issue

WASHINGTON — An advocacy group hoping to expand support for child and elder care is planning to spend $50 million to back Democrats in congressional races, tying the costs of caregiving to the nation’s affordability debate.

The Campaign for a Family Friendly Economy, created a decade ago, aims to make caregiver issues more salient in elections. The announcement comes as the cost of child care continues to rise and as waiting lists for federal child-care subsidies, which support working families in poverty, continue to grow.

Sondra Goldschein, executive director of the campaign and its political action committee, said child care and elder care are important to the affordability conversation, especially as child-care costs exceed what families pay for housing. Then there is the pressure on the “sandwich generation,” composed of middle-aged people who are caring simultaneously for their own children and parents.

“When child care can cost more than your rent or a mortgage, or you have to sacrifice a paycheck in order to be able to take care of a loved one,” that can motivate how people vote, said Goldschein. “Each election cycle, we see candidates recognizing that more and more.”

She hopes the message will resonate as families face a slew of rising costs, including climbing gas prices driven by a war in Iran that is unpopular with many voters.

The campaign plans to pour support for Democrats into Senate races in North Carolina, Georgia, Michigan, Maine and Ohio and into House races in Iowa and Pennsylvania. It is also slated to dispatch volunteers to talk with voters about caregiving.

The National Republican Congressional Committee did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Republicans have begun to back child care as an issue crucial to growing the workforce, but their proposals tend to be less dramatic than those offered by Democrats. Last year, through President Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill, Republicans made an estimated 4 million more families eligible for a child-care tax credit. The law also increased child-care aid for military families and tax credits for employers who provide child care to their workers.

Before 2020, many candidates rarely spoke about child care. But the COVID-19 pandemic laid bare the child-care industry’s precarity and necessity. Preschools and child-care centers were pressed to stay open so parents in front-line jobs — such as those in healthcare — could return to work.

Then-President Biden successfully persuaded Congress in 2021 to pass $39 billion in aid for child care, allowing states to offer support to more families and subsidizing wages for child-care workers. Later that year, Biden sought to create nationwide universal pre-kindergarten and to vastly expand child-care subsidies for families so that none would pay more than 7% of their household income for care. But the proposal narrowly failed in Congress. Since then, the pandemic aid has dried up and families are feeling the pinch of rising costs.

Now, several candidates have centered their campaigns around child-care affordability. New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani, a democratic socialist who won election after pledging to make the city more affordable for middle-class residents, ran on universal child care. Democratic Gov. Mikie Sherrill of New Jersey and Gov. Abigail Spanberger of Virginia won elections after pledging to expand child-care subsidies.

Candidates this election cycle are running on universal child-care pledges. They include Democrats Janeese Lewis George, who is running for mayor in Washington, D.C., and Francesca Hong, a gubernatorial candidate in Wisconsin. New York Gov. Kathy Hochul, who is up for reelection this year, has pledged to support Mamdani’s ambitions and eventually to expand universal child care statewide.

Neither the White House nor the Department of Health and Human Services, which oversees federal child-care programs, responded to requests for comment. In his 2024 campaign, during an address to the Economic Club of New York, Trump said increasing foreign tariffs would “take care” of the expense of child care. That plan, thus far, has not materialized.

In Trump’s current term, the administration has largely focused on cracking down on fraud, after a viral video alleged Somali-run child-care centers in Minneapolis were billing the government for children they weren’t caring for.

While there have been prosecutions stemming from child-care subsidy fraud, the Minneapolis video’s central claims were disproven by state inspectors. Nonetheless, the Trump administration attempted to freeze child-care funding for Minnesota and five other Democratic-led states until a court ordered the funding to be released.

Balingit writes for the Associated Press.

Stranger Things’ The Duffer Brothers have teamed up with Baby Reindeer’s director for an “atmospheric” new horror drama.

Netflix has dropped the hotly-anticipated trailer for Something Very Bad Is Going To Happen just days before it premieres.

The eight-part limited horror series, starring The Night Manager actress Camila Morrone and The White Lotus actor Adam DiMarco, is scheduled to be released in full on Thursday, March 26, on Netflix.

The streamer teases that it will revolve around an “atmospheric wedding…following a bride and groom in the week leading up to their ill-fated nuptials”, cheekily teasing that it’s “not a spoiler”, given the show’s title.

The trailer sees loved-up Rachel (played by Camile Morrone) and Nicky (Adam DiMarco) head up to his family’s log cabin where they plan to get married but she soon feels as if something “weird” is happening.

While fans have shared their excitement at the upcoming horror, some couldn’t help but point out it resembles the plot of horror franchise Ready or Not.

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

Released in 2019, the original horror film saw Grace (Samara Weaving) fight for her life on her wedding night as she is forced to play a deadly game of hide-and-seek with her wealthy in-laws.

The sequel to Ready or Not is scheduled to be released next month and will see Grace joined by her sister as they try and survive rival families hunting them down.

Taking to YouTube ’s comments section, a viewer posted: “Feels like ‘Ready Or Not’ without a sense of humour.”

“What in the Ready or Not,” another said followed by a crying face emoji as a fan replied: “Right??! Like haven’t we already seen this.”

Someone else asked: “Is this like Ready or Not or something?”

But not everyone agreed that it was the same story as a user pointed out: “Ready Or Not isn’t the first film to have a spooky marriage plot, begging you people to watch movies.”

What makes Something Very Bad Is Going To Happen stand out even more is the fact that it’s executive produced by Stranger Things legends The Duffer Brothers and directed by Baby Reindeer’s Weronika Tofilska.

“The Duffers Cooked,” a fan praised as another posted: “I just realized this is a show by the Duffer brothers..I will be checking it out.”

Someone else then joked: “Imagine Vecna making an entry.”

The official synopsis reads: “Rachel (Camila Morrone) is getting married in five days.

