Landmark

Rarely would Sam Neill, who died Monday, carry a film on his own, but what he did in several of them, modestly and dependably, was equally as important. His nuanced supporting work allowed some of the greatest actresses of their moment attain their first fireworks. And even though he starred in one of Hollywood’s hugest blockbusters, it takes a certain kind of confidence to share the spotlight with a dinosaur. Here are Neill’s highlights, all worth rewatching for the sake of better appreciating a sophisticated presence often on the sidelines.

‘My Brilliant Career’ (1979)

Sam Neill and Judy Davis in the movie “My Brilliant Career.”

(Michael Ochs Archives / Getty Images)

Gillian Armstrong’s first feature is a landmark of the Australian New Wave and feminist cinema, signaling the arrival of the great Judy Davis and containing the most erotically charged (and quite possibly the longest) pillow fight in movie history. It works splendidly for countless reasons, not the least of which is Neill’s presence as the charming suitor of Davis’ headstrong heroine. Set in 1897 in rural Australia, the film follows Davis’ Sybylla, who dreams of becoming a writer, an unconventional aspiration given her family’s poverty and societal norms. Then she meets a wealthy charmer, played by Neill, and he proposes. It should be an easy decision, particularly since Sybylla loves him and Neill makes him so irresistible. That Sybylla does, in fact, resist, choosing independence over love and the possibility of perennial pillow fights, makes “My Brilliant Career” so daring and thrilling. — Glenn Whipp

‘Possession’ (1981)

Isabelle Adjani and Sam Neill in the movie “Possession.”

(Metrograph Pictures)

It’s being remade with Margaret Qualley and the main reason for the movie’s notoriety remains Isabelle Adjani’s unhinged, incantatory performance, a collection of freak-outs that’s still unmatched. But one can argue that Adjani couldn’t have gotten there without the slightly milquetoast banality of her character’s husband, played by Neill as one of the least exciting on-screen spies of the 1980s. (She’s already cheating on him when the movie begins.) He doesn’t seem cut out to be a family man either, but Neill’s cuckolded complaining, hard to pull off this confidently, may be what’s driving her to self-harm in the first place. — Joshua Rothkopf

‘The Final Conflict’ (1981)

More than a decade before his “Jurassic Park” role, Neill delivered a chilling turn as the Antichrist in “The Final Conflict,” better known as the third film in “The Omen” franchise, about a couple that unwittingly adopts the son of Satan. In this second sequel, Neill plays an adult Damien Thorn, now a U.S ambassador to the United Kingdom who is determined to stop the second coming of Christ. With sinister smiles and steely glares, Neill makes Damien his own, waging a murderous campaign against a group of priests, his voice dripping with contempt as he vows to slay “the Nazarene” when he is born. — Greg Braxton

‘Dead Calm’ (1989)

Sam Neill and Nicole Kidman on the set of the movie “Dead Calm.”

(Michael Ochs Archives / Getty Images)

We remember Philip Noyce’s claustrophobic cat-and-mouse thriller primarily as Nicole Kidman’s big-screen breakthrough. But, and you may be noticing a theme here, the movie would not work without Neill, who had a gift for playing opposite strong-minded women. Kidman and Neill are a married couple embarking on an ocean adventure to work through the loss of their child. They happen upon a crazy-eyed stranger (Billy Zane) on a sinking schooner, take him aboard and things go south from there. Part Cary Grant, part MacGyver, Neill gives a great physical performance, which he parlayed into well-paying Hollywood action roles for the rest of his career. None came close, though, to his flare-gun theatrics here. — Glenn Whipp

‘Jurassic Park’ (1993)

You go for the dinosaurs and there’s no shame in that. But credit Neill for both understanding the assignment and not quite settling for those awed stares of Spielbergian wonder. His Alan Grant is distinct enough to register as prickly and a little inside himself. He absolutely hates children, even as the whole plot, somewhat obviously, steers him in the opposite direction. He’s not Jeff Goldblum-level rascally, but he’s confident enough to go his own way and make a killer joke at a high-voltage fence. Acting-wise, Neill has already held his own opposite several forces of nature (see above). Raptors were nothing. — Joshua Rothkopf

‘The Piano’ (1993)

Sam Neill in the move “The Piano.”

