making

ST. LOUIS — President Clinton on Friday joined the growing cultural and political war between Democrats and their critics on the right, bitterly assailing Christian broadcasters and conservative radio talk-show hosts.

In unusually angry and aggressive remarks during a radio interview, Clinton attacked the Rev. Jerry Falwell and popular radio personality Rush Limbaugh by name, saying that their brand of politics and religion feed a spreading intolerance and cynicism across America.

The tenor and heat of his remarks showed what is increasingly becoming apparent–that for those in the roiling political battle, this is less a contest between strong adversaries with some mutual respect than a holy war fueled by bitterness and personal loathing.

Clinton spoke by telephone from Air Force One as he was flying to St. Louis to inaugurate a youth service program and headline a $1,500-a-plate fund-raiser for House Majority Leader Richard A. Gephardt (D-Mo.).

The President said that televangelist Falwell and other spokesmen for the religious right hide behind their fervent protestations of faith while engaging in baseless personal attacks and political demagoguery.

“I do not believe that people should be criticized for their religious convictions,” Clinton said. “But neither do I believe that people can put on the mantle of religion and then justify anything they say or do.”

The President called Falwell’s Christian values questionable when he uses his church and his access to television to promote a videotape attacking Clinton’s honesty and morality.

Clinton said that the Falwell tape, which includes lurid allegations about Clinton’s sex life, his personal finances and assorted skullduggery in Arkansas, is full of “scurrilous and false charges.”

“Remember,” Clinton said, “Jesus threw the money-changers out of the temple. He didn’t try to take over the job of the money-changers.”

In an interview with Cable News Network later Friday, Falwell dismissed Clinton’s criticism and invited the President to tape a personal rebuttal to the videotape for use on the “Old Time Gospel Hour,” which airs on 200 stations nationwide.

“While the President should really direct his denials and apparent anger at those making the charges, we will be happy to provide him a forum for rebutting those charges, assuming he has watched the video, knows what the charges are and addresses them specifically,” Falwell said.

Clinton’s growing frustration not only with his legislative difficulties but with the unanswered attacks on his character was evident in the 23-minute interview with radio station KMOX.

He was testy from the outset, then unloaded on radio interviewers Charles Brennan and Kevin Horrigan after they asked about the alleged pilfering of towels and bathrobes from the aircraft carrier George Washington by White House staff members on the President’s recent trip to Europe to commemorate the D-day anniversary.

“Look at all the things you could have asked me about and you just asked me about that,” Clinton said, his voice rising in wrath. “Did you know that there were other people on that aircraft carrier? Did you know that there were press people on the aircraft carrier? Did you know that the carrier had been fully reimbursed out of the private pocket of a White House staff member who was so upset about it. . . ? No. No.”

White House Press Secretary Dee Dee Myers went out of her way to insist that Clinton was not angry. He was shouting only to be heard over the engine noise of Air Force One, she said.

“He wasn’t angry and didn’t want to leave the impression that he was,” Myers said after reading wire service accounts that described the President as inflamed. “It sounded a lot harder than it was.”

She said that Clinton did not intend to point fingers at any individuals. “I think the President just spoke his mind,” she added.

Clinton’s assault on Falwell, Limbaugh and other critics elevated to a new plane a battle that Rep. Vic Fazio (D-West Sacramento) launched earlier this week with an attack on the Republican Party and its supporters from the “intolerant . . . religious right.”

Fazio warned that radical fringe groups are seizing control of the GOP in more than a dozen states and are threatening to become a major force in Congress.

Fazio’s comments were denounced by Republican leaders as “religious bigotry” and a “calculated smear campaign.”

It was clear Friday that Clinton would join Fazio’s line of attack as part of the Democratic Party strategy to demonize the right and stanch Democratic losses in the November mid-term elections.

The President said he respects the religious convictions of evangelicals but that he would not be silent “when people come into the political system and they say that anybody that doesn’t agree with them is Godless, anyone who doesn’t agree with them is not a good Christian, anyone who doesn’t agree with them is fair game for any wild charge, no matter how false, for any kind of personal, demeaning attack.”

The Falwell tape sells for $43, and tens of thousands reportedly have been sold. The people quoted on the tape are several longtime enemies of Clinton who, among other things, suggest that Clinton was involved in several murders in Arkansas.

Falwell aide Mark DeMoss has said that he does not know if the charges are true but believes they should be aired so they can be investigated.

House Republicans also responded to Clinton’s comments. “People who go to work on Monday and church on Sunday are not public enemies,” said Rep. Dick Armey (R-Tex.), who chairs the House GOP Conference. “Clinton should be putting an end to this McCarthyistic tactic now, rather than fanning the flames and setting up some religious right bogeyman.”

