issues

At the Republican Party’s midterm convention, President Trump said he would make his crusade against transgender rights a major campaign issue ahead of the Nov. 3 election — calling the message that “men should not be playing in women’s sports” one of his party’s “great sound bites of all time.”

During a recent campaign trip, Gov. Gavin Newsom, a longtime LGBTQ+ advocate and likely Democratic contender for president in 2028, stood by his remark last year that allowing transgender athletes to compete in girls’ sports is “deeply unfair,” saying, “I haven’t been able to figure out how to make it fair from my perspective.”

For the second election cycle in a row, the rights of transgender people have taken center stage politically, despite their accounting for only about 1% of the U.S. population and many voters identifying other issues as far more important — splitting Republicans and Democrats, but also Democrats among themselves and putting the party on the defensive.

Transgender athlete AB Hernandez, third from right, sits with other athletes at the CIF State Track Championship finals in Clovis on May 30, 2026.

(Tomas Ovalle / For The Times)

The politics are part of a much broader, international battle playing out in education, sports and the law, from local California classrooms and high school sports to the Olympic stage and the U.S. Supreme Court. Polling for years has shown most Americans oppose discrimination against transgender people, but also that a majority — including a substantial portion of Democrats — oppose transgender athletes participating in girls’ sports and children receiving gender-affirming care such as surgery or puberty blockers.

Republicans are pushing a well-funded message that transgender rights should be dismantled across the board, in healthcare, education, sports, the military and public spaces such as restrooms. Conservative mega-donors such as Elon Musk have spent millions amplifying that message in competitive races from Alaska to Ohio to Texas.

And to some degree, those tactics have worked. While many Democrats have ardently defended transgender rights, particularly in California, others in the party have sided with Republicans or softened their support.

Democratic Senate candidate James Talarico appears with Jeffrey Epstein abuse survivors in Dallas on Sept. 10.

(Anja Schlein / Dallas Morning News )

James Talarico, the Democratic U.S. Senate candidate in Texas, backpedaled from past votes by saying young transgender athletes shouldn’t be allowed to play “if it risks safety or fairness,” while others including Rob Sand, a candidate for Iowa governor, and Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D-Ohio) have said they shouldn’t play.

Such messaging has dismayed transgender people and their families, as well as LGBTQ+ rights groups who have been trying to refine Democratic messaging on trans issues since Vice President Kamala Harris — another longtime LGBTQ+ advocate from California — responded to Trump’s anti-trans attacks in 2024 with a message some considered muddled.

Imara Jones, a transgender journalist and founder of TransLash Media, a platform built to spotlight trans people’s own experiences, said the party’s conflicting messaging “underscores the degree to which the Republicans have actually successfully weaponized trans issues.”

“You’re seeing a really sharp political calculus among Democrats,” Jones said, with those “in tight races, where they need to have Republican votes,” bending one way, and others who “want to make a statement about principle” and defending LGBTQ+ rights moving in the other.

Many Democrats in California say they believe the issue is a moral one and that Democrats only hurt themselves by ceding ground on human rights.

A volunteer for Toni Atkins, the former president pro tempore of the California State Senate, is silhouetted holding a Pride flag at the Harvey Milk Coachella Valley Diversity Breakfast, at the Palm Springs Convention Center in Palm Springs Thursday, May 8, 2025.

(Allen J. Schaben / Los Angeles Times)

“The solution is not to be ambiguous, but to be firm that we support basic human rights and the basic humanity of trans people,” said state Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco), a leader on pro-LGBTQ+ legislation running to replace retiring Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco). “Then go on to talk about the big issues facing our country, like this illegal war, like the fact that Congress has done nothing to regulate AI, like the explosive cost of energy and child care and housing.”

A national conversation

Trump has signed executive orders to bar transgender athletes from competing in girls’ sports, prohibit federal funding for gender-affirming care for youth, oust transgender service members from the military and deny recognition of transgender and nonbinary identities on critical documents such as passports.

The Justice Department has sued California and other states over their trans-inclusive sports policies, and successfully threatened large hospitals into ending gender-affirming care programs. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services barred federal Medicaid spending on gender-affirming medication or surgeries for minors.

Martin Makary, commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration, speaks at Health and Human Services headquarters in Washington on Dec. 18, 2025.

(Stefani Reynolds / Bloomberg)

Trump campaigned on such policies, and he and other Republicans clearly see them as helpful in the midterms. In his convention speech, Trump said he’s been surprised more Democrats haven’t abandoned transgender rights given polling showing a majority of Americans oppose transgender athletes in girls’ sports.

“They say it’s an 80/20 issue,” Trump said, in an apparent reference to a January 2025 New York Times/Ipsos poll that found 79% of respondents believed transgender athletes should not be allowed to compete in women’s sports. More recent polls have shown a smaller majority opposed.

The debate has prompted new bans on transgender athletes in college sports and in the Olympics and divided some of the most well-known professional women athletes in the world. It has also put transgender kids in California and elsewhere under an intense microscope — and on the receiving end of harassment from protesters who show up with loudspeakers to local track meets.

Demonstrators at a Rainbow Families Action march in Emeryville, Calif., on Dec. 8, 2025.

(Jessica Christian / San Francisco Chronicle )

Arne Johnson, a Bay Area father of a transgender child who helps run the advocacy group Rainbow Families Action, said being targeted by Republicans is scary, but watching Democrats “find ways to be more flexible about the rights of human beings” has been profoundly disappointing.

But he said he’s also been encouraged by some more recent polling showing Americans moving back toward the middle on transgender rights, which he believes is in part due to people being deluged with anti-trans ads getting frustrated that the political conversation isn’t focused on issues they care more about, like affordability and healthcare.

