and it comes with a heavy heart, but also with love and gratitude for the life we shared,” he said in a statement to The Times. “I thank God for the time we’ve had together, the lessons we’ve learned, and the family we’ve built. Even in this season of change, I trust He is guiding us both toward healing, peace, and new beginnings.”

Bridges said at the time that he would “continue to lift my former partner up in prayer, wishing them joy and fulfillment in the chapters ahead.”

The two met in January 2022; they married nine months later, after a brief engagement. Hirschi told Tamron Hall last year that a friend who wrote a new dating profile for her showed it to Bridges as “market research.” The friend then told Hirschi that Bridges wanted to get in touch.

“She’s a lot like my mom,” Bridges told Hall.

During a contentious spousal support dispute in 2025, Hirschi described the “Everybody Hates Chris” veteran as “semi-retired,” Us Weekly reported in February. The documents came as part of a battle Hirschi fought with first husband Heath Hirschi after marrying Bridges. At the time, Us said that Bettijo was claiming monthly expenses of around $16,550 and said Bridges made only “about $700” a month in 2024 unless he obtained “contract work.”

The Hirschis, who divorced in 2020, share four children, two of them minors, the outlet said. Heath Hirschi wanted out of paying $2,700 a month in spousal support payments after his ex married someone his legal team called a “well-known Hollywood actor.” Us said that in December 2025, the court revised the former couple’s agreement to $1,206 per month in child support, with $43,401.96 due for unpaid past support.

Bridges, meanwhile, has about a dozen acting credits since 2020, according to IMDb, which also says he worked on several new projects in various stages of production.

He also has two adult offspring: Daughter Bo is from a previous relationship with Amanda Rushing; he shares son Spencir, 27, with his first wife. Spencir Bridges was, like his dad, a child actor, with roles in the 2007 movie “Daddy Day Camp” and, in 2005, the TV series “ER.” Spencir’s most recent acting credits were in 2009 when he appeared in the series “iCarly” and in the TV movie “The Three Gifts.”

Todd Bridges is the last surviving original cast member of the hit sitcom “Diff’rent Strokes,” which ran from 1978 to 1986. Conrad Bain played Phillip Drummond, a wealthy Park Avenue businessman and father of Kimberly (Dana Plato). Drummond adopted sons Arnold (Gary Coleman) and Willis (Bridges), who were from Harlem. The character of housekeeper Edna Garrett, played by Charlotte Rae, was spun off in 1979 into a second hit series, “Facts of Life,” which ran until 1988.

Plato, who played Bain’s daughter Kimberly, died in 1999 from an overdose when she was 34. Bain died of natural causes in January 2013, at age 89, while Rae died in August 2018 at 92.

Gary Coleman died in May 2010 at age 42 after suffering a brain hemorrhage in an accidental fall at his home in Utah.

Source link

Musk’s path to $1 trillion: SpaceX files for IPO, reports say

A SpaceX IPO promises to be one of the biggest Wall Street events of the year, with several investment banks lining up to help raise tens of billions to fund Musk’s ambitions to establish a base on the Moon, place data centres the size of several football pitches into orbit, and possibly one day send a human to Mars.


ADVERTISEMENT


ADVERTISEMENT

The sources spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorised to discuss the confidential registration with the Securities and Exchange Commission publicly.

SpaceX did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Exactly how much SpaceX plans to raise has not been disclosed, but the figure is reportedly as high as $75bn (€65bn). At that level, the offering would easily surpass the $29bn (€25bn) raised by Saudi Aramco in its 2019 IPO.

The offering, which could come as early as June, may value SpaceX at around $1.5 trillion — nearly double its valuation in December, when some minority shareholders sold their stakes, according to research firm PitchBook, prior to an acquisition that increased the company’s size.

Musk currently owns about 42% of SpaceX, according to PitchBook, although that figure will change after the IPO as new shares are issued. In any case, he is likely to surpass the trillion-dollar mark, as he is already close. Forbes estimates Musk’s net worth at roughly $823 billion.

In addition to building reusable rockets to launch astronauts and equipment into orbit, SpaceX owns Starlink, the world’s largest satellite communications company. The company has also recently brought under its umbrella two other Musk businesses: social media platform X (formerly Twitter) and artificial intelligence firm xAI, in a controversial transaction, as both the buyer and seller were controlled by him.