(The Criterion Collection)

So many of Neill’s most memorable movies feature him supporting the singular vision of great directors, as is the case with Jane Campion’s 1993 landmark. Neill plays the awkward, ignorant Scottish farmer who arranges for a mail-order marriage with Holly Hunter’s mute pianist and then becomes possessive and driven to jealous despair. We hate him. Which was fine by Neill, as he wrote in his 2023 memoir: “There is honour to be found in the second fiddle. Or fourth. No one notices you much, you don’t get nominated for things. But you served. I was there in an important feminist film. It’s a work of art. And look, that tiny little figure in the fabric — see down there on the right — that’s me. It’s a film that will always have a place in cinema history. And I served in it.” — Glenn Whipp

‘In the Mouth of Madness’ (1994)

Finally, a leading role. Granted it’s one in which Neill, strapped in a straitjacket, screams things like “I’m not insane!” But if you’re a fan of his brand of slightly unconvinced heroism, John Carpenter’s horror movie — about an insurance investigator on the hunt for a missing Stephen King-like author — is an enjoyable watch. Carpenter was never one to overexplain things to his actors (it’s why you find so many rich, self-directed performances in his movies) and Neill’s snoop definitely goes through the looking glass, from disbelieving cynic to true believer. Genre movies thrive on his kind of total commitment. — Joshua Rothkopf

The high court strikes down campaign spending limits, citing First Amendment protections in a 6-3 decision

On the final day of rulings for the Supreme Court’s current term, the top US court overruled a case that would limit campaign spending by rejecting restrictions on coordinated spending efforts between political parties and their candidates on free speech grounds.

The court handed down the ruling on Tuesday in a 6-3 split, with the six conservative judges in the majority, citing free speech grounds, and the three liberal judges dissenting.

The Supreme Court ruled that a spending cap on campaign spending, with input from candidates, violates the United States Constitution’s First Amendment after a lower court upheld the limits.

The decision, stemming from a Republican-led lawsuit, strikes down a provision of a more than 50-year-old federal election law limiting coordinated party spending. Among the Republican candidates at the centre of the lawsuit is now Vice President JD Vance. Vance was running for the US Senate in Ohio when the lawsuit challenging the restrictions was filed in 2022.

The Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 regulates fundraising and spending in US elections by limiting the amount that can be spent on a candidate, aiming to prevent corruption.

Under that law, spending by a political party to advocate for or against a candidate that is not coordinated with a candidate’s campaign is considered an “independent expenditure” – and not subject to a cap.

Spending that is coordinated between a party and a campaign, however, has been restricted.

Tuesday’s decision overruled a 2001 decision in which the Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee challenged the rule against the Federal Election Commission, but the high court had upheld the limits on a vote of 5-4.

In 2024, the US 6th Circuit Court of Appeals had also upheld the limits.

On appeal, the plaintiffs said that developments in campaign finance over the intervening decades, including shifts in the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence, had eroded the rationale for that 2001 ruling and urged the justices to overrule it.

Then, when Donald Trump took office, the Federal Election Commission declined to defend the provision of federal law challenged by Vance and the other plaintiffs. The Supreme Court appointed lawyer Roman Martinez to do so. It also granted a request by the Democratic National Committee, Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, and Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee to intervene to defend the spending limits.

These spending limits have varied by state, being lower in states with smaller populations and higher in those with larger populations. In 2025, restrictions ranged from about $127,000 to $3.9m for Senate candidates and from approximately $63,000 to $127,000 for House of Representatives candidates.

The Supreme Court issued its campaign finance ruling with the November midterm elections looming, as President Donald Trump’s fellow Republicans seek to retain control of Congress.

The three major Republican committees – the Republican National Committee, the National Republican Congressional Committee, and the National Republican Senatorial Committee — ended May with $256m in cash and no debt. That was more than double the roughly $126m held by their Democratic counterparts, who also carried more than $18m in debt.

Election implications

The Supreme Court has issued multiple rulings during its current term that have election implications.

The justices on Monday backed state laws that allow mail-in ballots received after Election Day to be counted, rejecting a Republican-led challenge to a five-day grace period in Mississippi and dealing a setback to Trump.