“Together with her fiancé, Nicky (Adam DiMarco), she embarks on a road trip to his family’s vacation home, secluded in a snowy forest, for the intimate wedding ceremony of their dreams.

“Which really would be so lovely, except… prone to superstition and paranoia, Rachel can’t shake the relentless feeling that something bad is going to happen.

“Her foreboding doubts, coupled with a series of eerie coincidences and dreadful surprises, force her to ask the question: What makes two people soulmates? And worse — what could be scarier than lifelong commitment to the wrong person?”

Something Very Bad Is Going To Happen premieres on Thursday, March 26, on Netflix.

British tourists who’ve jetted off to Tenerife to make the most of the island’s reputation as the “island of eternal spring” have been experiencing a “disappointing” holiday because of one issue

For those looking to escape the drizzle and freezing conditions of dreary Britain weather in favour of sand, sun, and some well-deserved rest, Tenerife is usually a safe bet. However, many visitors heading to the Spanish island – the largest of the popular Canary Islands and a firm favourite among Brits – this month have been left “disappointed”.

Tenerife is famed for its many beaches, holiday resorts, bars, restaurants, and stunning landscapes made up of volcanic mountains, vast national parks, and much more. It’s a perfect location for hiking, relaxing and observing the stars.

It’s appealing thanks to its reputation as the “island of eternal spring“, which comes from its temperate and stable climate all year round, where temperatures typically hover between 20 and 28 degrees.

Yet many Brits who’d been anticipating some sunshine and warmth are instead dealing with an unexpected chill. On the popular TikTok account Tenerife First Excursions, one man shared a first-hand account.

Speaking directly to the camera, he said: “If you’re wanting to know what the weather is like at the moment in Tenerife then I’m gonna disappoint you.”

He turned the camera to reveal thick grey clouds above, although there were patches of blue sky and bright sunshine breaking through in certain areas. He went on: “It has been like this for the last four or five days now, with a little bit of sunshine for an hour or so in between.”

He continued: “It’s been a disappointing week but then again, a lot of people are here for Cheltenham [Festival] so everyone’s in the bars, day drinking, having a good time. The sunshine is back on the weekend, though. I said to someone the other day, they absolutely love it. I said, ‘I absolutely love it when the sun’s back and I’d leave it with that.'”

In the comments section, fellow social media users were keen to share their views. One said: “Can’t believe how lucky I was. I was there for two weeks in Feb and it was scorching every day. Brilliant sunshine every day.”

Another wrote: “We come Sunday praying it gets warmer.” A third said: “I’m here on Tuesday! Hoping it improves!”

A fourth posted: “Here now and I did not bring enough warm clothes.” Someone else said: “It was c*** when I was there a couple of weeks ago. Roll on June.”

Another commented: “Dontttt I was there in Jan and it was perfect so I booked to come back again next week. I hope it gets better.”

One TikTok user revealed: “Mum and dad arrived yesterday and they are cold!! Been sat in hoodies in [the] apartment.”

Another said: “Been like that for 10 days now.” Someone else shared: “We left on Tuesday been there a week was absolutely gutted, no hot days till we were leaving, just my luck.”

However, one person added: “Absolutely love [Tenerife] whatever the weather.”

Married at First Sight Australia star Steven Danyluk was left worried during his honeymoon

A Married at First Sight Australia star has been left “concerned” after spotting a problem just minutes into their honeymoon.

The 13th series of the popular reality programme returned to E4 this week, with a new batch of singletons joining the renowned matchmaking experiment in the hope of finding their soulmate.

The fresh hopefuls first encounter one another at the altar, where they exchange their vows during picturesque wedding ceremonies. They then take the plunge to discover their happily ever after as they embark on luxurious honeymoons, before moving in together.

Alongside managing a new relationship, the participants also attend dinner parties with other couples and reconvene at commitment ceremonies, where they reveal how they’re feeling about their marriage.

The second pairing arranged by the experts – Mel Schilling, John Aiken and Alessandra Rampolla – were Rachel Gilmore and Steven Danyluk, reports OK!.

35-year-old team leader Rachel hadn’t been in a serious relationship for 14 years, and had never been with a man who made her feel attractive. Marine technician Steven, aged 34, similarly found the dating scene challenging, and has struggled to find his ideal partner.

The duo appeared to connect after meeting at the altar, but Rachel soon identified a concern after her new husband failed to compliment her throughout the day. She later raised her concerns, with Steven promptly apologising and expressing just how attracted he was to his wife.

During Wednesday’s (March 11) episode, Rachel and Steven set off on their honeymoon to a luxury eco-glamping resort in Mudgee, New South Wales. However, Steven quickly spotted a problem after entering their shared accommodation.

“I’ve got a tummy ache, not feeling well. It’s a bit of a concern, it’s really bad timing,” he told the cameras.

After discovering that the toilet didn’t have a door, a worried Steven then said: “I am really concerned about this.”

He added: “The bathroom is not really private. It’s not so much the view, it’s the sound. We’re all human and we make sounds. Look, this early into the relationship, I don’t want Rachel hearing my bowel movements.”

It appears Steven managed to navigate the issue, as the pair were later spotted sharing a kiss whilst admiring the stunning Australian sunset.

Yet it seems the peace isn’t destined to last, as a preview for Thursday’s (March 12) episode shows the couple caught up in a massive row, with Rachel tearfully telling her husband: “You’re putting me down, it’s hurtful.” Will the newlyweds manage to resolve things?

Married at First Sight Australia airs Monday to Thursday on E4 at 7.30pm

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

PHOENIX — It hasn’t been the smoothest spring training for right-hander Roki Sasaki as he prepares for his second season with the Dodgers.

Sasaki’s first two starts in Cactus League play featured some problems with command and plenty of hard contact. But with left-hander Blake Snell and right-hander Gavin Stone sidelined with shoulder issues, Dodgers manager Dave Roberts left no doubt where Sasaki stood as he got ready to pitch in a B-game against White Sox minor leaguers on Tuesday.