SpaceX has become the leading commercial launch company in its industry, sending payloads into orbit for customers worldwide. However, it has also benefited from significant public funding, raising concerns about potential conflicts of interest, given that Musk was a major donor to President Donald Trump’s campaign and remains a strong supporter.

Over the past five years, SpaceX has secured $6bn (€5.2bn) in contracts from NASA, the Department of Defense and other US government agencies, according to USAspending.gov.

Among current SpaceX investors is Donald Trump Jr, the president’s eldest son, who owns shares through 1789 Capital. The venture capital firm made him a partner shortly after his father won a second term and has since invested in federal contractors seeking government business.

The White House and Trump have repeatedly denied any conflicts of interest between his role as president and his family’s business dealings.

Source link

Swalwell accuses Trump of trying to influence California governor’s race with old FBI files

Rep. Eric Swalwell, a leading Democratic candidate for governor of California, has accused President Trump of trying to sway the election following reports that FBI Director Kash Patel may release documents from a decade-old investigation into the congressman’s ties to a suspected Chinese spy.

According to a report by the Washington Post, Patel has directed agents in the bureau’s San Francisco office to redact the case files for public release. According to the outlet, it’s highly unusual for the FBI to release case files tied to a probe that did not result in criminal charges.

The investigation centered on Swalwell’s ties to a suspected intelligence operative, Christine Fang, or Fang Fang, who worked as a volunteer raising money for his congressional campaign. Swalwell cut off ties to Fang in 2015, after intelligence officials briefed him and other members of Congress about Chinese efforts to infiltrate the legislative body.

Swalwell was not accused of impropriety.

The FBI did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

“Through great reporting, we now know the outrageous ends the White House will go to target political opponents,” Swalwell said in a prepared statement Saturday, calling the decade-old story “nonsense.”

“Donald Trump is targeting me. He’s trying to influence the election,” Swalwell said in a post on X. “There is only one reason why: he’s scared.”

Swalwell accused Trump of “desperately trying” to stop him, because he’s now the favored candidate for California governor.

“What Trump wants the most is to have a Western White House. An enabler on the opposite coast,” he said. “A lot of people have bent the knee to this administration. But I will not. And neither will the people of California.”

It’s not the first time Swalwell has accused the administration of targeting Trump’s political opponents.

Last year, Swalwell sued Federal Housing Finance Agency Director Bill Pulte, accusing him of criminally misusing government databases to target Trump’s political opponents. Pulte had accused Swalwell of mortgage fraud and referred him to the Justice Department for a potential federal criminal probe. Swalwell dropped that suit this month.

Swalwell, a former prosecutor who ran for president in 2020, announced his bid for California governor in November. Swalwell said his decision was driven by the serious problems facing California and the threats posed to the state and nation with Trump in the White House.

U.S. Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), who has endorsed Swalwell for governor, shared the Post story on X Saturday, saying, “This abuse of the FBI is as dangerous as it is unlawful.” Schiff served with Swalwell on the House Intelligence Committee, where they riled Republicans by investigating President Trump during his first term.

Schiff served as the lead manager of Trump’s first impeachment and Swalwell as a manager of Trump’s second impeachment.

“Time and again, the President and his appointees have weaponized the Department of Justice against those who dare stand up to Trump,” Schiff wrote. He added that there was no doubt that Trump and Patel “will stop at nothing to try to tell Californians who their next governor should be.”

The Post story unleashed a flood of critiques from California politicians, including Rep. Jimmy Gomez (D-Los Angeles), who sits on the House Intelligence Committee. On X, Gomez accused Patel of “wasting resources” on a “closed, decade-old case where Swalwell cooperated with the FBI and was found innocent of any wrongdoing.”

“Reopening it now, right as he leads in the polls and ballots are about to drop, is a political hit-job!” Gomez said. “Trump and Kash Patel are weaponizing the FBI against people they deem political enemies.”

Rep. Jamie Raskin of Maryland, the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, released a statement accusing Patel of working at “the behest of the White House” and “wasting the resources of the FBI and perhaps violating the Hatch Act by ordering agents to spend hours preparing a political smear file for a personnel vendetta.”

According to the Associated Press, Fang came into contact with Swalwell’s campaign as he was first running for Congress in 2012. She also participated in fundraising for his 2014 campaign and helped place an intern in his office, the report said. Federal investigators alerted Swalwell to their concerns — and briefed Congress — about Fang in 2015, at which point the California Democrat says he cut off contact with her, the AP reported in 2021.

