frustrated

Karen Hauer has hit back at the judges after her Argentine tango split the panel on last week’s heat of Strictly Come Dancing where she set an Argentine tango to an Usher track

Karen Hauer has hit back at the judges after her Argentine tango split the panel on last week’s Strictly Come Dancing. The professional dancer, 43, crafted a routine set to Usher track Caught Up and it received a mixed reaction from Shirley Ballas, Craig Revel Horwood, Motsi Mabuse and Anton Du Beke.

During an appearance with celebrity partner Harry Aikines-Aryeetey, who is known for starring on BBC’s Gladiators, on Friday’s Halloween edition of It Takes Two, Karen was asked if she will be avoiding the dance from now on. She joked: “”Probably! That’s fine.”

The star then insisted that she really enjoyed doing it and she ‘got the assignment‘ and did what she was asked to do even though it is ‘a shame’ how it all turned out.

READ MORE: Claudia Winkleman’s horrific Halloween as daughter’s dress caught fireREAD MORE: Amber Davies faces major blow as family set to miss rest of Strictly journey

She added: “No, do you know what? I absolutely loved that and it’s just a shame sometimes. If you want me to do an Argentine classical, then give me the music and I’ll do it. I got the assignment!”

“That was the assignment! Literally. I was just a bit like…we had a really beautiful balance. The judges have a really hard job to do, I just wish they liked it!”

During the live show, Craig claimed that the couple, who eventually received a combined score of 30 for their efforts. seemed to simply be ‘walking’ the routine. He said: “I felt like you were walking through it, standing, placing, standing, placing and not actually dancing step to step.

“And I wasn’t entirely fond of throwing all the groove stuff in there.”

But Harry was not afraid to hit back at the comments as they happened. He said: “I was given a task to do an Argentine tango to Usher. I took it on, I done it to the best of my ability and that’s all I can do.” The dance was all done as part of Icons week, and big music names like Dolly Parton, Spice Girls and Johnny Cash were also honoured, amongst a whole host of others.

Fans at home rushed to social media to defend Harry and Karen amid the negative feedback. One said: “Why have an Icons week, make the celebs dance to music that’s not really suited to the dance then criticise them for bringing a bit of the icon’s style into the dance? Bal and Harry especially.”

Another said: “what are they even talking about obviously an argentine tango to USHER is gna be a little different #Strictly” and a third added: “I dont get the “whyd you add groove/ bump n grind” comments… you gave the guy Usher to mimic?? with an argentine tango?? so like what was he supposed to do.”

Harry has already had a taste of Strictly before making his debut as a contestant on this year’s series. He appeared on last year’s Christmas special where he was partnered with professional dancer Nancy Xu.

The sports star bagged one of the highest scores in the episode but lost to RuPaul’s Drag Race UK star Tayce, who had danced with Kai Widdrington.

Announcing his return for the new series, Harry Aikines-Aryeetey said: “After the Christmas Special, it was so nice I just had to do it twice! I’m so excited to be part of the Strictly family this series and I’m ready to give it all I’ve got.

“I’ll be bringing tons of energy to light up the dance floor. Let’s hope I’m as quick picking up the routines as I am on the track.”

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

WASHINGTON — A president looking to seize power beyond the executive branch. A Congress controlled by Republican lawmakers unwilling to directly defy him. And a minority party looking for any way to fight back.

The dynamic left Washington in a stalemate Thursday — the ninth day of the government shutdown — and lawmakers openly venting their frustration as they tried to gain traction without the trust that is typically the foundation of any bipartisan deal.

“To have good-faith conversations, you have to have trust. There’s a real challenge of trust,” said Rep. Brad Schneider, chair of the New Democratic Coalition, a pragmatic group of House Democrats.

Groups of lawmakers — huddled over dinners, on phone calls, and in private meetings — have tried to brainstorm ways out of the standoff that has shuttered government offices, kept hundreds of thousands of federal employees at home and threatened to leave them without a scheduled payday. But lawmakers have found themselves running up against the reality that the relationship between the two parties is badly broken.

The frustration was evident this week as House Speaker Mike Johnson and House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries, on separate occasions, engaged in tense exchanges in the Capitol hallways with members of the opposing party.

“We’re in an environment where we need more than a handshake,” said Sen. Chris Coons, a Delaware Democrat who has engaged in talks with Republicans.

President Trump and Republicans have so far held to the stance that they will only negotiate on Democratic demands around health care benefits after they vote to reopen the government. They also say Senate Democratic leader Charles E. Schumer is beholden to the left wing of his party and only staging the shutdown fight to stave off a primary challenge.