“Having Blake [Snell] late to the season, which we know, [and] Gavin Stone, late to the season, as we know, we’re going to need Roki,” Roberts said. “With the buildup, I just don’t see a world in which he doesn’t break with us as a starter, and so, we’re going to need those innings.”

Sasaki took a promising step forward on a minor-league field at Camelback Ranch.

The hard-throwing right-hander threw 59 pitches, 40 for strikes, across four innings while striking out nine of the 13 batters he faced and allowing two to reach base.

Although Roberts did not see Sasaki’s outing, he heard rave reviews from members of the organization who attended.

“They said it was electric,” Roberts said after the Dodgers’ 4-1 win over the Arizona Diamondbacks at Camelback Ranch. “They said [he was touching] 98 to 100 [mph]. The fastball was spraying a little early, but then he locked it in. And then the split was on-play, short, lot of swing-and-miss. Couldn’t have asked for a better day.”

Sasaki surrendered a single through the right side of the infield to the first batter he faced, then proceeded to strike out the next seven batters. His only other hiccup came in the third inning, when he hit Jason Matthews with a stray breaking ball on a full count.

“I actually felt pretty bad the last couple days, but today I was able to make an adjustment, so that’s what I really need for right now,” Sasaki said via an interpreter after his outing. “I think I can keep moving forward.”

Sasaki was shelled in his second Cactus League start last week, yielding four runs, three walks, a single and a grand slam to the Cleveland Guardians at Goodyear Ballpark. He was lifted from the game without recording an out, only to get re-inserted in the second inning to complete two scoreless innings.

Sasaki noted mechanical issues as the reason for his struggles after the game. Tuesday, he said he felt much better, focusing on his core and obliques.

“I was actually focusing on core, oblique stuff,” Sasaki said. “I think it’s all about mechanics. If my mechanics are really good, my command is good too.”

Roberts took away plenty of value from the outing, even one against a lineup of minor leaguers.

“There’s still value in getting hitters out and seeing guys swing and miss,” Roberts said. “I think we accomplished what we wanted to today, we built him up. Obviously, built up some confidence. So, just go from there.”

Specialist Claer Barrett issued the advice to concerned people who have flights in the area booked

A travel specialist is calling on Brits to stay calm and follow crucial guidance if their travel arrangements have been jeopardised due to the US-Israel military action against Iran. Travel chaos continues to plague the Middle East as Iran launches counter-attacks.

It is estimated that more than 100,000 Britons were left stranded in the area as airports including Qatar, Abu Dhabi and Dubai shut down operations because of the hostilities. More than 2,000 passengers landed in the UK on evacuation flights from the United Arab Emirates on Wednesday, according to Government officials.

Questions persist about the duration of the conflict, casting doubt over numerous travellers’ plans given the crucial role of Gulf airports as connection hubs for journeys to Asia and Australasia. Appearing on ITV’s Lorraine, specialist Claer Barrett delivered ‘vital’ guidance for those planning to travel in the near future.

She stated: “My big message to everyone watching is don’t panic and hit the cancel button, because if you cancel a flight, a holiday, whatever, yourself, you won’t have as many rights as if the airline cancels the flight.

“Let’s start off with flights,” she went on. “So if an airline cancels your flight, as long as you’re flying with a UK airline or departing or flying back to a UK or EU airport, you’re legally entitled to choose. So if they cancel you, you can say, ‘Well, I want a refund, I want my money back,’ or, ‘I want a different flight with a different airline, I want to be rerouted’ or offered assistance if you were stuck somewhere. So it’s important not to cancel yourself.

READ MORE: Travel expert Simon Calder update for people with Dubai, Qatar or Abu Dhabi flights bookedREAD MORE: Aviation expert Alex Macheras predicts when Emirates, BA, and Qatar Airways flights might resume

“But if your upcoming holiday is in the affected area, the advice from Which?, the big consumer website, is monitor the airline’s website to determine whether your plans are going to be affected, because lots of different places are or aren’t.

“Keep an eye on the Foreign and Commonwealth Development Office website, that’s the FCDO, they’re the people who can issue ‘do not travel’ warnings. And for goodness’ sake, make sure that you’ve got your travel insurance in place when you book your holiday.

“This is the advice that me and other consumer experts give, because something could happen before you go and you’d need to make a claim.”

Package holidays

Package breaks – where holidaymakers purchase their flights and lodging in a single booking from the same provider – are frequently more economical and generally regarded as being a more secure choice. The explanation for this is that numerous packages are safeguarded by the Atol scheme or the Package Travel Regulations (PRTs).

Any package holiday booked in the UK automatically comes with the protection of the PTRs, whilst package holidays that include a flight are safeguarded by Atol. All travel firms selling package holidays with flights to UK customers are legally obliged to hold an Atol licence.

This ensures people are brought home during a crisis. When the original Thomas Cook went under in 2019, nearly 150,000 holidaymakers were flown back by the UK government in the largest repatriation in the UK’s peacetime history.

You will also receive a refund if your package holiday is cancelled, and be compensated if various factors result in a subpar trip.

“So we’ve covered flights, but package holidays, you’re much better protected with a package holiday because most of them, anyway, are reaching out proactively, I’m hearing, to customers who do have packages booked to the Middle East,” Claer continued.

“And most of them are offering people for no charge the ability to either move their holiday dates or, in many cases, change destination, you know, so you still have your holiday but you go somewhere else. So speak to your tour operator and see what they can do for you.”

Silent Witness fans were left baffled after the latest episode of the BBC One crime drama featured an internal monologue scene

Silent Witness viewers were left scratching their heads over one scene in the latest episode of the BBC programme.

Monday night’s instalment (March 2) of the crime drama saw Dr Nikki Alexander (Emilia Fox) and Jack Hodgson (David Caves) and their fellow pathologists examining what appeared to be the suicide of a British-Chinese pro-democracy activist.