In 2023, the House Ethics Committee closed a two-year investigation into the allegations of his ties to Fang.

In closing the probe, the ethics committee wrote in a letter to Swalwell that it had “previously reviewed allegations of improper influence by foreign agents and in doing so, cautioned that Members should be conscious of the possibility that foreign governments may attempt to secure improper influence through gifts and other interactions.”

Times staff writer Kevin Rector contributed to this report.

Source link

EastEnders icon Himesh Patel to star in X Files reboot after launching film career

The former EastEnders star has been cast in the reboot of The X Files, which has been greenlit by American streaming powerhouse Hulu

Former EastEnders star Himesh Patel has landed a significant role in the highly anticipated reboot of The X Files.

The 35-year-old, who first captured the nation’s hearts as a youngster on the popular BBC soap portraying Tamwar Masood in Albert Square, is now setting off on a completely different adventure.

He has been cast in Ryan Coogler’s reboot pilot of The X Files, which American streaming giant Hulu gave the go-ahead to last month. Himesh will appear alongside BAFTA-nominated actress Danielle Deadwyler, playing two ‘vastly different’ FBI agents.

Danielle, 43, boasts an impressive array of accolades, particularly for her compelling portrayal of Mamie Till-Mobley in Till. She was nominated for the Best Actress in a Leading Role award at the 2023 BAFTA Film and TV awards, reports OK!.

According to a logline by Variety, the reboot focuses on: “Two highly decorated but vastly different FBI agents (Deadwyler, Patel) form an unlikely bond when they are assigned to a long-shuttered division devoted to cases involving unexplained phenomena.”

The publication also confirms that both stars will portray entirely new characters, rather than reimagined versions of Fox Mulder and Dr. Dana Scully, according to the Daily Mail. David Duchovny and Gillian Anderson brought those iconic roles to life across 11 series.

Original creator Chris Carter is returning as executive producer, while Jennifer Yale (The Copenhagen Test) has been appointed as showrunner. Meanwhile, Coogler is scheduled to write, direct and produce, drawing inspiration from his mother’s fondness for the original series.

This marks another collaboration between Himesh and Danielle, having previously worked together on the 2021 miniseries Station Eleven.

Himesh left EastEnders in 2016 after his character ran away with then-girlfriend Nancy Carter. Two years later, he shot to international fame by securing the lead role in Yesterday, which became his breakthrough film.

In 2024, Himesh disclosed that struggling with acne while working on EastEnders as a teenager ‘felt like the worst thing in the world‘.

Speaking openly to British GQ Hype, the actor looked back on his remarkable career journey, including his early years on the legendary soap.

He told the publication: “I’ve been doing this since I was 16, When you’re a teenager and you have acne, it’s the worst thing in the world.

“But then when you’ve got acne in front of millions of people every week in EastEnders, it’s a whole other thing. ‘It was rough. You just kind of feel defective because you’re surrounded by actors. Everyone gets spots, but I just felt the pressure.”

The X-Files is available to stream on Disney+.

Source link

DOJ files suit against Harvard for failing to protect Jewish students

The President Donald Trump administration has filed suit against Harvard University, claiming it didn’t protect Jewish Students during protests against Israel starving Palestinians. File Photo CJ Gunther/EPA

March 20 (UPI) — The U.S. Justice Department sued Harvard University on Friday, accusing the Ivy League school of failing to protect Jewish students in the wake of the war in Israel and Gaza.

Filed in Boston, the lawsuit said Harvard allowed a “hostile education environment” for Jewish students who were physically assaulted and harassed. Protests sparked at Harvard and other U.S. college campuses after the start of the Oct. 7, 2023, war.

“The United States cannot and will not tolerate these failures and brings this action to compel Harvard to comply with Title VI, and to recover billions of dollars of taxpayer subsidies to a discriminatory institution,” the lawsuit read, referencing a federal law banning discrimination based on race, color or national origin in programs receiving federal funds.

Harvard denied the allegations laid out in the lawsuit, saying it has taken steps to embrace and respect Jewish and Israeli students on campus.

“Harvard has taken substantive, proactive steps to address the root causes of anti-Semitism and actively enforces anti-harassment and anti-discrimination rules and policies on campus,” a statement from the school said.

“We also have enhanced training and education on anti-Semitism for students, faculty and staff, and launched programs to promote civil dialogue and respectful disagreement inside and outside the classroom.

“Harvard’s efforts demonstrate the very opposite of deliberate indifference.”