The court in April gutted a key provision of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, opening the door for Republican-led Southern states to dismantle Democratic-held majority-Black and majority-Latino districts ahead of the midterms. Black and Latino voters tend to support Democratic candidates.

That decision prompted several Republican-led states to pursue redrawn electoral maps ahead of the midterms in an effort to threaten US House seats long considered safely Democratic.

For nearly a century, Sparkletts bottled its water in a vast building on Lincoln Avenue designed to look like a Moorish palace, or maybe an industrial oasis.

Now Sparkletts has moved out, the owners aren’t talking and L.A. city officials, hoping to save the building, have named the site a historic-cultural monument.

“We’ve always had an eye on the building because it’s such an icon in the community,” said Frank Parrello, Landmarks and Advocacy chair for the Eagle Rock Valley Historical Society. “We want to make sure that whatever happens in the future, the building is considered.”

The plant, which drew water from subterranean springs and bottled it for distribution through Southern California, went up in 1929 on E. Lincoln Avenue along the Eagle Rock-Highland Park border, filling the block between N. Avenue 45 and N. Avenue 46. Designed by architect Richard D. King, its main building features arches, towers and domes, a white-washed brick exterior and wrought-iron lanterns.

The L.A. Conservancy calls it a bold example of Moorish Revival industrial style and a prime illustration of “the industrialization of drinking water in Los Angeles.”

Neighbors call it “the Taj Mahal,” resident Anthony Carmona says.

The Sparkletts building, built in 1929, was designed in a Moorish Revival style. The building, idle since 2025, has been added to the L.A. City Historical-Cultural Monument list.

(Christopher Reynolds / Los Angeles Times)

Questions about the building’s future began to multiply in 2025, when Sparkletts ceased operations on the site. A 4.4-acre portion of the property was listed for sale, then for lease. The L.A. Conservancy warned that the building was “at risk of redevelopment.”

The Instagram site Save Iconic Architecture also sounded an alarm, saying the Sparkletts building “tells the story of Los Angeles’ innovation, design, and relationship with its most precious resource: water.”

Meanwhile, the Eagle Rock Valley Historical Society nominated the building as a historic-cultural monument, which led to a site visit and votes by the city of Los Angeles Cultural Affairs Commission and City Council.

On June 24, the council voted to protect the building as a monument. The designation “does not guarantee that the building cannot be demolished,” but it does allow city officials to delay demolition for up to 360 days “to allow for time to preserve the monument.”

The city Planning Department staff report on the historic monument nomination lists the owners as Sparkletts Drinking Water Corporation and Foremost Water Corporation. Neither commented to the city on the monument nomination and Primo Brands (Sparkletts’ parent company) did not respond to requests for information Monday.

The city’s staff report on the site says the architect may have been influenced by a Moorish design trend in the 1920s that included the film “The Thief of Bagdad” (1924). The El Capitan Theater on Hollywood Boulevard and Shrine Auditorium near USC, both completed in 1926, are also known for their Moorish features.

Architectural historians David Gebhard and Robert Winter included the Sparkletts building in their “Architectural Guidebook to Los Angeles,” noting its mosque-like presence and saying “the best remaining element” is the tiled mosaic oasis scene over the entrance.

The building has seen some changes. As the Eagle Rock Valley Historical Society nomination notes, the building’s largest Sparkletts sign was removed in July 2025. City records show that decades ago, in the course of repairs after the 1971 San Fernando earthquake, at least one minaret was removed.

The entrance, however, remains largely intact, featuring three arches and a set of steps framed by a pair of tall palm trees. Just above the front door and beneath a surviving Sparkletts sign hangs the tilework that Gebhard and Winter enjoyed.

Moreover, “it’s very impressive inside,” Parrello said. “It’s a big open industrial floor plan, which could be used for a lot of things.”

The Sparkletts building, idle since 2025, has been added to the L.A. City Historical-Cultural Monument list.

(Christopher Reynolds / Los Angeles Times)

If public agency or nonprofit is able to play a role in the property’s future, Parrello added, “it could become a housing complex, or a community center for a housing complex.”

A similar answer came from Carmona, 51, a restaurant worker who lives in an RV about a block away from the Sparkletts building. Carmona said he’d love to see it become a gathering place where neighbors can trade products, services, ideas, “lemons, oranges, whatever.” In a perfect world, Carmona said, “there should be free water for everyone, but of course that’s not going to happen.”