Ramiro Sarmiento, a spokesperson for the Human Rights Campaign, which has tracked at least $50 million in anti-trans political ads this cycle, agreed, saying, “MAGA wants to talk about trans kids because they’re losing the conversation voters actually care about.”

Conservative groups reject that framing. Many deny tht transgender people exist, while others say they are working to protect cisgender children or defend religious beliefs. They have also scoffed at Democrats who have changed their positions in the lead-up to the election, with the conservative American Principles Project accusing Talarico of only pretending to shift away from his “gender radicalism” on sports in order to win votes.

Allison Schuster, a White House spokesperson, said the Biden administration “spent four years pushing a radical agenda” of gender-affirming care for children, while Trump “pledged to restore common sense” and has since “delivered by consistently taking strong action to protect children from these dangerous, life-altering medical practices.”

The fight in California

In California, transgender athletes competing in youth sports has been raised as an issue in the governor’s race, where Republican hopeful Steve Hilton has rallied against their inclusion, and featured prominently in the races for the next state attorney general and the next state superintendent of public schools.

Transgender athlete AB Hernandez competes for Jurupa Valley High School at the 2025 CIF state track and field championships.

(Tomas Ovalle / For The Times)

Several Democrats running for Congress in the state have been criticized for their records on transgender rights, including San Diego City Councilmember Marni von Wilpert, who is seeking the redistricted congressional seat of departing Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Bonsall), as well as Reps. Adam Gray (D-Merced) and Derek Tran (D-Orange).

Christian Martinez, a National Republican Congressional Committee spokesperson, has accused Von Wilpert of having a “perverted agenda [that] pushes hormone treatments on kids,” and Gray of being “for they/them, not for Californians.”

Marni von Wilpert, a Democratic candidate for California’s 48th Congressional District, canvasses in a neighborhood Friday, May 29, 2026, in San Marcos, Calif.

(Gregory Bull / Associated Press)

California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta’s office is fighting on multiple fronts to protect gender-affirming care and successfully rebuffed a Justice Department lawsuit over the state’s transgender sports policies. But pressure is coming not only from the Trump administration.

The California Interscholastic Federation, which oversees high school athletics, also revised its rules to ensure that transgender athletes in individual sports do not displace cisgender ones from rankings or medal podiums. And after local California teachers sued, the U.S. Supreme Court in March ruled against a controversial California student privacy law that precluded teachers from revealing a child’s interest in presenting in gender nonconforming ways in school to their parents if the child requested confidentiality, finding that the policy infringed on parents’ rights and the free exercise of religion.

Meanwhile, state lawmakers just passed at least a dozen measures aimed at bolstering LGBTQ+ rights, including by restoring an LGBTQ+ youth suicide and crisis hotline; helping discharged LGBTQ+ service members find housing and jobs; requiring California gender-affirming healthcare providers who are subpoenaed to inform Bonta’s office if they intend to respond; improving access to HIV prevention care and enhancing LGBTQ+ data privacy.

Newsom signed all those measures into law — his office said California “will not stand” for Trump’s “all-out assault on the LGBTQ community” — but vetoed a bill that would have barred future governors from allowing the extradition of abortion or gender-affirming care providers in California to states where such care is illegal, citing concerns about reduced executive discretion.

The 2026-27 state budget appropriated $66 million for gender-affirming care, including up to $30 million for underinsured patients in the Uncompensated Care Program, $26 million to assist organizations that provide such care and $10 million to cover care for poor children who lost it under the new Medicaid rules. Wiener called the latter a “short-term solution” that will protect kids while the state figures out a more permanent billing pathway under Medi-Cal.

A.W., a Bay Area mother of a transgender teenager who requested anonymity because she fears being targeted by the Trump administration, said her child’s gender-affirming care — a lifeline for him in recent years — was disrupted by the Medicaid rule change, and the state’s temporary fix was too little, too late.

A.W. said families like hers “shouldn’t have to make medical decisions based on politicians in Washington,” particularly for care so critical to her son and other kids. “If he had not had access to gender-affirming care, I don’t know where we would be,” she said. “It scares me to think about it.”

Times staff writer Dakota Smith contributed to this report.

Oh, Strictly. Home of the both the most bizarre and glorious dances known to man. Over the years we’ve seen some incredible routines – ones that brought a tear to the eye, ones that made us double over with laughter, and ones that made our jaws drop.

Many have been watched again and again online. Here are six that broke the internet:

Faye Tozer and Giovanni Pernice’s Charleston

This charleston, choreographed the The Lonely Goatherd, is amongst the most iconic, inventive, and technically brilliant performances the programme has ever witnessed. Bruno hailed it a “theatrical masterpiece” and urged them to “take it to Broadway”. Darcey Bussell emphasised how remarkable it was that a specific movement had been crafted for every single beat of the music.

Lewis Cope and Katya Jones’ Couple’s Choice

Lewis and Katya’s Couple’s Choice to a jazz version of Radiohead’s Creep during Series 23 proved to be one of the defining, standout moments of that series. The performance moved many viewers and judges to tears, with commentators and former professionals hailing it as one of the most unforgettable Couple’s Choice routines in Strictly history.

Danny Mac and Oti Mabuse’s Samba

Who can forget the first samba to earn a 40 on Strictly? Oti crafted professional-level choreography, and Danny delivered fluid hip isolations and relentless energy that matched her step-for-step.

Rose Ayling-Ellis and Giovanni Pernice’s Couple’s Choice

Their Couple’s Choice routine is widely regarded as one of the most powerful, moving, and culturally significant moments in British television history. Performed in Week 8 to “Symphony” by Clean Bandit ft. Zara Larsson, the contemporary routine was dedicated to the Deaf community.