The administration has actively targeted Harvard since President Donald Trump took office in 2025. Trump’s official grievance against the university is that he claims the school failed to protect Jewish students during protests against Israel during the war that began in 2023.

In February, the Justice Department sued Harvard for failing to hand over admissions documents for an investigation about whether the admission process discriminates against white people. Earlier in February, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth announced that the Pentagon would end its academic partnership with Harvard over what he called a “woke” institution that is not welcoming to the U.S. military.

On Feb. 3, Trump said he was now seeking $1 billion in damages from Harvard but didn’t explain why.

“We are now seeking One Billion Dollars in damages, and want nothing further to do, into the future, with Harvard University,” Trump said on Truth Social.

On Dec. 19, the administration filed an appeal against a judge who blocked his order to cut funding by $2 billion.

President Donald Trump presents the Commander in Chief’s Trophy to the Navy Midshipmen football team during a ceremony in the East Room of the White House on Friday. The award is presented annually to the winner of the football competition between the Navy, Air Force and Army. Navy has won the trophy back to back years and 13 times over the last 23 years. Photo by Bonnie Cash/UPI | License Photo

Source link

‘Mormon Wives’: Jessi Draper’s husband files for divorce

In a week rife with drama involving “The Secret Lives of Mormon Wives” cast, two stars of the hit reality series appear to be going their separate ways officially.

Jessi Draper and Jordan Ngatikaura’s marriage is coming to an end after five years, with the latter filing for divorce in Utah, according to TMZ, which cited court documents. The estranged pair married in October 2020 and share two children. Ngatikaura is also the father to a teenage daughter from a previous relationship.

A representative for Draper did not immediately respond to a request for comment Friday. Ngatikaura, who also did not respond to The Times’ request for comment, issued a statement about his filing to TMZ and People.

He told the outlets his decision to divorce Draper “comes with a heavy heart” and said he is grateful for their time together. Ngatikaura plans to prioritize his children, “ensuring they feel loved, supported, and protected through this transition,” according to People. He said in his statement that he is seeking privacy for his family.

Before Ngatikaura’s divorce filing, the pair’s marital struggles had become public. In November, Draper broke her silence on allegations she had cheated on Ngatikaura and admitted to having an “emotional affair” with “Vanderpump Villa” star Marciano Brunette. At the time, Draper spoke to People about the “emotional abuse” she said she faced from her husband — he took “full accountability for the pain I caused Jessi” — and said, “We both made mistakes for sure.”

The spouses had agreed to a 90-day separation and to work things out together in therapy, People reported last year.

News of the “Secret Lives of Mormon Wives” divorce comes as the franchise reckons with star Taylor Frankie Paul, who faces new allegations of domestic abuse against her on-again, off-again partner Dakota Mortensen. Paul, who was arrested and charged in 2023 for a separate dispute involving Mortensen, was tapped to lead the latest season of “The Bachelorette” set to premiere Sunday, but that all came to a screeching halt earlier this week.

As Utah’s Draper City Police Department confirmed it was investigating alleged incidents of domestic violence involving Paul and Mortensen, TMZ published video Thursday of Paul kicking and throwing chairs at Mortensen in a 2023 dispute while one of her children was in the same room. ABC, home network of “The Bachelor” and “The Bachelorette,” acted swiftly and pulled the plug on Paul’s upcoming season.

“In light of the newly released video just surfaced today, we have made the decision to not move forward with the new season of ‘The Bachelorette’ at this time, and our focus is on supporting the family,” Disney said in a statement Thursday.

“Taylor is very grateful for ABC’s support as she prioritizes her family’s safety and security,” read a portion of a statement provided by a representative for Paul. The statement went on to say Paul had suffered “extensive mental and physical abuse as well as threats of retaliation.”

Amid the fresh allegations, Paul has seen brand deals fall to the wayside and production on “Mormon Wives” pause pending a decision on her status as a cast member, according to a person briefed on the situation.

Times staff writer Yvonne Villarreal contributed to this report.

Source link

Democrats storm out of Justice Department leaders’ briefing on the Epstein files

Democratic lawmakers on Wednesday stormed out of a closed-door briefing on the Jeffrey Epstein files by Justice Department leaders, and said they would push to force Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi to answer questions under oath about the case that has plagued the Trump administration.

Bondi and Deputy Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche went to Capitol Hill to try to quell bipartisan frustration over the Justice Department’s handling of millions of files related to Epstein’s sex trafficking investigation.