The city of L.A. began designated historic-cultural landmarks in 1962 and has given that status to more than 1,000 buildings and other structures.

The closure of the Eagle Rock Sparkletts operation followed a 2024 merger between Sparkletts’ parent company, Primo Water, and another bottled water company, BlueTriton, to from Primo Brands.

June 29 (UPI) — As Speaker of the House Mike Johnson prepared to send a bipartisan, landmark housing affordability bill to President Donald Trump‘s desk on Monday, the president told reporters that he remains undecided on whether to sign it.

Trump called the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act” so unimportant,” CNN reported. One week ago, the president abruptly canceled the originally planned signing of the housing bill, which the Senate and House passed by overwhelming margins.

“When I look at the (housing) bill, it’s a bill,” Trump said to reporters Monday, The Hill reported. “When I look at the SAVE America Act, it’s about saving America.”

The housing bill is “a yawn,” the president said. “To me, compared to the SAVE America Act, everything is a big yawn.”

The housing bill’s provisions include measures that encourage renovating older homes, encourage communities to build more housing through funding and grant programs, cut some red-tape issues around building housing and effectively ban private equity from buying up single-family homes.

When canceling the original signing of the bill, Trump said he wouldn’t sign it until Congress passed the SAVE America Act, which would require voters to prove their citizenship before they register to vote

Critics say the controversial act could disenfranchise millions of Americans, and Republicans have said that they don’t have the votes to pass it.

Trump acknowledged this Monday, The Hill reported, saying the SAVE America Act is “probably not going to happen because we have four Republican senators, maybe five, that just won’t vote for it. It’s crazy.”

The president said that the housing bill’s bipartisan backing was part of his issue with it.

“It’s very bipartisan — that means the Democrats like it,”he said. “They’re getting things that I wouldn’t necessarily agree to.”

Speaker Johnson, a Republican, said Sunday that he believed Trump would sign the housing bill after it was sent to him, “because we’re delivering for the people, and that’s what he wants to do.”

If Trump does not sign the bill, it could still go into effect. The U.S. Constitution stipulates that a bill will become law automatically if a president does not take action for 10 days, as long as Congress is in session.

Trump could also veto the bill. If that happens, Congress has the power to override the veto by passing the act by a two-thirds vote in both the House and Senate.

Celebrity Gogglebox returned to screens on Friday night, with a host of new stars

Viewers of Celebrity Gogglebox settled in to watch a host of famous faces participate in a landmark episode.

The Channel 4 spin-off programme returned to screens on Friday (June 26) for a new episode, which was filmed over the previous seven days, covering the week’s TV and news highlights.

In each celebrity household, Gogglebox captures their instant reactions, love/hate relationships and fierce debates on the best and worst television shows of the past week – all from the comfort of their sofas.

From the Saturday night juggernauts and the week’s big soaps, to documentaries and gritty drama, the famous households offer witty, insightful, feisty and sometimes emotional critiques of the week’s popular and topical TV shows.

The latest instalment of the hit series welcomed back firm favourites, such as Martin and Roman Kemp, James and Clair Buckley, Nick and Liv Grimshaw, Bez and Shaun Ryder, and Joe Marler and Maisie Adam.

There were several new additions too, including Strictly Come Dancing stars Amy Dowden and Carlos Gu, actor Michael Sheen and his partner Anna Lundberg, friends Georgia Tennant and Fearne Cotton, and Chris Packham and step-daughter Megan McCubbin.

Channel 4 viewers were quick to say the same thing during the landmark 50th episode of Celebrity Gogglebox.

Fans shared how much they enjoyed the show, with one person writing on X (formerly Twitter): “Who doesn’t just love a bit of @C4Gogglebox. Always such an entertaining way to spend the time. The perfect switch your brain of TV any time of day needs.”

Another added: “Watching the always delightful Celebrity @C4Gogglebox. It’s still so fascinating how watching a show about people simply watching TV can be so strangely addictive. Watching as a host of celebs give their views on what’s on the small screen.”

A third said: “I love Celeb Gogglebox.”

Someone else shared: “All hail Celebrity @C4Gogglebox. How is it therapeutic watching people watch TV? Always the much needed relief a s****y day always requires. Love the celebrity version.”