The woman’s remains were found in water and it was initially believed to be a suicide. However, as Nikki and Harriet Maven (Maggie Steed) delved deeper, evidence began suggesting something more sinister had occurred, reports the Express.

During the post-mortem examination, Maggie’s inner thoughts were heard, with her reflecting: “Shame, a quality which alerts us of the gap between who we are today and the best version of ourselves. It’s not a disparagement of the essence of our being, but a reminder of who we could be. Inspiring. Helping us to rise. Not driving us to despair.”

She continued: “Shame is an overlooked quality in a society which rewards celebrity over accomplishments.”

The sequence baffled many viewers, prompting a flurry of reactions on X, previously known as Twitter.

“I have never heard such droning piffle as Harriet’s ‘Shame’ soliloquy,” commented one, whilst another simply questioned: “Harriet???”

“What’s with the internal monologue, a meditation on shame in Silent Witness? Just give us the crime story,” remarked someone else.

Another queried what the character was “prattling on about it”, adding: “She’s talking in riddles.”

Another posted: “Silent Witness venturing into thought monologues now? Or is Harriet good at ventriloquism.”

Somebody else said: “Not keen on the latest series of Silent Witness after the awful episode last week and now cheesy internal monologues. New writers?”

However, other people who had tuned in to the drama appreciated the technique, with one remarking on the platform: “Oh I like the way they’re doing this one. Inside everyone’s heads.”

The instalment of Silent Witness was part one of the two-part series finale episode, which is entitled Shame. The second part of the story, which will conclude season 29 of the hit show, is scheduled to be broadcast on Tuesday March 3.

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

Ensure our latest headlines always appear at the top of your Google Search by making us a Preferred Source.** Click here to activate**** or add us as your Preferred Source in your Google search settings.**

Silent Witness broadcasts on BBC One

We made it! After this weekend, when the Producers Guild of America and Screen Actors Guild hand out their highly predictive precursors, the final shape of the Oscar race should be (reasonably) clear — and nominees worn out by months of campaigning will be breathing a sigh of relief.

Before I share highlights from this week’s issue, one programming note: This will be my last letter from the editor until our inaugural Cannes issue drops in May. (Don’t worry, I will be plenty busy in the interim catching up on this year’s top Emmy contenders.)

Thanks as always for following along, and may you triumph in your Oscar pool!

Cover story: Rose Byrne

(Ryan Pfluger / For The Times)

Times columnist Mary McNamara and I don’t agree on everything, but we do agree on this: “Damages” deserves to be ranked alongside “Mad Men” and “Breaking Bad” in any discussion of the Golden Age of TV.

That’s thanks in one part to a gripping flash-forward narrative structure now so common it could be considered a cliché, and in another to Glenn Close’s indelible performance as ruthless litigator Patty Hewes. But it’s also a testament to the multifaceted talents of Rose Byrne, who went “toe-to-toe” with Close in what would become her breakthrough role — and then confidently pivoted to projects like “Insidious,” “Bridesmaids” and “Spy.”

“Byrne is something of a creative chameleon, moving easily from drama to comedy to horror, film to television to stage and back again,” McNamara writes in this week’s cover story. “In many ways, her gut-wrenching, darkly funny performance as a woman pushed beyond all endurance in “If I Had Legs I’d Kick You” is a culmination of all the characters she brought to life before it.”

Inside Warner Bros.’ dominant Oscar haul

(Christina House/Los Angeles Times)

Whether you come down on the side of “Sinners” or “One Battle After Another” in the best picture race may be perfect fodder for debate with friends over a few small beers, but for Warner Bros. executives Mike De Luca and Pam Abdy it would be akin to choosing a favorite child. After all, both projects emerged from the pair’s desire, as contributor Gregory Ellwood writes, to make WB “a destination where filmmakers of all varieties, including auteurs, bring their projects for ‘white glove’ treatment.”

As De Luca explains, “Everything was original once… If you don’t refresh the coffers with new IP to create new franchises, at some point you get to Chapter 10 or 11 and people start to move on.”

The many faces of ‘The Secret Agent’

(Ryan Pfluger/For The Times)

The moment Tânia Maria arrives onscreen as Dona Sebastiana in “The Secret Agent,” you can’t help but ask yourself, “Who is that?!” (Star Wagner Moura had the same reaction.) But the real feat casting director Gabriel Domingues pulls off in the Oscar-nominated Brazilian thriller is to make you ask yourself the same question, over and over, every time a new character appears.

How did Domingues find a range of actors to represent the country’s endless diversity? It’s part of his process, writes contributor Carlos Aguilar: “He prides himself on doing the shoe-leather work of looking for fresh, compelling faces in cities where others might not think to look — those without a prominent arts scene, for instance.”

More stories from our Feb. 26 issue

WASHINGTON  — The Supreme Court agreed Monday to decide on shielding energy producers from dozens of lawsuits seeking to hold them liable for costs of global climate change.

In the past decade, dozens of cities, counties and states, including California, have joined state-based lawsuits that seek billions of dollars in damages, and they have won preliminary victories in state courts.

But the Trump administration and the energy producers urged the Supreme Court to throw out all of these suits on the grounds they conflict with federal law.

“Boulder Colorado cannot make energy policy for the entire country,” lawyers for Suncor Energy and Exxon Mobil said in their appeal. They urged the court to rule that “state law cannot impose the costs of global climate change on a subset of the world’s energy producers chosen by a single municipality.”

The justices will hear the case of Suncor Energy vs. Boulder County, but arguments will not be held until October.

The Biden administration had said the justices should stand aside while the lawsuits move forward in state courts, but the Trump administration filed a brief in September urging the court to intervene now.

They said the case has “vast nationwide significance,” and it should not be left to be decided state by state.

Lawyers for Boulder had urged the court against taking up the issue at an early stage of the litigation. “This is not the right time or the right case for deciding” whether municipalities can sue over the damage they have suffered.