At the midpoint of the routine, as the music swelled to its peak, the sound cut out entirely, leaving a silence lasting roughly 20 seconds while Rose and Giovanni continued dancing in perfect unison.

Bill Bailey and Oti Mabuse’s Couple’s Choice

Bill, a 55-year-old actor and comedian initially regarded as the “novelty” or wildcard contestant of the series, astonished everyone with his remarkable sense of rhythm, musicality, and dedication. The performance immediately went viral on social media and established Bill as a genuine contender for the series title.

Aston Merrygold and Janette Manrar’s Salsa

The choreography showcased numerous breathtaking overhead lifts and spins, capitalising fully on Janette’s mastery of Latin theatrical work. Their salsa proved hugely popular with audiences and achieved an impressive score, though it later became a focal point of debate within the series, as only three weeks later, Aston and Janette were knocked out.

MIS-TEEQ’S Sabrina Washington has made a huge U-turn as she AXES her own solo tour and issues a grovelling apology to fans after sparking mass confusion.

The singer has cancelled her upcoming tour just mere days after seemingly parting ways from the hit band and announcing her solo career plans.

Just days after Mis-teeq’s sold-out 25th anniversary reunion concert in London, Sabrina declared that there would be no further Mis-Teeq dates or new music – which left fans completely baffled.

But now she has sensationally backtracked on all of that.

In a statement shared on social media, Sabrina said: “I have been paying close attention to what people have been saying, reading the comments and trying to understand what you genuinely want to see from me.

“And one thing has come through very clearly: there is a strong desire to see the three of us perform Mis-Teeq’s greatest hits together again.”

MIS-LED?

Mis-Teeq’s Sabrina Washington LIED on national TV … and I have the proof

MIS-TERY

Fired-up Mis-Teeq star Sabrina breaks silence on ‘feud’ & denies band split

She went on: “Ultimately, I don’t want to push ahead with a solo tour when I know there is such a strong feeling among fans about seeing Mis-Teeq together again.

“So, with a heavy heart, I have decided that the right thing for me is to cancel the tour.”

Sabrina added: “This is not a decision I have taken lightly. But for me, the fans have to come first.”

She noted that although she is cancelling the tour, she is not putting her own music to one side.

“I have been working on new solo material,” she revealed in the statement.

She then addressed her comments about going solo and Mis-teeq having no new plans in the pipeline.

“I now understand that my plans may not have been fully communicated to Alesha and Su-Elise before the announcement.

“Looking back, I could have shared more detail with management and spoken to the girls directly beforehand, and for that I am sorry.”

Sabrina added: “I have never closed the door on Mis-Teeq. I said on GMB, and I want to say again: I would never say no to another Mis-Teeq show.

“If the right opportunity came along and the three of us all wanted to do it, I would absolutely be open to that.”

Fans were quick to brand her “courageous” and “brave” for speaking out, though some were annoyed as they had already booked tickets to her now-axed solo tour.

The Sun exclusively revealed last week that the Scandalous hitmakers would be going their separate ways following their recent sold-out reunion gig.

Sabrina, Alesha Dixon, 47, and Su-Elise Nash, 45, brought the house down as they took to the stage to mark 25 years since their debut album Lickin’ on Both Sides.

But soon after the performance, Sabrina revealed she planned to go solo.

Speaking exclusively to The Sun last month, she said: “We have had such a massive year together and I’m really proud of what we achieved. 

“We got to come back 25 years later, perform together again and finish with a sold-out Wembley show.

“It was a really special way to celebrate everything the three of us created together.

“But there aren’t any further Mis-Teeq dates or new music planned and we’ve all gone back to doing our own things now.

“For me, though, I wasn’t ready for the celebration to end there.”

Kennedy Center officials were long aware of serious structural issues that they cited as new problems after the abrupt decision to close the performing arts venue this month, a group of former employees allege in a letter to Congress.

The center’s executive director and chief operating officer, Matt Floca, did not treat the roofing issues as priorities and in April halted a funded plan to address them, according to the letter Thursday signed by David Seide, a lawyer representing the anonymous whistleblowers.

Floca denied their allegations, saying recent investigations of the leaks exposed new hazards at the building.

In a September court declaration, Floca noted there were “acute risks to public safety” when the aging building temporarily closed its doors after an inspection of a deteriorating roof terrace canopy and a partial ceiling collapse. The former employees, however, claim those “acute” issues were known previously by Floca, who joined the Kennedy Center as vice president of facilities in 2024.

“More than one year ago, Mr. Floca had requested and received the needed funds to remediate the New Problems he references,” Seide wrote, citing President Trump’s tax cut and spending bill that he signed in the summer of 2025. “Yet six months ago – with the funds in hand – he stopped the remediation process from moving forward.” In the legislation, Congress earmarked $257 million for the Kennedy Center.

The letter, first reported by The New York Times, is the latest in a series of tensions over an iconic Potomac River waterfront building that has become a focus of the Republican president in his remaking of the nation’s capital in his second term. Trump has installed his own leadership to the center’s governing board and had his name placed on the building before a judge ruled the new lettering was illegally added and ordered it removed.

The Trump-aligned board voted earlier this month to close the center indefinitely for repairs hours after U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper blocked its plans to return Trump’s name to the building.

Cooper has told the center that it must give 30 days’ notice before making any major physical changes to the building, including demolishing it, as Trump has threatened. The Kennedy Center leadership also must file a status report no later than Friday on the temporary closure and emergency repairs.

Asked for a response to the whistleblowers’ claims, a Kennedy Center spokesperson sent a written statement from Floca, who said the safety of patrons, artists and staff is his priority.