But less than an hour into the briefing, Democrats walked out in protest of the arrangement and said they would press to enforce a subpoena for Bondi to appear for a sworn deposition next month.

“We want her under oath because we do not trust her,” said Democratic Rep. Maxwell Frost.

Asked by reporters after the briefing whether she would comply with the subpoena, Bondi said, “I made it crystal clear I will follow the law.” She also defended the department’s handling of the Epstein files, saying officials are proud of their work to release millions of documents to the public.

The committee’s Republican chairman, Rep. James Comer, accused Democrats of political grandstanding.

“This for us, for the Republicans, it’s about getting answers,” Comer said after the briefing. “For the Democrats, it’s a political game, and they just demonstrated that today. There’s no reason for them to walk out and clutch their pearls and act like they were offended and outraged.”

Justice Department leaders had hoped the release of documents tied to the disgraced financier would put an end to a political saga that has dogged the president’s second term, but the agency remains consumed by questions and criticism over Epstein’s case and its management of the files. Bondi has accused Democrats of using the furor over the documents to distract from Trump’s political successes, even though some of the most vocal criticism has come from members of the president’s own party.

Five Republicans on the committee voted with Democrats to support the subpoena for Bondi to appear for a deposition on April 14. Lawmakers have accused the Justice Department of withholding too many files and criticized the agency for haphazard redactions that exposed intimate details about victims.

The Justice Department has called the subpoena “completely unnecessary,” noting that members of Congress have been invited to view unredacted files at the Justice Department and that department leaders have made themselves available to answer questions from lawmakers.

The department has sought to assure lawmakers and the public that there has been no effort to shield President Trump, who says he cut ties with Epstein years ago after an earlier friendship, or any other high-profile figures close to Epstein from potential embarrassment. Justice Department leaders have also rejected suggestions that they have ignored victims and insist that while there is no evidence in the files to prosecute anyone else, they remain committed to investigating should new information come forward.

“I’m not trying to defend Epstein — I’m not,” Blanche said in an interview this week with Katie Miller, who is married to top Trump advisor Stephen Miller. “I do defend the work that this department is doing today, right now, which is going after every single perpetrator anyway, and if there is a narrative that exists that we are ignoring Epstein victims, that is false.”

The documents were disclosed under the Epstein Files Transparency Act, the law enacted after months of public and political pressure that requires the government to open its files on the late financier and his confidant and onetime girlfriend, Ghislaine Maxwell. Maxwell, 64, was convicted in December 2021 and sentenced to 20 years in prison for her role over a decade in sexually exploiting and abusing underage girls with Epstein.

Criminal investigations into the financier have long animated online sleuths, conspiracy theorists and others who have suspected government cover-ups and clamored for a full accounting.

After missing a Dec. 19 deadline set by Congress to release all the files, the Justice Department said it tasked hundreds of lawyers with reviewing the records to determine what needed to be redacted, or blacked out. The Justice Department in January said it was releasing more than 3 million pages of documents along with more than 2,000 videos and 180,000 images.

Richer and Groves write for the Associated Press.

Source link

Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi subpoenaed to answer questions from Congress about the Epstein files

Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi was subpoenaed Tuesday to answer questions from Congress about the Justice Department’s sex trafficking investigation of Jeffrey Epstein and the agency’s handling of millions of files related to the disgraced financier.

Bondi was ordered to appear for a deposition on April 14 by the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform after a vote earlier this month that five Republicans supported.

The Justice Department’s failure to fend off the subpoena from the Republican-led committee underscores widespread discontent among President Trump’s own base over Bondi’s management of the review and release of a trove of documents from the criminal investigation into Epstein.

“The Committee has questions regarding the Department of Justice’s handling of the investigation into Jeffrey Epstein and his associates and its compliance with the Epstein Files Transparency Act,” Rep. James Comer, the Republican chairman, said in a letter to Bondi.

“As Attorney General, you are directly responsible for overseeing the Department’s collection, review, and determinations regarding the release of files pursuant to the Epstein Files Transparency Act, and the Committee therefore believes that you possess valuable insight into these efforts,” he wrote.

The department on Tuesday called the subpoena “completely unnecessary.” Bondi and Deputy Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche were expected to provide a private briefing Wednesday to members of the committee.