But after weighing the issue for weeks, the court announced it will be hear the claims of the oil and gas industries.

Viewers of ITV’s new true crime drama The Lady, starring Natalie Dormer as Sarah Ferguson, have voiced concerns about the timing of the series amid ongoing royal controversy

ITV’s The Lady debuted this evening, prompting immediate reaction from viewers just minutes into the Sarah Ferguson drama.

The four-part true crime series chronicles the devastating story of Sarah Ferguson’s royal assistant, Jane Andrews, whose trajectory from humble beginnings to palace life ended with her being convicted of murdering her partner, Thomas Cressman, in 2000.

According to the opening episode’s description, “Working-class woman Jane Andrews wants more for her life and is unlucky in love.”

It continues: “On the brink of losing all hope, she receives a letter inviting her to interview for a job with Sarah, Duchess of York, at Buckingham Palace. Securing the job, she moves to London – but life in the palace is gruelling, and Jane struggles to fit in, but she and Sarah find common ground in their experiences of love and betrayal.”

Mia McKenna-Bruce portrays Jane Andrews in the ITV production, whilst Natalie Dormer underwent a transformation to embody Sarah Ferguson, Duchess of York, reports the Express.

Within minutes of broadcast, audiences flocked to social media to voice their opinions, with numerous commenters branding it “poor taste” and “bad timing”.

One viewer declared: “Quite possibly, the worst-timed launch of a TV series, ever. #thelady,” whilst another questioned: “Was it the best time to show #TheLady, considering all the controversy around Andrew Windsor and Sarah Ferguson?”

However, a third viewer observed: “ITV couldn’t have timed this any better. It’s pretty good too #TheLady.”

Other viewers concurred, with one stating, “Bad taste at the moment showing anything to do with Sarah Ferguson,” whilst another remarked, “I don’t think this drama could have been timed any better #TheLady.”

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

The production also garnered widespread acclaim, with one fan writing, “Ok tunes have me hooked already…..”

Another viewer shared their enthusiasm: “#thelady ok 15 mins in, and I’m hooked! Quality-made drama.”

Tomorrow evening’s second episode, which can be streamed on ITVX, promises: ” Jane meets dashing businessman Luis Castillo, and the two begin a relationship, but tensions soon erupt on a holiday in Greece and she becomes increasingly unstable.”

The synopsis continues: “As Jane’s carefully constructed composure starts to fracture and puts her position with the duchess at risk, a lifeline appears in the shape of the charismatic Tommy Cressman.”

The third episode will subsequently be broadcast next Sunday at 9pm on ITV.

The Lady continues tomorrow evening at 9pm on ITV, with episodes currently available to stream on ITVX.

Ensure our latest headlines always appear at the top of your Google Search by making us a Preferred Source.** Click here to activate**** or add us as your Preferred Source in your Google search settings.**

NEW YORK — JPMorgan Chase acknowledged for the first time that it closed the bank accounts of Donald Trump and several of his businesses in the aftermath of the Jan. 6, 2021, attacks on the U.S. Capitol, the latest development in a legal saga between the president and the nation’s biggest bank over the issue known as “debanking.”

The acknowledgment came in a court filing submitted this week in Trump’s lawsuit against the bank and its leader, Jamie Dimon. The president sued for $5 billion, alleging that his accounts were closed for political reasons, disrupting his business operations.

“In February 2021, JPMorgan informed Plaintiffs that certain accounts maintained with JPMorgan’s CB and PB would be closed,” JPMorgan’s former chief administrative officer Dan Wilkening wrote in the court filing. The “PB” and “CB” stands for JPMorgan’s private bank and commercial bank.

Until now, JPMorgan has never admitted it closed the president’s accounts in writing after Jan. 6. The bank would only speak hypothetically about when the bank closes accounts and its reasons for closing accounts, citing bank privacy laws.

A spokeswoman for the bank declined to comment beyond what the bank said in its legal filings.

Trump originally sued JPMorgan in Florida state court, where the president’s primary residence is now located. The filings this week are part of an effort by JPMorgan Chase to have the case moved from state to federal court and to have the jurisdiction of the case moved to New York, which is where the bank accounts were located and where Trump kept much of his business operations until recently.

Trump originally accused the bank of trade libel and violating state and federal unfair and deceptive trade practices.

In the original lawsuit, Trump said he tried to raise the issue personally with Dimon after the bank sent him notices that JPMorgan would close his accounts, and that Dimon assured Trump he would figure out what was happening. The lawsuit alleges Dimon failed to follow up with Trump.

Further, Trump’s lawyers allege that JPMorgan placed the president and his companies on a reputational “blacklist” that both JPMorgan and other banks use to keep clients from opening accounts with them in the future. The blacklist has yet to be defined by the president’s lawyers.

“If and when Plaintiffs explain what they mean by this ‘blacklist,’ JPMorgan will respond accordingly,” the bank’s lawyers said in a filing.

JPMorgan has previously said that although it regrets that Trump felt the need to sue the bank, the lawsuit has no merit.

The issue of debanking is at the center of the case. Debanking occurs when a bank closes the accounts of a customer or refuses to do business with a customer in the form of loans or other services. Once a relatively obscure issue in finance, debanking has become a politically charged issue in recent years, with conservative politicians arguing that banks have discriminated against them and their affiliated interests.

“In a devastating concession that proves President Trump’s entire claim, JPMorgan Chase admitted to unlawfully and intentionally de-banking President Trump, his family, and his businesses, causing overwhelming financial harm,” the president’s lawyers said in a statement. “President Trump is standing up for all those wrongly debanked by JPMorgan Chase and its cohorts, and will see this case to a just and proper conclusion.”

Debanking first became a national issue when conservatives accused the Obama administration of pressuring banks to stop extending services to gun stores and payday lenders under “Operation Choke Point.”