“The Kennedy Center has known for years that the roof overhang leaked,” he wrote. “What we did not know until this summer was how far the damage had spread inside it.”

Floca added that rather than halting design plans in April as the whistleblowers alleged, he had reassigned the work to a more comprehensive plan because the contractor’s quote for the initial plans were nearly three times the expected cost.

“That was a change in the approach to procuring and delivering the work, not a determination that the work was unnecessary,” Floca wrote.

Rhode Island Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, the top Democrat on the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, wrote Floca on Thursday after receiving the whistleblower letter. Whitehouse said the documents showed Kennedy Center leadership had “hoarded” congressionally appropriated funding for repairs “while blaming previous leadership for the state of repairs.”

“My initial investigation into misconduct at the Center focused on cronyism and corruption, with documents demonstrating considerable excessive and self-serving spending under President Trump’s chairmanship,” Whitehouse said. “The documents that I attach today seem to reveal deeper financial mismanagement.”

A spokesperson for the committee’s Republican majority did not immediately reply to a request for comment Saturday.

Swenson writes for the Associated Press.

HEATHROW Airport bosses have warned plans for a third runway could be delayed by four years due to major planning rows.

The Government’s ambition had been to see flights take off from a new runway in London by 2035.

But airport bosses are believed to have told ministers that the deadline is not possible and won’t be ready until 2039, reports The Times.

The initial target had been set by then-Chancellor Rachel Reeves in January 2025 – but it was considered an ambitious goal at the time.

Ms Reeves used a major speech on infrastructure to announce the Government would be supporting the third runway project as a means of growing the economy, and also said it would create 100,000 jobs.

But London Heathrow has said they aim to “secure planning permission” by 2029 and “once achieved, the runway will be open within a decade”.

FOOTIE TO FOODIE

I stayed at UK hotel owned by ex-Man City ace – he even cooks your brekkie

DEAD CHEAP

Top UK holiday parks for Halloween fun at October half term from £2.75pp a night

Its bosses believe it could be delivered more quickly, but that this may require further regulatory red tape to be removed beyond reforms that the Government has already made to planning law.

A spokesperson said: “It’s right that ambitious targets were set; the sooner expansion begins, the sooner the whole UK will benefit. Our focus has always been to secure planning permission by 2029.

“Once achieved, the runway will be open within a decade – and the benefits of expansion can be felt from today. At least 108,000 new jobs and billions invested in supply chains in every part of the country.

“This is a national project, 100% privately financed, which will support growth today and secure the UK’s position in the global economy once the runway opens.”

Meanwhile, the Department for Transport said the timeline for the plans “has always been ambitious”.

Gary Smith, General Secretary of GMB, said: “This is a deliverable, workable and practical timeline for Heathrow expansion that unlocks over 100,000 jobs.

“We need to put an end to decades of talk and lost benefits for working people across the country and get cracking.”

Transport Secretary Heidi Alexander insisted the project could go ahead in a way that would not fall foul of climate change commitments.

The Climate Change Committee, the expert panel that advises the Government, said earlier this month the expansion of Heathrow airport cannot go ahead unless the aviation industry is forced to clean up its emissions.

The cost of international flights might have to increase by hundreds of pounds by 2050 to pay for measures that will help the airline sector cut its carbon pollution to zero overall, known as net zero, the committee said.

Ms Alexander told the Daily Telegraph the committee had set out “one view” but there was “more than one pathway to meeting our climate mate change obligations”.

“We do remain committed to net zero, and we’re updating some of our wider decarbonisation plans in transport as well,” she said.

“But the UK’s climate change targets are ultimately economy-wide targets, and we really need to look holistically at how emissions are reduced across the economy as a whole.”

She said an expanded Heathrow could be “the country’s front door” to tourists from China and India.

The Heathrow proposals involve building a 3,500-metre runway and requires a new M25 tunnel and bridges to be built 130 metres west of the existing motorway.

It is estimated to cost £33 billion, including £1.5 billion on re-routing the motorway which would also see nearby villages demolished.

The government had previously rejected a proposal from Arora Group, led by hotel tycoon Surinder Arora, to build the third runway.

The Arora plan had proposed a shorter, 2,800-metre runway that would not require diverting the M25.

The new 3,500 metre runway will be in the northwest of the airport, and will eventually welcome up to 276,000 new flights a year.

This takes the annual flights from 480,000 to 756,000, with as many as 30 new flight routes a day.

A Department for Transport spokesperson said: “There is currently no live planning application for a third runway, and we cannot comment on ongoing consultation processes or prejudice them in a way that will only delay progress.

“The timeline has always been ambitious.

Miranda Hart has explained why she decided to sign up to Celebrity Traitors, which comes after years out of the spotlight as she dealt with a series of health struggles

Miranda Hart has explained why she decided to sign up to Celebrity Traitors following her “long term ill health issues.” The comedienne, 53, is best known for fronting her eponymous sitcom in the late 2000s but took a break from the spotlight after becoming increasingly unwell.

The TV star previously told how she had suffered a “tick-borne illness” while living in the USA as a teenager. At one point, she was diagnosed with myalgic encephalomyelitis (ME), also known as chronic fatigue syndrome, before eventually being diagnosed with Lyme Disease in 2020.

The Celebrity Traitors will mark Miranda’s first mainstream television appearance in six years, and she has now explained that she jumped at the chance to take part.

She said: “My decision making in life generally, and certainly work, is follow the joy. I haven’t done much TV work for a long time, having only recently come out of long-term ill health issues and when I was offered this, my whole body sort of relaxed, I smiled, and I just wanted to jump about like a schoolgirl with joy.