During the instalment, the celebrities tuned into new episodes of I Kissed A Girl, The 1% Club, and First Dates, as well as watching Jennifer Lopez’s Netflix film, Office Romance.

The future of the UK’s leadership also came under scrutiny in this week’s episode. The famous faces reacted to Sir Keir Starmer’s resignation as Prime Minister, and gave their opinions on the man tipped to replace him, Andy Burnham.

Reacting to Starmer’s emotional speech outside 10 Downing Street, Michael Sheen commented: “That’s got to be tough”.

Joe Marler added: “He’s finally shown us the human side to him, that would have connected more with the world.”

Celebrity Gogglebox is available to stream on Channel 4

WASHINGTON — President Trump said Wednesday he would not sign the landmark housing bill Congress passed this week as scheduled, in a striking decision to jeopardize a rare bipartisan success in order to demand that lawmakers pass voter ID legislation.

It escalated tension between Trump and Senate Republicans, which had already neared a breaking point this week over the proof-of-citizenship bill, dubbed the SAVE America Act. GOP leaders have told Trump the bill does not have the votes to pass.

“Today’s Housing News Conference and Signing is hereby cancelled until such time as we pass the desperately needed SAVE AMERICA ACT, which I consider to be a National Emergency,” Trump wrote online.

The president’s willingness to threaten a bill that he could have framed as a win on affordability ahead of the midterm elections is a remarkable gamble as Republicans fight to keep House control.

The reversal also underscored Trump’s fixation on asserting some federal control over elections processes and his apparent indifference to the cost-of-living issues that voters are most focused on. He has repeatedly dismissed affordability as a “fake” concept, and inaccurately claimed on Sunday that the U.S. has the “BEST ECONOMY EVER.”

Last week, polls from NPR/PBS News/Marist Poll and Fox News poll showed record dissatisfaction with the economy among Americans and Trump’s support slipping among key demographics. Trump also lashed out about that on Truth Social on Wednesday morning, writing without evidence: “MY REAL POLL NUMBERS ARE THE HIGHEST THEY HAVE EVER BEEN. THANK YOU!!!”

The housing bill, which passed with overwhelming support in the House on Tuesday evening and the Senate on Monday, aims to boost housing supply. It is the most significant legislation Congress has passed on housing in more than 30 years, and it contains a host of provisions aimed at removing regulatory barriers, improving federal programs and incentivizing new building.

As president, Trump has 10 days to sign or veto bills after they are presented. House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) indicated to reporters Wednesday that a signing could still be on the table, saying he had spoken to Trump about “delaying” the housing bill before the president announced the cancellation.

Johnson said he had promised an effort to advance the SAVE America Act.

“He decided — I didn’t announce it, I wanted him to announce it — but we’re delaying this,” Johnson said. “As you know, he has a window of time before he has to sign a bill and he’s going to use a little bit more of that window of time and we’re gonna go through this together.”

Bill Owens, chairman of the National Assn. of Home Builders, telegraphed hope that the legislation would be signed at some point.

“Although there was no bill signing today, we are confident the 21st Century Road to Housing Act will eventually become law,” said Owens, a home builder and remodeler from Worthington, Ohio.

Democrats were shocked, angry and confused when they found out about the cancellation Wednesday morning, according to a source within the House Committee on Financial Services, which led the legislation.

Lawmakers believed the bill was a done deal and are now scrambling, the person said. A stage for the bill signing had already been set up in the Capitol when Trump posted online. The night before, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt had posted on X: “Tomorrow’s historic bill signing is another promise made, promise kept.”

Frustration with the president has been steadily mounting among Senate Republicans for more than a month, triggered by a host of issues including Trump’s endorsement of Republican primary challengers to sitting lawmakers. On Tuesday, four Republican senators joined with Democrats to approve a war powers resolution seeking to block U.S. military action in Iran.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) has told Trump the SAVE America Act doesn’t have enough support to pass, the Associated Press reported this week.

The legislation would require voters to provide proof of citizenship when they register, require Americans show identification when casting a ballot and require states to send voter data to the Department of Homeland Security. Voting rights advocates say it would create unnecessary barriers to voting for citizens.