The mainstream media also did not escape Friday’s presidential ire. Clinton complained that the reporting on his Administration has emphasized its failures unfairly and ignored its accomplishments.

He said that news reporting today is “much more negative . . , much more editorial . . . and much less direct” than ever before.

And he said that the American people were subjected to a “constant unremitting drumbeat of negativism and cynicism” from talk radio–particularly Limbaugh and his many imitators.

Clinton noted that the three-hour Limbaugh show would follow him on the same radio station and that he would have no opportunity for response or challenge.

“And there’s no truth detector,” Clinton said. “You won’t get on afterwards and say what was true and what wasn’t.”

Limbaugh, in his show Friday, answered the President mockingly, “There is no need for a truth detector. I am the truth detector.”

Clinton said that he had given up hope of receiving better treatment from the press, the religious broadcasters and talk radio.

“So I decided instead of being frustrated, I needed to be aggressive and I’m going to be aggressive from here on in. I’m going to tell what I know the truth to be,” Clinton said.

So no more Mr. Nice Guy?

“I’m going to be very nice about it,” the President said, “but I’m going to be aggressive about it.”

Times staff writer Jeff Leeds in Washington contributed to this story.

United States President Donald Trump’s second administration has introduced a bold and unconventional strategy for the Middle East. The administration intends to recalibrate US influence in a region historically scarred by conflict, prioritising regional stability through economic strength and military consolidation by asserting a stronger, business-minded US presence.

At the centre of Trump’s ambitious goal is what the new US envoy to Iraq, Mark Savaya, described as his goal to “make Iraq great again”. This approach moves away from traditional endless war tactics towards a transactional, results-oriented diplomacy that aims to restore Iraqi sovereignty and economic vitality. It could be the “great gamble” for Trump, who seeks an Iraq that serves as a stable, sovereign regional hub rather than a battleground for foreign interests.

Trump’s primary plans and wishes for Iraq involve a twofold mission: consolidating all armed forces under the command of the legitimate state and drastically reducing the influence of malign foreign players, most notably Iran. The administration seeks to open Iraqi markets to international investment, upgrade the country’s infrastructure, and secure the independence of its energy sector. Hence, the plan is to ground a genuine partnership that respects Iraq’s unity while ensuring that it is no longer a central node for militia activity or external interference.

Militias and political gridlock

This assertive US strategy lands directly in a highly contested and fractured political environment in Iraq, which is less a single state than a patchwork of competing powers. The heart of the problem lies not just in parliament, but also in the persistent shadow influence of armed factions and militias that often operate outside the formal chain of state command. Those groups were among the biggest winners in the November 2025 elections.

Now the ongoing government negotiations have thrown a stark light on these non-state actors.

Their power raises crucial concerns for the future: How can Iraq enforce the law and, crucially, attract the foreign investment needed for revival if armed groups challenge state authority? The consolidation of the country’s armed forces under complete state control is an urgent necessity, underscored by rising regional tensions and security threats.

Moreover, the path to achieving genuine stability is severely obstructed by entrenched political interests.

For Iraq to achieve stability, it must urgently strengthen its institutional frameworks and clearly establish a separation of powers. Yet, many political parties seem more focused on maintaining control over lucrative state resources than on implementing the meaningful reforms the country desperately needs. The result is a governance model struggling to stand firm amid the crosscurrents of competing loyalties and power grabs.

Washington’s play

To achieve these high-stakes goals, Trump has bypassed traditional diplomatic channels by appointing Mark Savaya as the US special envoy to Iraq on October 19. Such an appointment signals a shift towards “deal-making” diplomacy. Savaya’s mission is to navigate the complex political turmoil following Iraq’s parliamentary elections to steer the country towards a stable transition. His job is to bridge the gap between institutional support and massive financial investment, acting as a direct representative of Trump’s business-centric foreign policy.

Savaya is an Iraqi-born, Detroit-based businessman lacking the traditional diplomatic background; his experience is rooted in the private sector in the cannabis industry, but he gained political prominence as an active supporter of Trump’s campaign in Michigan.

He played a key role in the delicate negotiations that secured the release of Elizabeth Tsurkov, the Israeli-Russian academic and Princeton University student who had been kidnapped by an Iraqi militia for more than two years.

Savaya’s communal and ethnic ties have given him significant access to Iraqi power centres that traditional diplomats often lack.

The Iran factor

Iraq’s position in a geopolitical tug-of-war is compounding the internal struggles, forced to balance its critical relationships with two giants: the US and Iran. On the one hand, Washington’s objective is clear: it wants to bolster Iraq’s sovereignty while simultaneously pushing back against the dominance of powerful, often Iran-backed, militias. The US believes that allowing these armed groups too much sway could leave the nation isolated and wreck its fragile economic stability.