“It’s just fun. It’s outdoors, it’s games. All the stuff I love. It’s play basically. And I’m passionate about encouraging people to play more generally, and this game is that in spades.

“It’s a brilliant television show – the only flaw in taking part is that as a fan of the show it will be less fun to watch it with myself in it!”

Despite her new lease of life, the former Call the Midwife star, who secretly got married in late 2024, is still living with elements of her illness and is struggling to a point but has been able to manage her symptoms and insisted she felt well enough to join Claudia Winkleman’s hit BBC game show.

She added: “I’m still living with elements of ME, and that brings fatigue and pain to manage, but I have come to a point where I feel well enough to step out, and that’s also partly why I’m doing this.

“The joy of mucking about on television again will hopefully outweigh some of the challenges. And I think it will be challenging on my body, so it’ll be interesting, and it’ll take some courage as this is a big next step.

“When you live with a chronic illness, it’s invisible, so people don’t know that you’re sitting there in pain. But then it reminds you that everybody’s got their thing. So, I’m also really looking forward to making friends and looking after each other and hopefully they can carry me up a hill or whatever we’re going to have to do!”

Miranda, who will appear alongside the likes of Little Mix singer Leigh-Anne Pinnock, Coronation Street legend Julie Hesmondhalgh, and Love Island host Maya Jama, even teased that there could be a nod to her sitcom past.

She added: “When someone said on Instagram, “Oh, I hope you gallop in the castle,” I foolishly replied, Right, I now take that as a dare.” So that was idiotic of me.

“I will have to at some point gallop down a corridor. I’ll gallop when no one’s watching…or who would be the best person to encourage to gallop?

“I don’t know. I mean, Kenny probably doesn’t even know who I am. So, if I could get him to gallop…I could get a new generation galloping.”

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

EXCLUSIVE Coronation Street actress Sair Khan, who plays Alya Nazir on the ITV soap, has teased drama with the Barlows, and told viewers to watch out for Idris Nazir

There could be trouble in paradise for Coronation Street couple Alya Nazir and Adam Barlow very soon.

Sair Khan teased drama with the Barlows, an “uneasy journey” for Adam and Alya, and Sair also teased we should watch out for Alya’s villainous relative Idris Nazir. Sair spoke exclusively to the Mirror while promoting This Girl Can’s recent campaign, Move for 10.

The campaign aims to empower women – particularly those from underrepresented groups or communities – to reconnect with their bodies and find joy through movement. Sair spilled all about what was ahead on the cobbles, and whether she thinks her character Alya’s romance with Adam will last.

She said: “I think for Alya and Adam, there’s definitely not going to be an easy journey. As much as I want to see them committed, it’s not going to be the easiest journey for that to happen. So keep watching just for that. There might be a few obstacles in the way.”

Hoping to revisit the past, she added: “Don’t forget Tracy Barlow was actually responsible for Alya’s father’s death. I guess somewhere that’s not forgotten, even though time has passed.

“So, there is a lot of history there, and a lot of untapped potential either way, whether that’s them repairing and being unlikely friends, or there being a fallout.” Teasing Barlow drama on the way, Sair said she hoped Alya and Adam will make it through.

She said: “I really like the idea of them as a power couple, they’re both serious about their work, they’re kind of a modern day version of what we’ve seen before. I love working with Sam [Robertson] as well, and I really hope it does continue.

“Who knows, their relationship might get more serious in terms of the drama, which you can’t avoid if you’re in a soap opera! I know that Alya is going to be getting in between some of the Barlow drama, but, they’ve been so great with me and really welcomed me into that family, so I’m here for it. I’m here for the drama.”

As for Idris, Sair said she hopes Alya catches him out and holds him to account over his recent manipulation tactics. She said: “I think everyone would be wise to proceed with caution when it comes to Idris!

“As much as he’s family, he’s also a businessman, and he wants to look out for himself, and he’s not come from money and he’s come into it. I think he’s got the taste for success and he won’t necessarily let anyone or anything stand in his way.

“I would like to see him go further, and I would like to see Alya realise the way that she was gently manipulated into giving over her shares of Speed Daal, because at the moment, I think maybe it’s been a bit glossed over, or he’s made her think it’s her idea, whereas is that what she really wants? But there’s always time. Maybe she’ll get it back one day.”

Sair also spoke to us about her reason for taking on the Move for 10 challenge, revealing the positive impacted it has had on her. She told us: “I’ve always admired the This Girl Can campaigns that they’ve run since 2015.

“I just think it’s such a positive and encouraging message that they always send. I think this particular campaign really hit me in a different way. I’m in such a different stage of life than I was when I first started on Corrie.

“I think the campaign really resonated with me because it’s just so easy to do. I think that’s what I need at the moment, to just be able to slot something in into my life without too much fuss.”

She went on: “It’s just difficult because it’s all about balancing, with work and family life, but I almost think that that’s a bit of a myth these days, because sometimes you can do it all, and other weeks work is really busy, or someone at home is sick, and there is no balance to be seen. And I think in those times, you just have to be realistic with your expectations of what you can achieve and just do what you can.

“That’s why the Move for 10 really appealed to me, because it was something realistic, which meant I could still prioritise my own well-being, and still manage to do what I needed to do for my family and what I needed to do for work. I think that’s so important.”

Sair features in This Girl Can’s recent campaign – Move for 10 – which encourages women to move for 10 minutes, 10 times a month. Empowering women to reconnect with their bodies and find joy through movement, unlocking the powerful benefits that small but regular sessions can offer. To find out more search, This Girl Can Move for 10 .

Below-par showings were forgiven last season as Celtic simply just had to get by to stay in touch at the top before eventually leapfrogging Heart of Midlothian on the final day with a seventh successive league victory.