Schumer, a New York Democrat, told Punchbowl News in an interview that Democrats were winning the shutdown fight, saying, “Every day gets better for us.”

Republicans quickly seized on those comments, arguing it showed that Schumer is approaching the shutdown with purely political motives.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune stood on the Senate floor flanked by a poster printed with Schumer’s words.

“This isn’t a political game. Democrats might feel that way, but I don’t know anybody else that does,” said Thune, a South Dakota Republican. “The longer this goes on, the more the American people realize that Democrats own this shutdown.”

Schumer, in his own floor speech, responded that it was Trump and Republicans who are “playing with people’s lives.”

“Every day that Republicans refuse to negotiate to end this shutdown, the worse it gets for Americans and the clearer it becomes who is fighting for them,” said the New York senator.

When a handshake deal is not enough

Democrats have insisted they can’t take Trump at his word and therefore need more than a verbal commitment for any deal.

Conflicts over spending power had already been raging before the shutdown as the White House pushed to assert maximum power over congressionally approved budgets. The White House budget office had canceled scores of government contracts, including cutting out the legislative branch entirely with a $4.9 billion cut to foreign aid in August through a legally dubious process known as a “pocket rescission.”

That enraged Democrats — and disturbed some Republicans who criticized it as executive overreach.

“I hate rescissions, to be honest with you, unless they’re congressionally approved,” said Sen. Thom Tillis, a North Carolina Republican.

Matt Glassman, a fellow at the Government Affairs Institute at Georgetown University, said the president’s use of rescissions was “blowing up the underlying dynamic of the bargaining” because it inserts intense partisanship into the budget appropriations process that otherwise requires compromise, particularly in the Senate.

Then, as the government entered a shutdown, Trump’s budget director Russ Vought laid out arguments that the president would have even more power to lay off workers and even cancel pay due to furloughed federal workers once the funding lapse is solved. Vought has also announced that the administration was withholding billions of dollars for infrastructure projects in states with Democratic senators who have voted for the shutdown.

Trump has cast Vought’s actions as the consequences of Democratic obstruction, even sharing a video that depicted him as the grim reaper. But on Capitol Hill, there has been an acknowledgment that the hardball tactics are making it harder to negotiate.

“I think with senators, carrots work better than sticks,” said Sen. Kevin Cramer, a North Dakota Republican.

One Democratic idea may win GOP support

Before they vote to reopen the government, Democrats’ main demand is that Congress take up an extension of tax credits for health plans offered on Affordable Care Act marketplaces. Trump has sounded open to a deal, saying that he wants “great health care” for Americans.

What’s received less attention is that Democrats also want new safeguards in the law limiting the White House’s ability to claw back, or rescind, funding already approved by Congress. While final appropriations bills are still being worked out, Republicans have been open to the idea.

“When you end the shutdown and get back to regular order within the appropriations bills, there’s very clear language about how we feel about rescissions,” said Sen. Mike Rounds, a Republican on the Senate Appropriations Committee. “I think you’ll find hard, solid support from Republicans to see that what we agree to will be executed on.”

In the meantime, the main sticking point for lawmakers this week has been finding any agreement on extending the health care subsidies.

The consequences of an extended shutdown

As the shutdown drags on without sign of significant progress to ending the impasse, lawmakers are looking ahead to the dates when federal employees will miss a payday.

Active-duty military troops would miss a paycheck on Oct. 15. Some lawmakers are getting nervous about both the financial implications for the troops and the political blowback of allowing soldiers to go without pay.

As House Speaker Mike Johnson fielded questions on C-SPAN Thursday morning, one caller pleaded with him to pass legislation that would allow the military to get paid during the government shutdown.

The woman, identified as Samantha, said her husband serves in the military and that they “live paycheck to paycheck.”

She pleaded with Johnson to call the House back to Washington, saying, “You could stop this.”

Johnson said he was sorry to hear about her situation, blamed Democrats for refusing to pass a stop-gap spending bill and added, “I am angry because of situations just like yours.”

Groves, Jalonick and Brown write for the Associated Press. AP writers Lisa Mascaro, Kevin Freking and Joey Cappelletti contributed to this report.

As Russian President Vladimir Putin prepares for a summit in Alaska with his United States counterpart Donald Trump, he can draw on his experiences from 48 previous meetings with American presidents.

Over 25 years as Russia’s leader, Putin has met and worked with five US presidents: Bill Clinton, George W Bush, Barack Obama, Trump and Joe Biden.