Trump and other conservative figures have alleged that banks cut them off from their accounts under the umbrella term of “reputational risk” after the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol. Trump was impeached on a charge of inciting insurrection on Jan. 6, though not convicted in the Senate; and he was criminally indicted for his role in the riot and his attempt to overturn his 2020 election defeat, but that case was dismissed after he won the 2024 election.

Since Trump came back into office, the president’s banking regulators have moved to stop any banks from using “reputational risk” as a reason for denying service to customers.

This is not the first lawsuit Trump has filed against a big bank alleging that he was debanked. The Trump Organization sued credit card giant Capital One in March 2025 for similar reasons and allegations. The case is ongoing.

Sweet writes for the Associated Press.

Good morning, and welcome to L.A. on the Record — our City Hall newsletter. It’s Noah Goldberg, with an assist from David Zahniser and Sandra McDonald, giving you the latest on city and county government.

There was a brief discussion on the L.A. City Council floor, with hardly any disagreement, before a motion brought by Councilmember Monica Rodriguez passed on Tuesday.

Rodriguez wants to allow city officials to enter hillside properties in “Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones,” even without an owner’s permission, to clear hazardous materials and homeless encampments. The goal is to stop encampment fires that could grow into wildfires.

Councilmembers Hugo Soto-Martínez and Ysabel Jurado voted against the proposed change to the city’s municipal code, citing details they wanted addressed, but said they agreed with its spirit.

A third councilmember, Eunisses Hernandez, also voted against the measure, though she did not speak during the meeting.

The political implications of the seemingly routine vote could play out more bitterly over the next several months as Soto-Martínez and Hernandez, both members of the council’s four-person “progressive bloc,” run for reelection in their districts, which include fire-prone hillsides.

The proposal could become another wedge issue on homelessness for the two members, just as the city’s controversial anti-encampment law, Municipal Code section 41.18, was in the 2022 election.

That year, it was Soto-Martínez and Hernandez who were running against incumbents and took a progressive stance against 41.18, which allows council members to designate areas near schools, libraries, senior centers and other sensitive areas as no-camping zones. The two said they believed the law was ineffective at solving homelessness, merely shuffling people around without addressing the root issues.

Now, as the two council members defend their seats, Rodriguez’s proposal has already spurred similar attacks from would-be incumbent-busters.

Maria Lou Calanche, a nonprofit leader seeking to unseat Hernandez in District 1, lives in a “Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone” at the bottom of a hill by Debs Park. The area is full of dry brush, and Calanche said in an interview that parts of the park catch fire every summer.

“The council district has a lot of hillside property and open space. Debs Park has encampments in it that have not been cleared and that’s public property,” said Calanche, who formerly served on the city Police Commission. “I’m concerned that the current council member puts ideology over the safety of the citizens and residents.”

Calanche said she would consider highlighting Hernandez’s “no” vote on campaign mailers.

“This is such a simple way to make a difference,” Calanche said. “It just seems incredible they would not be supportive.”

Hernandez said she is open to supporting Rodriguez’s proposal but that it fails to define the type of hazard that would allow city officials to enter private property without permission.

“When you expand government authority without tight definitions and guardrails, you end up with inconsistent enforcement and expensive lawsuits,” she said in a statement.

She said she hopes to work with the city attorney’s office, Fire Department and others to make sure the policy is “precise, intentional, legally sound and actually focused on reducing fire risk.”

In District 13, Dylan Kendall, a nonprofit founder and entrepreneur who is running against Soto-Martínez, said she supports the “common-sense” proposal and that her opponent’s vote was “irresponsible.”

The district, which stretches from Hollywood to Atwater Village, includes high fire-risk areas like Elysian Heights and parts of Silver Lake.

“We know what [firefighters are] seeing on the ground: encampments on or adjacent to private property with exposed wiring, pressurized fuel canisters and dense vegetation, and a maze of legal questions about who controls the site when they respond to a call,” she said in a statement. “If a private owner cannot or will not remove combustible materials and encampments that clearly increase wildfire risk, the city should be able to step in, clear the danger.”

Before Tuesday’s vote, Soto-Martínez said he would have supported the proposal had it included a definition of what exactly a fire hazard is, making the same point that Hernandez later did.

Soto-Martínez had supported Rodriguez’s initial proposal at the council’s Public Safety Committee, which was to ask for a report on what municipal code changes would be needed.

But on Tuesday, Rodriguez amended her motion to go straight to the city attorney’s office to change the municipal code. She said she wanted to accelerate the change because of the importance of preventing encampment fires.

Soto-Martínez also expressed an underlying concern that echoed his earlier statements about 41.18, which he fiercely opposed.

“What I don’t want to see is this being used as a tool to push homeless folks from one side of the street to the other side of the street,” he said.

Notably, Councilmember Nithya Raman, who is running for mayor against incumbent Karen Bass, voted in favor of Rodriguez’s motion.

“The problem that this motion is identifying — gaining permission to access private property in Very High Fire Severity Zones — is one that needs to be resolved to ensure that we are mitigating the risk for a serious fire to our fullest capacity,” Raman, who opposed 41.18 and is a member of the council’s progressive bloc along with Jurado, said in a statement.

Former Councilmember Mike Bonin, who runs the Pat Brown Institute for Public Affairs at Cal State LA, said the hillside encampment issue is less clear-cut than 41.18 but could still prove to be divisive.

“This is the kind of thing political consultants salivate over,” he said. “It’s an example of taking an issue that even from the council debate seemed to appreciate the shades of gray and making it black and white.”

State of play

— KARATE KAREN: Bass said at a rally in Leimert Park on Sunday that she is ready to fight off a challenge from Raman, invoking her training in karate to remind Angelenos that she is not too nice to battle. “I was trained to fight physically,” she said, stooping into a bow. “But if you know the martial arts, you know to bow before you kill somebody. You know to smile to throw them off.”