The effort is rooted in Trump’s baseless claims of voter fraud and cheating by Democrats. He has said the bill would “guarantee” the midterms for Republicans.

Trump has previously called for the federal government to “nationalize” elections and “take over” voting in some states. He renewed accusations against Democrats of cheating in California this month.

Rep. Brad Sherman (D-Sherman Oaks) said Trump was holding the bill hostage in a bid “to control California’s elections.”

“The stage was set both physically and metaphorically for the president to sign a historic housing bill for the American people,” said Sherman, who contributed a provision to the housing bill that would help disabled veterans get rental assistance. “Trump must put his ego aside and put the American people first and sign this bill into law.”

Less than an hour before Trump posted online that he had canceled the bill signing, he labeled the legislation “the Elizabeth ‘Pocahontas’ Warren centric housing bill” in a Truth Social post, and railed about the SAVE America Act.

“That is what Americans, both Dumocrats, Republicans, and everyone else, care about. Get the bad Republicans to approve it or, better yet, Terminate the Filibuster and approve it, AND EVERYTHING ELSE REPUBLICANS HAVE EVER DREAMED OF,” Trump wrote.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), who was one of the four bipartisan lawmakers leading the deal across the two chambers, said Wednesday morning on CNBC that Trump’s reversal “doesn’t make any sense.”

“It’s a complete indifference to the cost squeeze on American families and to genuine efforts to do something about it,” Warren said. “He could be over here claiming a victory lap and instead he’s saying no, no, he doesn’t want anything to do with it.”

WASHINGTON — The House passed Congress’ most significant housing legislation in decades on Tuesday, sending the bill to President Trump’s desk — a bid by both parties to show midterm voters that they’re paying attention to affordability concerns ahead of November’s election.

The legislation, which the Senate passed Monday, aims to boost the housing supply through dozens of targeted provisions whose effects are expected to be seen over the next several years. In California, measures to unlock some federal block grant dollars for new housing in big cities could be particularly significant.

The bipartisan agreement over the legislation, after weeks of negotiation, marks a highly unusual collaboration in the divided Congress. It reflects growing public pressure on Washington to address economic issues at a time when Americans’ economic woes are deepening amid inflation, elevated gas prices and the ongoing effects of Trump’s tariffs.

The bill passed in the House with a 358-32 vote after it was approved by the Senate on Monday in an 85-5 vote. Those opposed in both chambers were Republicans. The Trump administration has signaled support for the bill, meaning it will probably become law.

“This legislation must serve as a foundation for continued action, not the final step in addressing our nation’s housing crisis,” Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Los Angeles), one of the lawmakers who put together the deal, said on the House floor before the vote.

The bill aims to help housing supply by removing regulatory barriers to building affordable housing units, preventing large investors from buying up single-family homes and incentivizing new housing in cities with federal funding, among other measures.

The package focuses on addressing housing supply constraints and making federal programs easier to use, said David Gonzalez Rice, senior vice president of public policy at the National Low Income Housing Coalition. Though the legislation does not create major new funding streams, advocates see the bipartisan acknowledgment of the need for housing reforms as significant.

“It’s a big step in the right direction,” Gonzalez Rice said, “and there’s still a lot of work to do.”

Addressing cost-of-living issues has become high stakes for lawmakers engaged in midterm reelection campaigns, as Americans increasingly disapprove of Trump’s handling of the economy. Democrats are hoping to leverage affordability issues to gain control of at least one chamber of Congress, while Republicans are fighting to maintain their majorities.

It was politically crucial for members of both parties to be able to tell voters they had worked in good faith to address housing affordability, said David Garcia, deputy director of policy at UC Berkeley’s Terner Center for Housing Innovation.

“It would’ve been hard to justify to voters during their campaigns that their party did not do everything they could to advance the first meaningful legislation on housing policy in decades,” Garcia said.

The legislation was a product of intense bipartisan negotiations led by Waters and Rep. French Hill (R-Ark.), as well as Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Tim Scott (R-S.C.), after months of discussions in both parties about how to address housing.

“The work has been extraordinary between the majority and minority in this House, answering the call [for] solutions from the American people,” Hill said on the House floor.

Trump — who has largely dismissed the affordability issue, last week calling it “a fake word” — had indicated support for housing reforms.