While some of the earlier meetings were relatively warm, reflecting the hopes of US-Russia friendship between the end of the Cold War and the early 2000s, most of Putin’s more recent interactions — especially with Obama and Biden — have been frostier, as bilateral ties have worsened.

Here’s a recap of some of the key moments from those past meetings, and how jazz concerts and fishing trips gave way to threats.

June 2000: Putin-Clinton

Less than three months after he formally became president of Russia, Putin hosted US President Clinton in Moscow. The Russian leader took Clinton on a tour of the Kremlin, after which a Russian jazz group performed for them.

Clinton congratulated Putin on Russia’s decision to ratify two arms control treaties. “President Yeltsin led Russia to freedom. Under President Putin, Russia has the chance to build prosperity and strength, while safeguarding that freedom and the rule of law,” Clinton said, referring to Boris Yeltsin, Putin’s predecessor as president.

Putin, on his part, described the US as “one of our main partners”. Moscow, he said, would never again seek confrontation with Washington. “Never. We are for cooperation. We are for coming to agreement on problems that might arise,” he said.

But Clinton acknowledged their differences over Chechnya, where Russian forces had launched a major war the previous year, after a series of apartment blasts in Russia killed more than 300 people. Moscow blamed Chechen separatists for the explosions.

The Moscow meeting was the first of four between Putin and Clinton in 2000, the others on the margins of multilateral events, before the US president left office in January the following year.

November 2001: Putin-Bush

After the September 11 attacks, Putin was the first world leader to call then-US President Bush and offer support. Two months later, Bush hosted Putin at his Crawford, Texas ranch, optimism about ties dripping from his words.

“When I was in high school, Russia was an enemy. Now the high school students can know Russia as a friend; that we’re working together to break the old ties, to establish a new spirit of cooperation and trust so that we can work together to make the world more peaceful,” Bush said. Bush drove Putin in a pick-up truck to a waterfall on the ranch.

But by the time they met in Russia in November 2002, US-led efforts for NATO expansion had injected unease into the relationship.

July 2007: Putin-Bush

By this point, the US invasion of Iraq in 2003 had amplified tensions between the two countries. But despite differences, Bush continued to maintain a warm personal relationship with Putin, whom he hosted at his parents’ home in Kennebunkport, Maine.

Both acknowledged areas where their views diverged, but they each credited the other with transparency.

Bush took Putin fishing. The Russian president was the only one who caught a fish on that trip – it was set free, Putin said.

April 2008: Putin-Bush

The final meeting between Bush and Putin as presidents took place in Sochi, Russia, and was focused on US plans to expand a missile defence system in Europe that Russia was opposing.

There was no breakthrough – the two leaders agreed to disagree.

But their personal rapport appeared intact. Bush met Putin 28 times in total. He only met British Prime Minister Tony Blair more.

July 2009: Putin-Obama

Putin was now prime minister, with ally Dmitry Medvedev the Russian president.

US President Obama met Putin during a visit to Moscow. By now, differences had grown over Russia’s invasion of Georgia in 2008, which the US had opposed.

“We may not end up agreeing on everything, but I think that we can have a tone of mutual respect and consultation that will serve both the American people and the Russian people well,” Obama told Putin.

June 2013: Putin-Obama

As Obama met Putin on the margins of the G8 summit in Northern Ireland — Russia had been added to the grouping in 1998 and was expelled in 2014 after its annexation of Crimea — their frustration with each other was visible in an awkward photo that made headlines.

The US and its allies wanted then-Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to quit amid the civil war in that country, but Russia was backing him.

“With respect to Syria, we do have differing perspectives on the problem, but we share an interest in reducing the violence; securing chemical weapons and ensuring that they’re neither used nor are they subject to proliferation,” Obama said.

November 2016: Putin-Obama

By the time Obama and Putin met for the ninth and final time at the APEC Summit in Peru, there was no pretence of bonhomie.

Russia had accused the US of engineering a coup against its ally and former Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych in 2014. The US and its allies had imposed sanctions against Russia over its annexation of Crimea.

Putin and Obama spoke for barely four minutes on the sidelines of the summit, with the US president asking his Russian counterpart to stick to his commitments under the Minsk agreements that were meant to bring peace to Ukraine.

July 2018: Putin-Trump

A year and a half into his first presidency, Trump’s victory in the 2016 US presidential election was still clouded by accusations that Russia had interfered in the election on his behalf when he met Putin in Helsinki.