The mayor said she was joking, adding, “But seriously, we know how to fight and we know how to organize.”

— SCHOOL LAYOFFS: The Los Angeles Unified School District board — confronted with deficit spending and a forecast of insolvency in three years — narrowly voted to send out 3,200 notices of possible layoffs. The move, which is ultimately expected to result in 657 job cuts, is strongly opposed by labor unions as unnecessary and harmful to students.

— UCLA AX: UCLA fired its chief financial officer, Stephen Agostini, saying he inaccurately described the school’s budget deficit. The termination comes after Agostini told the school newspaper, the Daily Bruin, that “financial management flaws and failures” predating his arrival led to a $425-million deficit. The school claimed his comments were inaccurate.

— PRESSURE ON WASSERMAN: Casey Wasserman faced more calls to step down as chair of the 2028 Los Angeles Olympics over racy emails with convicted sex Ghislaine Maxwell from decades ago. Bass, along with some gubernatorial candidates, was among those joining the chorus.

“My opinion is that he should step down,” Bass said in a CNN interview.

— STRICTLY BUSINESS: A coalition of business and hotel industry leaders submitted more than 79,000 signatures in support of a measure to repeal the gross receipts tax on L.A. businesses. The measure, proposed for the November ballot, would punch an $800-million hole in the city budget if approved by voters.

— WRITE IT RIGHT: Angelenos hoping to write arguments for or against three city ballot measures — dealing with cannabis and hotel taxes — can apply by Friday with the office of Council President Marqueece Harris-Dawson. The arguments will be published in the Voter Information Pamphlet mailed out before the June 2 election.

— PUSHING FOR PARK: The union that represents rank-and-file police officers is putting $278,000 into efforts to reelect Councilmember Traci Park, according to a filing submitted to the city’s Ethics Commission. The money from the Los Angeles Police Protective League will go toward polling and canvassers in Park’s coastal district.

— SLAP ON THE WRIST: City Council candidate Jose Ugarte, who is running to replace his boss Curren Price in District 9, has agreed to pay $25,000 for committing a city ethics violation. Ugarte admitted that on his financial interest forms, he failed to disclose a consulting firm he owns and income he made. He has called it a “clerical reporting error.”

QUICK HITS

• Where is Inside Safe? The mayor’s signature program was in Skid Row in Councilmember Ysabel Jurado’s district providing assistance to homeless people during the heavy rains this week.
• On the docket next week: The Charter Reform Commission will meet Thursday to address City Council expansion, ranked choice voting, mayoral powers and more.

Stay in touch

That’s it for this week! Send your questions, comments and gossip to LAontheRecord@latimes.com. Did a friend forward you this email? Sign up here to get it in your inbox every Saturday morning.

U.S. Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi declared a triumph against California on Friday, touting an appellate court ruling that she said blocked a state ban on immigration agents and other law enforcement officers wearing masks.

“The 9th Circuit has now issued a FULL stay blocking California’s ban on masks for federal law enforcement agents,” Bondi posted on the social media site X, calling the Feb. 19 decision a “key victory.”

Bondi, however, appeared confused about which case the court was ruling on this week.

A federal judge in Los Angeles blocked California’s first-in-the-nation mask ban 10 days earlier, on Feb. 9.

At the time, U.S. District Judge Christina A. Snyder said she was “constrained” to block the law because it included only local and federal officers, while exempting state law enforcement.

The state did not appeal that decision.

Instead, on Wednesday, the law’s author Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco) introduced a new mask bill without the problematic carve-out for state officers.

With the initial legal challenge already decided and the new bill still pending in the legislature, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has no reason to revisit the mask ban.

The ruling that Bondi appeared to reference involves a separate California law requiring law enforcement officers to display identification while on duty.

Snyder had previously ruled the “No Vigilantes Act” could take effect because it did not exempt state police, a decision the Justice Department appealed to the 9th Circuit.

The appellate court is set to review the matter early next month. Until then, the court issued an injunction that pauses the state law from taking effect.

Issuing a temporary administrative injunction is a common procedural move, allowing judges to freeze things in the status quo until the court has a chance to weigh the law and come to a decision.

Thursday’s order set a hearing in the Richard H. Chambers U.S. Court of Appeals in Pasadena for March 3, indicating the case is far from over.

Bill Essayli, who leads the U.S. attorney’s office in Los Angeles, also celebrated with a post on X, calling Thursday’s order “another key win for the Justice Department.” He too suggested the injunction somehow involved the mask case.

A spokesperson for the U.S. Justice Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The law requiring officers to show ID is less controversial than the mask ban. But it may still face an uphill battle in the appellate court. A three-judge panel is set to hear the case, comprising two judges nominated to the bench by President Trump and one by President Obama. One of the Trump appointees, Judge Mark Bennett of Hawaii, has previously signaled skepticism over the administration’s immigration enforcement policies.

At issue in the ID case is whether California’s law interferes with or controls the operations of the federal government, actions prohibited by the supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution. Snyder ruled that the identification law was more akin to speed limits on the highway, which apply equally to everyone, a decision the appellate court could reject.

A ruling is not expected before mid-March, and would not directly affect the push by state lawmakers to pass a revised mask ban.

Recent polls show more than 60% of Americans want U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers and other federal agents unmasked. More than a dozen states are pursuing laws similar to California’s.

In Washington, congressional Democrats have made a mask ban for ICE a key issue in the ongoing partial government shutdown, vowing not to fund the Department of Homeland Security until one is enacted.

Legal experts have said the issue likely will not be resolved until it reaches the Supreme Court.

We’re in something like award season no man’s land right now: the whirlwind of the Oscar nominees luncheon is behind us, but most of the major precursors have yet to be handed out. Which leaves less for the pundits to chew on, perhaps, though it also means there’s finally some spare time to catch up on your reading.

I’m Matt Brennan, editor in chief of The Envelope. Let me be of some assistance.