That Premiership-winning streak has been extended to 13 games following six straight victories to start the campaign, but concerns about performance level remain. Four of those six wins have been by a one-goal margin.

Twelve goals over three wins at Kilmarnock, Dundee United and in the first leg of the Champions League play-off against LASK sent an ominous warning to Celtic’s domestic rivals amid a period of high spending, particularly in forward areas.

Camilo Duran has been the standout summer recruit so far with six goals and three assists in 10 appearances, while record signing Kasper Hogh and fellow big-money arrival Haissem Hassan are yet to fully settle.

Sutton said his old club have been “flat-track bullies” by “beating the teams you expect them to beat”, but the collapse in Austria, plus Sunday’s bruising loss, has highlighted glaring deficiencies.

Even captain Callum McGregor lamented Celtic’s “team of individuals” after the weekend defeat at Ibrox.

Speaking on BBC Radio 5 Live’s Monday Night Club, former striker Sutton also expressed his “great concerns” for O’Neill’s men and said they have “big issues” after a “lightweight” midfield was “run all over” by Rangers.

Celtic have struggled to build up play against coherent pressing teams, which results in opposition sides being offered too much encouragement when the ball turns over.

They faced a whopping 60 shots across both legs with LASK. Forty of them came in a mess of a second leg. In the Premiership alone this season, they have faced 64 attempts, the same number as Hearts and six more than Rangers.

Over just six games, that tally already makes up almost a quarter of the total they faced in the entirety of the 2024-25 league-winning campaign under Brendan Rodgers.

That said, in comparison to last term, which was overseen by Rodgers, Nancy and O’Neill, Celtic’s Premiership numbers show they are currently averaging a far better goal concession rate while scoring and shooting more.

Come Sunday, though, the most crucial statistic could be in the points column.

With a rapid rematch against Rangers offering the chance to move eight points clear of their city rivals after a test against European-level opposition, the next four days will at least be mood-shifting.

Whether that is to O’Neill’s benefit remains unclear.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom does not like being on Donald Trump’s side on any issue.

But when it comes to transgender girls and women in sports, particularly at the school level, the Democrat said he largely agrees with the Republican president. Newsom, one of his party’s leading White House prospects, believes it’s “deeply unfair” for people who are assigned male at birth to compete against girls.

“I don’t want to be on that side of it, but I’m being honest — I’d be lying to you if I said differently,” Newsom told the Associated Press as he was campaigning recently in South Carolina. “I haven’t been able to figure out how to make it fair from my perspective.”

Newsom is not alone.

While most Democratic officials remain steadfast supporters of the transgender community, an increasing number in red and blue states are distancing themselves from their party’s unflinching support for the transgender community’s policy priorities, such as allowing athletes to compete on teams that match their gender identity. The shift follows years of conservative attacks against Democrats on the divisive issue, which affects a relatively small number of transgender people and their families, but has emerged as one of Republicans’ most potent political weapons in the Trump era.

Soul searching over transgender issues is one facet of a sprawling identity crisis that Democrats are confronting during the midterms and before the next presidential election. Although they risk a backlash from their progressive base, there is also a sense in some corners that the party must evolve on an issue where the overwhelming majority of voters — even many Democrats — agree with Trump.

The issue was a central theme for Trump and his Republican allies on the main stage at their midterm convention in Dallas last week, where the president said he hoped Democrats would continue to stand up for transgender girls and women who want to compete in girls’ and women’s sports.

“I’m petrified that they’ll change,” he said. “That will really hurt us.”

Republicans are already replaying some of the same political attacks that they used against Kamala Harris in the presidential campaign two years ago, when they said she’s “for they/them, not you.” On Friday, they released a new advertisement targeting James Talarico, the Democratic nominee for Senate in Texas, with the same phrase.

Democrats confront difficult political terrain

A political group backed by billionaire Trump ally Elon Musk has begun running digital ads targeting Democrats in key Senate races in Texas, Ohio and Alaska, accusing them of allowing men to compete in women’s sports.

In Texas’ pivotal Senate contest, the new ad from Musk’s America PAC opens with a video clip of Talarico saying that “God is nonbinary.”

Talarico began to distance himself from those positions months ago. He went further in a Fox News interview last week, saying he would vote in favor of a national ban for gender-affirming surgeries for transgender minors, which are rare.

“I’ve missed the mark on some of my past statements. I will be the first to admit it,” Talarico said in an interview near the Republican convention site. “I think the reason that politicians in that convention center across the street want to talk about six sexes is because they don’t want to talk about $6 diesel.”

In Iowa, State Auditor Rob Sand, the Democratic Party’s nominee for governor, has spoken out against transgender athletes competing in women’s sports as a matter of fairness. Ohio Democratic gubernatorial nominee Amy Acton has taken a similar position, although she has drawn criticism from the left for adopting Trump’s language after saying she opposed “boys playing in girls’ sports.”

And in deep-blue Massachusetts, transgender rights became a defining campaign issue during the state’s recent Democratic U.S. Senate primary, illustrating the potential backlash that party members can face.

Sen. Ed Markey, 80, secured the nomination and later credited his win to not shying away from advocating for transgender rights. He used the issue to attack his Democratic opponent, Rep. Seth Moulton, who had said he wouldn’t want his daughters to play against transgender athletes.

Moulton apologized for his comments, which drew outrage from some progressives, but the damage was done.

While Moulton lost his primary, his position — not Markey’s — is in line with the majority of voters nationally.

A June poll from Quinnipiac University found that about 7 in 10 registered voters think that transgender women and girls should not be allowed to play on women’s and girls’ sports teams. About one-quarter think they should. Democrats are divided, with about half saying transgender women and girls should be allowed and about half saying they should not.