The two met alone, with only interpreters. In a media interaction after that, Putin tried to recast the relationship in optimistic hues. “The Cold War is a thing of past,” he said, before listing a series of modern challenges facing the world — from an environmental crisis to terrorism. “We can only cope with these challenges if we join the ranks and work together. Hopefully, we will reach this understanding with our American partners.”

But it was Trump who made headlines. After he acknowledged that he had discussed the allegations of election interference with Putin, Trump was asked whether he believed US intelligence agencies that had concluded that Moscow had intervened in the vote.

“I have great confidence in my intelligence people, but I will tell you that President Putin was extremely strong and powerful in his denial today,” Trump said. “He just said it’s not Russia. I will say this: I don’t see any reason why it would be.”

Trump met Putin six times in all in his first term.

June 2021: Putin-Biden

US President Joe Biden flew to Geneva for his only face-to-face meeting with Putin.

After years of steady deterioration, relations had reached their nadir after Biden had described Putin as a killer in March, prompting Russia to withdraw its ambassador from Washington. The US had followed.

The Geneva meeting helped reset ties – a bit. Both countries agreed to reappoint ambassadors.

But Biden was also blunt with Putin about US concerns over Russian election interference and cyberattacks, and said he had, in effect, threatened Moscow that Washington could launch tit-for-tat cyberstrikes.

Russia by then was building up its troop presence along the border with Ukraine, a key source of stress in ties with the US that came up during the Putin-Biden meeting.

Eight months later, Russia would launch a fully fledged invasion of Ukraine, marking the start of Europe’s largest war since World War II — a war Trump says he wants to end through the summit in Alaska on August 15.

United States Secretary of State Marco Rubio met with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov for a second time in two days on Friday, with the war in Ukraine the focal point of their huddle. They had met for 50 minutes on the sidelines of the ASEAN summit in Malaysia on Thursday.

While campaigning for re-election, US President Donald Trump had promised to end the war in Ukraine within 24 hours of taking office.

But more than four months later, the prospects of a ceasefire appear as remote as ever, with Russia launching a fierce bombardment of Ukraine in recent days.

After the Thursday meeting, Rubio told reporters that Trump was  “disappointed and frustrated that there’s not been more flexibility on the Russian side” to bring an end to the war in Ukraine.

So has Trump’s view of the war changed – and what are his next options?

Has Trump’s position on Russia shifted?

Rubio’s comments come at a time when Trump has increasingly been publicly critical of Putin, after previously accusing Ukraine of not wanting peace.

“We get a lot of b******t thrown at us by Putin. He’s very nice all the time, but it turns out to be meaningless,” Trump said on Tuesday.

Since February, the US has held separate talks with Russia and Ukraine, and brokered direct talks between them in May in Istanbul for the first time since the early months of Russia’s full-fledged invasion in 2022.

But while Putin has offered brief pauses in fighting, he has not accepted the US proposal for an unconditional 30-day ceasefire. Ukraine has accepted that proposal. Russia argues that Ukraine could use the truce to remobilise troops and rearm itself.

When asked by reporters this week whether he would act on his frustration with Putin, Trump responded: “I wouldn’t be telling you. Don’t we want to have a little surprise?”

However, experts caution against concluding that Trump was ready to act tough against Russia.

“Western media is full of commentary on what it calls Trump‘s ‘changing stance’ on Putin. But as yet, there is no reason to think that anything has changed at all,” Keir Giles, a senior consulting fellow at the London-based Chatham House think tank, told Al Jazeera.

“There is a wave of optimism across the world that this might finally lead to a change in US policy. But, on every previous occasion, this has not happened.”

Indeed, after the Thursday meeting between Rubio and Lavrov, both sides suggested that they were willing to continue to engage diplomatically.

Arming Ukraine to fight off Russia

In early July, the Trump administration announced a decision to “pause” arms supply to Kyiv. A week later, he reversed this decision.

“We’re going to send some more weapons. We have to. They have to be able to defend themselves. They are getting hit very hard now,” said Trump on July 8.

On Thursday, Trump told NBC that these weapons would be sold to NATO, which will pay fully for them. NATO will then pass them on to Ukraine.

“We’re sending weapons to NATO, and NATO is paying for those weapons, a hundred percent,” Trump told NBC, adding that the US will be sending Patriot missiles to the alliance.

Trump said this deal was agreed on during the NATO summit in The Hague in June.