In a March statement of policy, the administration indicated it “strongly supports” passage of the bill, saying it represented “significant advances in federal housing policy.” Trump also signed an executive order suggesting that regulatory barriers to home building should be removed, a concept reflected in the bill.

The nationwide affordability crisis has been driven for years by rising costs, a shortage of affordable housing, higher mortgage rates and other factors. Recent rising construction costs and labor shortages have exacerbated the issue, according to the National Assn. of Home Builders.

The number of new housing starts in May dropped by more than 15%, according to a report last week from the U.S. Census Bureau and Department of Housing and Urban Development.

California has added housing supply in recent years, but its shortage remains significant and prices high. The state has among the highest rates of households spending disproportionate amounts of their income on housing, according to the Public Policy Institute of California.

The momentum in Washington to respond to those pressures — which came as something of a surprise to advocates — can be viewed as a reflection of current public sentiment, Gonzalez Rice said.

“It speaks to the broader understanding of the public that housing is a policy problem, that government can do something about it and the expectation that government will do something about it,” he said. “It’s clear elected officials are hearing from their constituents.”

The bill includes nearly 50 provisions, including the prohibition on investor purchase of single-family homes, which is intended to help increase the housing supply for individual buyers. It also seeks to help cities convert abandoned buildings into new housing and help landlords and homeowners make home repairs.

Two measures are expected to be particularly significant for cities such as Los Angeles and San Francisco, Garcia said: One ties some federal funding under the Community Development Block Grant program to housing production to motivate cities with low housing supply and high costs to build more housing. The other allows block grant money to be used for affordable housing construction, opening a new revenue source for cities.

California’s big cities may be spurred to increase new housing in future years, Garcia said, and they also could benefit from the ability to direct the block grant funding to housing.

“Costs to build are so high,” he said, “that any new funding could be critical.”

Among other steps that could have swift results is a plan to preserve a rental assistance program for nearly 400,000 rural homeowners and a measure to streamline the leasing process for families using vouchers, Gonzalez Rice said.

The bill also exempts certain projects from a set of environmental regulations, a step aimed at speeding up the review and construction process. And it seeks to make it easier to build manufactured homes by removing a requirement that they be built on a chassis, which the Senate committee estimated would reduce the cost of each new unit by up to $10,000.

IF you’re looking for a new London hang-out spot, Olympia has it all from pretty bars to top-tier entertainment.

After a £1.3billion upgrade, the impressive project is opening its rooftop ‘Canopy’ today and its music venue later this week.

The enormous revamped building in West Kensington is opening its rooftop bars and restaurants that can only be found at Olympia today.

For anyone who fancies Mexican, check out Bar Arriba which serves up fresh cocktails and small bites from tacos to tostadas.

Lillie’s Wine Bar & Restaurant is the spot for the best of British food from Gressingham duck to Devon crab salad and you can even try a rhubarb and custard cocktail.

The outside area looks like an English country garden too with sculptures and beds of daffodils.

SCHOOL’S OUT

Just 6 weeks until school summer hols! Cheap all inclusives where kids go FREE

CHEAP DATE

Our fave cheap European destinations with flights under £20 & hotels from £24pp

At Wolves of Tokyo dig into Japanese dishes from sushi to grilled skewers, gyozas and tartare.

Arbour is the food hall which has more of a casual vibe and inside are four different spots; Café Modo, Fry Baby, The Rambler and Whammy Burger.

All of these spots are up on the rooftop so they’re perfect for a sunny weekend.

But if the weather doesn’t play ball, there is a retractable roof to protect punters from the rain.

Another dining venue at Olympia called Pillar Hall opened in March, 2026.

It’s found in the Grade-II listed part of Olympia that was built in 1886 and is home to Idalia an all-day restaurant and Pepperbird, a speakeasy-style bar.

That’s not all that opens this week as tomorrow, the state-of-the-art music venue, British Airways ARC will open.

It’s been described as a ‘world-class venue’ which will host music, comedy and entertainment.

It will start with performances by Self Esteem and McFly before the likes of Van Morrison and Khalid take to the stage later in the year.

This will be followed by the 1,575-seat British Airways Theatre in 2027 which will be London’s largest new theatre in 50 years.

The Hyatt Regency hotel which will have 204 rooms will open to guests from July 6.