A Pew Research Center poll conducted last year found that just over half, 55%, of Democrats would be “not too” or “not at all” comfortable with athletes playing on teams that don’t match their sex at birth, while 21% said they were “somewhat” comfortable and only 23% said they were “extremely” or “very” comfortable with this.

There’s division among activists

Markey’s public commitment to transgender rights stood out because Democratic politicians are increasingly running away from the issue, said Tyler Hack, executive director of the Christopher Street Project, which is dedicated to electing supporters of transgender rights to federal office.

“The reality of being a transgender person in America in 2026 is that on election nights, while other folks are talking about who had a good night and who had a bad night, sometimes you are quietly wondering, ‘Am I going to be OK?’” Hack said.

At the same time, even transgender activists are divided over supporting Democrats who have positions that are unfriendly to transgender people.

Erin Reed, an advocate and independent journalist covering transgender issues, this month put out a guide flagging Democratic candidates who she accused of taking anti-transgender positions. She highlighted 15 states that have such Democrats, saying that she would not vote for the “worst offenders” even if it means a Republican wins.

She doesn’t want Democrats to see that “throwing transgender people under the bus is a winning strategy.”

“One seat can be won back,” Reed wrote. “A party cannot.”

Meanwhile, Hack would probably vote for a Democrat even if that candidate supports some policies the Christopher Street Project opposes, in hopes that the party can take control of Congress. However, those candidates shouldn’t expect the organization’s endorsement.

“While I hope many of them win, I think they can do it without our resources and without our support,” Hack said.

Laws are changing around the country

The political debate is evolving as transgender people increasingly become the target of conservative backlash through state laws and the Trump administration.

Sports participation has become one of the main fronts in a political battle over transgender rights, although most Republican-controlled states have also implemented policies that affect a bigger slice of the population. There are bans on some gender-affirming health care for transgender young people and rules against transgender people from using the bathrooms that match their gender identity in schools and occasionally other public places.

At least 25 states are now enforcing laws or policies banning transgender women and girls from competing in at least some women’s and girls’ sports and three others have adopted laws but have enforcement blocked by the courts.

Earlier this year, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld state laws barring transgender girls from school teams.

Transgender athletes make up a small portion of team rosters. NCAA president Charlie Baker testified in 2024 that he knew of fewer than 10 transgender college student-athletes out of more than 500,000 total.

The debate is a preview for 2028

The debate within the Democratic Party heading into the 2026 midterms offers a preview for those Democrats contemplating presidential bids in 2028.

Newsom, who is considered a frontrunner in the shadow primary, highlighted his long record of supporting LGBTQ+ priorities, including sanctioning same-sex marriage as the San Francisco mayor decades ago and later appointing the first trans judge in California history.

But in sports, he thinks it’s unfair to allow people assigned as males at birth to compete against girls.

“It’s a hard issue. I struggle with it,” Newsom said. “I think people know where my heart is, my soul is. I have a trans godson.”

Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker, another likely Democratic presidential contender, has taken the opposite position.

He has consistently criticized state-level bans and restrictions on transgender athletes, calling them “bullying” and a “setback for equality.” Following the recent Supreme Court ruling that upheld state bans on transgender athletes, Pritzker, whose cousin is transgender, reaffirmed his position on social media.

“There’s a place for you in Illinois,” he wrote.

In Pennsylvania, Democratic Gov. Josh Shapiro opposes bans on transgender athletes in school sports, which he’s called cruel and designed to discriminate. He argues that athletic participation and eligibility should not be dictated by politicians, but rather handled by local athletic organizations — a stance in line with several LGBTQ+ groups.

He’s also raised questions of fairness, however.

“Look, I think it’s a tough deal being born into the wrong body. And I don’t think these kids deserve to be persecuted and bullied by the president of the United States,” Shapiro told The Atlantic last year. “I also don’t think they deserve an unfair advantage on the playing field.” Research has been mixed on whether transgender women have advantages in sports, and it depends partly on whether they went through puberty as boys.

Former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg, who is gay and a potential presidential contender, said on Fox earlier in the year that he takes people seriously on both sides of the debate “whether you’re talking about parents who are wondering what this means for fairness for their kids competing, or parents who want to make sure that their kids aren’t being discriminated against and get a chance to participate.”

“But I also have to tell you,” he added, “I would be surprised if this is a top three or even a top 10 voter issue in the midterms this year.” ___

Peoples and Mulvihill write for the Associated Press. AP writers Kimberlee Kruesi in Providence, R.I., and Amelia Thomson DeVeaux in Washington contributed to this report.

SACRAMENTO — Actor Clint Eastwood rode back into politics Tuesday to take on the timber industry.

The former mayor of Carmel and longtime conservative Republican joined forces with environmentalists to cut a television commercial promoting Proposition 130, the “Forests Forever” initiative that would halt clear-cutting in California’s forests.

“Let’s save the ancient redwoods,” the actor says as he sits in a chair holding a copy of the ballot pamphlet.

With a week to go until Election Day, Eastwood became the latest to join a battle of the airwaves being waged by environmentalists and industry groups over four ballot initiatives affecting the environment.

Spending millions of dollars on television time, the environmentalist and industry campaigns are relying on celebrities, emotion-charged ads, pocketbook appeals and, at times, exaggeration in their last-ditch efforts to win on Tuesday.

For campaigns that have spent months raising money and discussing complex scientific and regulatory issues, the election now comes down to its final–and most important–stage: a series of 30-second television ads.