Trump had also frozen aid to Ukraine in February, after a falling out with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy following a rancorous meeting in the White House. Trump accused Zelenskyy of talking the US into “spending $350 Billion Dollars, to go into a War that couldn’t be won”.

Trump resumed the supplies weeks later. Between January 2022 and April 2025, the US has provided Ukraine with about $134bn in aid, according to the Kiel Institute for the World Economy.

Trump’s MAGA [Make America Great Again] base has been critical of the funding that the US provides Ukraine.

Following Trump’s announcement that the US will resume sending weapons to Ukraine, several conservative Americans have responded with disappointment.

“I did not vote for this,” wrote Derrick Evans on X on July 8. Evans was one of Trump’s supporters who stormed the US Capitol on January 6, 2021 and was arrested, to be pardoned by Trump in January this year.

Conservative social media duo Keith and Kevin Hodge wrote on X on July 8: “Who in the hell is telling Trump that we need to send more weapons to Ukraine?”

Sanctioning Russia

When asked on July 8 about his interest in a Congress bill proposing additional sanctions on Russia, Trump responded, “I’m looking at it very strongly.”

Since the war in Ukraine started in 2022, the US and its allies have imposed at least 21,692 sanctions on Russian individuals, media organisations, and institutions across sectors such as the military, energy, aviation, shipbuilding and telecommunications.

However, while these sanctions have hit Russia’s economy, it has not collapsed the way some experts had predicted it would in the early months of the war.

In recent months, Zelenskyy has repeatedly requested his allies in the West to tighten sanctions on Russia, to put pressure on Putin to end the war.

Most recently, Zelenskyy posted on X on Friday following a Russian drone attack in Kharkiv: “Sanctions must be strengthened. We are expecting the adoption of a new sanctions package. Everything that will put pressure on Russia and stop it must be implemented as quickly as possible.”

A bipartisan Senate bill sponsored by Republican Senator Lindsey Graham aims to levy tariffs on countries that import oil, gas and uranium from Russia.

In 2023, crude petroleum, petroleum gas and refined petroleum constituted nearly 54 percent of total Russian exports, according to the Observatory of Economic Complexity (OEC).

According to the OEC, China and India buy a bulk of Russia’s oil and gas products.

In 2024, Russian oil accounted for 35 percent of India’s total crude imports and 19 percent of China’s oil imports. Turkiye also imports Russian oil, with as much as 58 percent of its refined petroleum imports sourced from Russia in 2023.

But the West has not weaned itself off Russia, either.

In 2024, European countries paid more than $700m to buy Russian uranium products, according to an analysis by Brussels-based think tank Bruegel, based on data from the European Union’s statistical office, Eurostat.

In late March this year, Trump expressed anger with Putin and threatened “secondary tariffs” on any country that buys Russian oil if a ceasefire deal is not reached, but these tariffs were not imposed.

“If a new sanctions bill does pass, and the United States does impose costs on Moscow for the first time during the current administration, this would be a radical departure from Trump’s consistent policy,” Giles said.

“It remains to be seen whether Trump will in fact allow this, or whether his deference to Putin will mean he continues to resist any possible countermeasures against Moscow.”

Walking away from the conflict

On April 18, US Secretary of State Rubio said his country might “move on” from the Russia-Ukraine war if a ceasefire deal is not brokered.

“We are now reaching a point where we need to decide whether this is even possible or not,” Rubio told reporters in Paris after talks between American, Ukrainian and European officials.

“Because if it’s not, then I think we’re just going to move on. It’s not our war. We have other priorities to focus on,” Rubio continued.

On the same day, Trump echoed Rubio’s statements to reporters. However, Trump did not say that he is ready to walk away from peace negotiations.

“Well, I don’t want to say that, but we want to see it end,” Trump said.

More diplomacy

The second day of talks between Rubio and Lavrov, however, suggests that the US has not given up on diplomacy yet.

Rubio told reporters on Thursday that the US and Russia have exchanged new ideas for peace in Ukraine. “I think it’s a new and a different approach,” Rubio said, without offering any details of what the “new approach” involved.

“I wouldn’t characterise it as something that guarantees a peace, but it’s a concept that, you know, that I’ll take back to the president,” Rubio added.

Following Rubio and Lavrov’s meeting on Thursday, the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs said in a news release that the US and Russia had “a substantive and frank exchange of views on the settlement in Ukraine” and will continue constructive dialogue.

The statement added: “[Russia and the US] have reaffirmed mutual commitment to searching for peaceful solutions to conflict situations and resuming Russian-US economic and humanitarian cooperation.”