The other on-site hotel, CitizenM London Olympia will have 146 rooms and is expected to open this summer, although no official date has been announced.

Olympia London first opened in 1886 and has held performances by Jimi Hendrix and Pink Floyd and was used as an exhibition space by the likes of Vivienne Westwood.

World governing body Fifa has struck a landmark deal with global players’ union Fifpro that means players will be represented when major decisions affecting the game are agreed.

Faced with a number of separate legal claims around player welfare, Fifa has agreed a memorandum of understanding with Fifpro, which it says “marks [a] paradigm shift in governance of professional football, with transfer system and player welfare standards”.

For the first time, Fifpro will have a veto over key areas of the game’s governance and also observer access, with speaking rights, at the powerful Fifa Council, the decision-making body of global football.

Fifa says it has struck the deal on the condition that all legal proceedings against it, initiated by Fifpro, are withdrawn.

In October 2024, Fifpro filed an “abuse of dominance” claim against Fifa around the overcrowded match calendar.

Earlier this week, former France midfielder Lassana Diarra reached a settlement, external in his damages claim, initially for 65 million euros (£56.1m), against Fifa and the Belgian Football Association after his contract was cancelled by Russian club Lokomotiv Moscow and he was subsequently denied a transfer to Charleroi in 2014.

One of the key elements of the agreement is that players will have greater protection from what are regarded as abusive practices, including forcing them to train on their own, withholding passports or abusing registration procedures.

In those circumstances, players will be able to cancel their contracts and still receive the payments they are due under those contracts, claim compensation for justifiable expenses and potentially demand an extra six months’ pay in damages.

Clubs that fail to respect their contractual obligations will face swifter and more effective sporting and financial consequences.

Fifpro president Sergio Marchi said: “This agreement represents an important step forward for football. Ensuring that players and their representatives have a meaningful voice in decisions affecting their careers is not only beneficial for footballers, but for the game as a whole.”

Speaking at the Azteca Stadium in Mexico City a day before the World Cup begins, Fifa president Gianno Infantino hailed the agreement.

“It’s about unity, about bringing everyone together,” he said.

“We’ve always been having dialogues. Now, sometimes you don’t agree, when you don’t agree, well, you can go and say it to everyone, or you can sit down and discuss and see what makes sense.

“So, we signed a memorandum of understanding with Fifpro, everything is agreed.”

Players’ union challenge French state’s failure to protect professional footballers from the health and safety risks.

Football players’ union ‌FIFPRO is hailing a “landmark” legal win after a European rights ⁠body agreed to ⁠investigate whether the French state failed to uphold labour standards for professional footballers.

The unanimous decision by the European Committee of Social Rights in March marks the first time a players’ union has successfully advanced a collective complaint under the European Social Charter. It paves the way for ⁠an investigation into whether France has failed to ensure proper working conditions for professional players, including minors.

FIFPRO described the heart of the dispute as the French state’s failure to protect professional footballers from the health and safety risks posed ‌by a congested and expanding international match calendar, which it argues is driven by FIFA’s unilateral decisions on competition formats.

The inaugural edition of a rebranded and expanded FIFA Club World Cup came in for particular criticism from across the game when it was staged last year.

The French government had sought to have the case dismissed, arguing that any alleged labour violations were the responsibility of private sports bodies, such as FIFA or the French Football Federation, rather than the state.

The Committee rejected that objection, ⁠affirming that national governments remain legally responsible for ensuring ⁠fundamental workers’ rights are upheld within their jurisdictions, regardless of whether a private entity manages the industry.

FIFPRO Europe, which is supporting the French National Union of Professional Footballers (UNFP) in the ⁠case, described the decision as a “signal case” for the industry.

It added that the complaint highlights how global governing ⁠bodies “frequently bypass national labour standards regarding rest periods ⁠and collective bargaining.”

FIFPRO Europe confirmed it would provide full support to the UNFP during the upcoming proceedings and called on other European states to hold football authorities accountable for “systemic failures” that ‌it said prioritise commercial interests over player safety.

“France is not alone: many other states are in a comparable situation, with minimum standards for working time, ‌rest ‌periods, occupational health and collective bargaining structurally undermined by decisions taken at global level,” its statement said.