Cover story: ‘Sentimental Value’

(Christina House / For The Times)

After an entire award season’s worth of conversations about one of the top contenders, it’s rare to hear a new one this late in the game. But when I ran in “Sentimental Value” director Joachim Trier last week, he happily shared his point of view on an anecdote his editor, Olivier Bugge Coutté, recently shared with The Envelope about killing one of Trier’s darlings. “He was right,” Trier admitted with a half-rueful smile, after describing the elaborate aerial shot over a theater audience with which he originally intended to open the film.

Such candor is also a mark of contributor Bob Strauss’ interview with Trier and star Stellan Skarsgård about making the year’s most-nominated international feature, from their discussion of the stroke that permanently altered the actor’s process to bon mots about the film’s depiction of Netflix, demanding directors and more. I was most tickled by Skarsgård’s, um, unvarnished description of the small screen: “The narrative form of television is based on you not watching,” he tells Strauss. “It explains everything through dialogue so you can make pancakes at the same time.”

Digital cover: Kate Hudson

(Christina House / Los Angeles Times)

When contributor Amy Amatangelo sent me her pitch for a story on “Song Sung Blue,” it swiftly answered the question I want every pitch to answer: Why are you the right person to write this story?

“I am a lifelong Neil Diamond fan,” she wrote. “My dad loved him. I saw him in concert as a child. My dad and I danced to ‘Beautiful Noise’ at my wedding.”

So it was a no-brainer to set her up with this week’s digital cover star, nominated for playing one half of the film’s Neil Diamond tribute band. “Although she’s had a slew of successes in the interim,” Amatangelo writes of the 25 years since “Almost Famous,” “it can sometimes seem that we’ve underappreciated, and perhaps underestimated, Kate Hudson.”

‘Train Dreams’’ not-so-secret weapon

(Lauren Fleishman/For The Times)

Speaking of pitches, the most frequently suggested subject for coverage since the Oscar nominations (not-named-Chalamet-or-DiCaprio division) may be “Train Dreams” cinematographer Adolpho Veloso. Which already made the Brazilian’s wizardry one of the industry’s worst-kept secrets. Count contributor Emily Zemler’s profile among the final nails in the coffin.

“Capturing the enormous trees that would have existed in the early 20th century was a challenge,” she writes of the film, which spans the life of an itinerant logger in the Pacific Northwest. “The production went to protected parks, where they had to be cautious about not affecting the environment. ‘How do you shoot a movie where they’re supposed to be cutting those trees, but they cannot even get close to those trees?’ Veloso says. ‘It was almost like shooting stunts.’”

More stories from our Feb. 19 issue

With yesterday’s Oscar nominees luncheon in the books, the marathon that is awards season is now entering the home stretch. But that doesn’t mean there’s no grist left for the mill, especially when it comes to those — like this week’s cover subject, 73-year-old first-time nominee Delroy Lindo — whose names weren’t necessarily on pundits’ nominations predictions lists.

Through Feb. 26 we’ll be more sharing stories like his, and many others, before Oscar voters cast their final ballots for the March 15 awards. I’ll let my friend Glenn Whipp regale you with tales from his interview with “Sinners” star Lindo when he sends his next newsletter on Friday. In the meantime, read on for more highlights from this week’s issue.

Digital cover story: Wagner Moura

(Jason Armond / Los Angeles Times)

Basking in the sun outside The Times newsroom ahead of his digital cover shoot last month, Wagner Moura seemed exceptionally relaxed about spending his Tuesday afternoon in El Segundo with a bunch of journalists. But don’t let “The Secret Agent” star’s easygoing personality fool you into thinking he’s aloof in any way.

As contributor Lisa Rosen writes in her profile of the actor, he’s unafraid to draw pointed comparison’s between Kleber Mendonça Filho’s acclaimed political thriller — nominated for four Oscars, including lead actor — and contemporary politics, from disgraced Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro to federal agents in American streets.

“This is also a film about infamy, because he’s being persecuted so unfairly,” he tells Rosen, comparing his character’s fate to that of Minneapolis residents Renee Good and Alex Pretti. After their deaths, he continues, “lies were spread about them online. It’s so cruel, and so it’s killing the person twice.”

The many charms of Ethan Hawke

(David Urbanke / For The Times)

I had the pleasure of speaking with Hawke and his wife and producing partner Ryan Hawke at Sundance the day after the actor earned an Oscar nomination for “Blue Moon,” so by the time I read contributor Margy Rochlin’s delightful interview with him and the film’s nominated screenwriter, Robert Kaplow, I could practically hear it in Hawke’s voice: boyishly enthusiastic, slyly funny, politically and creatively engaged.

But I don’t think you need to be intimately acquainted with Hawke, who also appeared on an Envelope digital cover last fall, to find him and Kaplow high-caliber raconteurs of the joys, and occasional indignities, of making independent films. “Sometimes you get to set and it’s easy to shape the text to make it more your own. The process here was for me to get rid of Ethan,” says Hawke. “It was to try and match the screenplay. I don’t ever remember working as hard — or [director] Rick [Linklater] being as mean to me.”

As far as hooking the listener to a story goes, Lorenz Hart, the loquacious lyricist that Hawke and Kaplow pay homage to in “Blue Moon,” would be proud.

Inside the race for best editing

(Illustration by Vartika Sharma / For The Times)

Oscar voters have occasionally been accused of making this award about the most editing instead of the best editing, but from the descriptions of this year’s five nominees, I think we can safely say that whomever the winner ends up being, their achievement will have been genuinely outstanding.

As contributor Bill Desowitz discovered from his outreach to the editors of “F1,” “One Battle After Another,” “Marty Supreme,” “Sentimental Value” and “Sinners,” coping with trauma is the surprising through line among the disparate scenes the nominees themselves chose as most pivotal to their films. (Given the volume of the footage some of them waded through, they might be suffering it too.)

Read more from our Feb. 12 issue