“Lawmakers have been invited to view the unredacted files for themselves at the Department of Justice, and the Attorney General has always made herself available to speak directly with members of Congress,” the department said in a statement. The agency said it looks forward to “continuing to provide policymakers with the facts.”

The Trump administration has faced constant political headaches since the rollout of the files began in December, with critics accusing the department of hiding certain documents and over-redacting files. In other cases, victims have slammed the department for sloppy redactions that revealed their sensitive information.

The Justice Department has fiercely defended its handling of the Epstein files, saying it worked as quickly and diligently as possible to review and release millions of documents required under the law. The department has denied any accusations that it used redactions to protect certain people or improperly withheld certain materials. And it has said it immediately worked to fix any redaction errors raised by victims.

Richer writes for the Associated Press.

Source link

Britain releases files on Epstein probe about ex-ambassador to U.S.

March 11 (UPI) — The British Cabinet Office has released files from its investigation into former ambassador to the United States Peter Mandelson on Wednesday as it digs into his ties to deceased sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein.

The first batch of documents revealed that Mandelson may have been briefed on classified information before being given security clearance when he was appointed as ambassador. They also show that he requested a large government payout when he was terminated last year.

Mandelson was arrested and then released last month in London over suspicion of misconduct in public office. The allegation stems from emails released in the Epstein files in which Mandelson appears to be sharing market-sensitive confidential information with Epstein.

Documents released by the Cabinet Office share some details after his appointment as ambassador in December 2024. Within days of his being appointed, the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office offered to brief Mandelson on highly classified information while he was still being vetted.

Emails about the briefing were shared Dec. 23, 2024, about three days after the announcement of Mandelson’s appointment. It was not until Jan. 30, 2025, that Mandelson received an email confirming that he had cleared the vetting process.

It was in this email that he received a formal offer of employment.

When Mandelson was terminated from his position in September, he requested to be paid the full amount on his contract — more than 500,000 euros or $578,625. Instead, he was paid 75,000 euros or $86,793.75 to terminate the contract.

“As the documents show regarding his severance payment, Peter Mandelson initially requested a sum that was substantially larger than the final payment, not just two or even three times, but more than six times the final amount,” said Darren Jones, chief secretary to the prime minister at the Cabinet office.

“Despite the fact that he was withdrawn from Washington because he had lost the confidence of the prime minister, the government obviously found that to be inappropriate and unacceptable.”

Source link

Senators seek review of Trump administration handling of Epstein files

March 11 (UPI) — A bipartisan group of senators penned a letter to the Government Accountability Office on Wednesday calling for an investigation into the Justice Department over its handling of the Jeffrey Epstein files release.

The letter accuses the Justice Department of noncompliance with the Epstein Files Transparency Act, the bipartisan law overwhelmingly passed by both chambers of Congress last year. The lawmakers shared concern that the department has still not released all of the files it is required to by the law, despite a December deadline.

Sens. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., Ben Ray Lujan, D-N.M., Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., and Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, signed the letter. They also shared concerns about the files that have been released, including victims’ names not being redacted and alleged coconspirators’ names being redacted.

The Government Accountability Office is an independent and nonpartisan agency in the legislative branch. Its purpose is to operate as a watchdog over the federal government, with the authority to investigate and perform audits.

“Contrary to Congress’s explicit directive to protect victims, these records included email addresses and nude photos in which the names and faces of publicly-identified and non-public victims could be identified,” the letter said. “But when it came to information identifying powerful business and political figures who are alleged coconspirators or material witnesses, DOJ appears to have heavily redacted those.”

The senators are requesting that Comptroller General Orice Williams Brown reviews the department’s process it used to review, redact and release the files. They specify that they want the Government Accountability Office to investigate whether the release of the files “has serve to cover up child sexual abuse.”

The Epstein files have continued to be a source of contention between lawmakers and the Trump administration more than two months after the Justice Department was required by law to release the files.

Lawmakers have pushed for answers about the delayed and mistake-filled release from Attorney General Pam Bondi, leading to fiery exchanges in a House Judiciary Committee hearing last month.

The House Oversight Committee issued a subpoena for Bondi’s testimony last week. Five Republicans joined all of the Democrats in the committee in voting for the subpoena.

“This horrific scandal is one where powerful, wealthy men groomed, abused, and raped young women, men, and children,” the letter from the senators reads. “It is critical to understand what led to DOJ’s failure to redact the victims; information and re-victimize those individuals while violating the Epstein Files Transparency Act in its redactions of information related to their alleged abusers.”

Source link