Eastwood is just one of a number of celebrities appearing in commercials to promote one of two initiatives sponsored by environmentalists–Propositions 128 and 130. Actors Ted Danson, Michael Landon, John Ritter and “Twin Peaks” stars Kyle MacLachlan and Michael Ontkean are lending their celebrity status to the environmentalist cause.

Environmentalists also are promoting their initiatives with heart-tugging ads that feature a 10-year-old leukemia victim whose friends died of cancer and a young boy who goes camping with his father only to find the redwoods gone.

The campaign against Proposition 128 has countered with a commercial featuring former U.S. Surgeon General C. Everett Koop opposing the initiative and other ads portraying average Californians worried about the cost of the sweeping environmental measure.

The timber industry is running an ad contending that its countermeasure, Proposition 138, will save the state’s ancient forests. Farmers are airing a spot maintaining that their initiative, Proposition 135, seeks an end to aerial malathion spraying.

In attempting to win passage of Proposition 128, environmentalists have taken the detailed, complex measure they call “Big Green”–which affects the state’s food, water, air and coast–and boiled it down to very simple terms.

This week, the campaign began airing a commercial featuring 10-year-old Jennifer Shepherd, a leukemia victim from the San Joaquin Valley town of Fowler, which has been hard hit by cases of childhood cancer.

“I’m really angry,” says Jennifer’s father, Dan. “Five of my neighbor’s children have died of cancer. My little girl still has to live with it.”

Showing the Fowler cemetery and raw sewage spilling out of a pipe, the commercial says, “Prop. 128 is not complicated. It’s about cancer and kids like Jennifer Shepherd and phasing out dangerous toxic chemicals.”

To counteract the appeal of the anti-pesticide initiative, opponents are airing the ad sowing Koop, retired and out of uniform, sitting behind a desk and criticizing the initiative.

“I’ve spent my life urging Americans to do things to protect and enhance their health,” Koops says. “But public policy should be based on science, not scare tactics. If I thought Proposition 128 would protect the health of mothers and children, as its backers claim, I’d be with them. I’m not.”

Advertisements on both sides of Proposition 128 have tended to overstate the measure’s effects, with environmentalists at times exaggerating its environmental benefits and opponents emphasizing high costs that may never come to pass.

For example, the campaign in favor of Proposition 128 has run ads depicting the measure as a smog fighter even though it does not target air pollution. Rather, the proposition would combat global warming, and cleaner air would result only because many of the changes needed to cut emissions of carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas, also would reduce smog.

Opponents of Proposition 128, who call it “The Hayden Initiative,” have responded with ads charging that the wide-ranging measure will cost too much. “Nearly every section is full of complicated restrictions that end up raising costs for electricity, gasoline, water, food . . . products we use every day,” says a woman in one ad, standing in the driveway after a shopping trip.

Hefty price hikes for gas, electricity, water and food are one possible scenario, but not the only one. Supporters counter that the measure could save the state billions of dollars, primarily because of lower energy consumption.

To negate the pesticide provisions of Proposition 128, the agricultural industry is promoting Proposition 135. Among other things, the farmers’ initiative would leave regulation of pesticides largely in the hands of the California Department of Food and Agriculture, often criticized by environmental groups for favoring agricultural interests.

The commercials for Proposition 135, like those on Proposition 128, tend to exaggerate its environmental effects. One ad says the measure “seeks an end to aerial Medfly spraying.”

In fact, backers of Proposition 135 have defended aerial spraying of malathion over the Los Angeles Basin while many of the proponents of Big Green have fought to halt the spraying. The commercial’s claim is based on provisions in the farmers’ measure that would increase production of sterile Medflies to reduce the need for future aerial sprayings.

Environmentalists have responded with ads featuring actor John Ritter and the “Twin Peaks” stars charging that chemical companies designed Proposition 135 to mislead the voters.

The assertion that chemical companies are behind Proposition 135 stems from a proposal last year by pesticide manufacturers to come up with an initiative to invalidate Big Green’s pesticide provisions. However, Proposition 135 has been financed by the agricultural industry, and donations from pesticide manufacturers have been returned.

The environmentalists’ campaign for Proposition 130, the “Forests Forever” measure, scored a major coup by recruiting Eastwood, whose tough-guy image in numerous films could help boost support for the environmental measure. Showing he is a conservationist as well as a conservative, Eastwood urges voters to “save the last 5%” of California’s redwoods.

The Eastwood spot and a similar ad featuring “Cheers” star Danson are designed to help voters distinguish between Proposition 130, the environmentalist measure, and Proposition 138, the industry-sponsored initiative.

In his ad, Eastwood notes that Proposition 130 has the backing of the Audubon Society and National Wildlife Federation, while both major candidates for governor, Republican Pete Wilson and Democrat Dianne Feinstein, oppose Proposition 138.

Although the fast-paced ending of the ad could leave the impression among some viewers that both gubernatorial candidates favor Proposition 130, Feinstein has taken no position on the environmentalist measure while Wilson opposes it.

Wilson campaign director George Gorton said Tuesday that the senator objects to any ad suggesting that he supports Proposition 130. He stopped short of calling on the campaign to pull the ad, joking, “Who wants to tangle with Clint Eastwood?”

In a confusing television battle between competing forest initiatives, the timber industry also is portraying itself as seeking to protect the environment.

In its commercials, the timber industry contends that Proposition 138 would protect the forests and wildlife. One ad shows a section of forest that has been clear-cut– and by industry’s loggers–and proclaims the measure would ban such harvesting practices.

Environmentalists, however, contend that the measure is riddled with loopholes that would allow timber industries to continue clear-cutting forests and harvesting trees faster than they grow.

Paddock reported from Sacramento and Dolan reported from Los Angeles.