But Iranian influence remains a formidable and enduring force. Tehran views Iraq not just as a neighbour but also as a crucial strategic ally for projecting its power across the entire region. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) has been actively working to maintain unity among key Shia factions in Baghdad. This move clearly signals Iran’s deep and enduring interest in shaping Iraq’s political alignment and its future path. Iraq must therefore navigate this high-stakes balancing act to survive.

Savaya’s mission unfolds at a time when Iran’s regional “axis of resistance” is under unprecedented pressure. Having already lost their primary foothold in Syria after the fall of the Assad regime in late 2024, and seeing Hezbollah’s political and military standing in Lebanon severely decimated by the 2025 conflict with Israel, Iranian proxies now face the very real prospect of losing their grip on Iraq too.

In Lebanon, a new government is committed to regaining the state’s monopoly on the use of force, leaving Hezbollah increasingly isolated. This regional retreat means that for Tehran, maintaining influence in Baghdad is a final, desperate stand to remain a relevant regional power.

Other regional actors

The success of Trump’s gamble also depends on the roles of other regional players. Turkiye has recently recalibrated its strategy to integrate Iraq into ad hoc regional trade and security frameworks, effectively diluting Iran’s centrality. Simultaneously, Gulf monarchies such as Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates are emerging as key economic and security partners for Baghdad, offering an alternative to reliance on Iran.

However, these regional actors also bring their own agendas — such as Turkiye’s focus on containing Kurdish movements — which may conflict with US objectives. If Savaya can successfully align these diverse regional interests with Trump’s plan, he may fundamentally rewrite Iraq’s turbulent future.

A realist pragmatism

The “Make Iraq Great Again” strategy reflects a pragmatic reassertion of US interests within the anarchic international system, prioritising Washington’s security and economic power over idealistic goals.

By appointing Savaya — an unconventional, business-oriented envoy — the Trump administration is employing “transactional realism”, utilising economic diplomacy and personal ties as strategic tools to pull Iraq away from Iran’s orbit. This approach views the US-Iran rivalry as a zero-sum game of power politics, where integrating Iraq’s armed forces under centralised state control is fundamental to restoring a state-centric order and sidelining non-state militias that currently feed Tehran’s regional influence.

The new US envoy to Iraq has made clear that “there is no place for armed groups in a fully sovereign Iraq”. His calls resonated with Iraqi officials and militia leaders alike – now at least three militias close to Iran have publicly agreed to disarm. However, other groups have yet to do the same, while rejecting the call from the outset.

However, this high-stakes attempt to shift the regional balance of power faces a significant “security dilemma”, as aggressive moves to diminish Iranian influence may trigger a violent defensive response from Tehran to protect its remaining strategic assets. While the strategy seeks to exploit a regional shift – leveraging the weakened state of Iranian proxies in Syria and Lebanon – it must contend with the “hybrid” power of Iraqi militias and the narrow self-interests of neighbouring players like Turkiye and the Gulf states.

The success of this gamble depends on whether the US can dismantle the shadow economies that facilitate foreign interference and establish a stable, autonomous Iraqi state capable of navigating the intense geopolitical tug-of-war between Washington and Tehran.

The stakes for Iraq’s future

Ultimately, the appointment of Savaya serves as the definitive stress test for Iraqi sovereignty, marking a high-stakes transition towards a transactional “America First” strategy aimed at “Making Iraq Great Again”. By attempting to consolidate military command under the state and dismantle the shadow economies fuelling Iranian influence, Savaya’s mission seeks to exploit the current regional weakening of Tehran’s proxies to transform Iraq into a stable, autonomous hub.

However, the success of this “Great Gamble” hinges on Savaya’s ability to overcome entrenched political opposition and reconcile the presence of US forces with the demand for national unity. If this unconventional diplomatic push can bridge internal divides — particularly between Baghdad and the semi-autonomous Kurdish region in the north — Iraq may finally secure a path towards economic independence; otherwise, the nation risks remaining a perpetual battleground caught in the geopolitical crossfire between Washington and Tehran.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial stance.

Lakers guard Marcus Smart has been fined $35,000 for making an obscene gesture toward a game official during halftime of the game Thursday against the Utah Jazz, the NBA announced Saturday.

Smart was assessed a technical foul for his action as walked off the court for intermission after exchanging words with an official.

The Lakers pulled out a 143-135 victory in Salt Lake City when the 31-year-old defensive specialist scored nine of his 17 points by making three of four three-point shots in the fourth quarter.

Smart, who is averaging 10.6 points, 2.9 assists, 2.5 rebounds and 1.6 steals in 17 games this season, will again be in the starting lineup Saturday night in place of injured Austin Reaves when the Lakers take on the Clippers at Intuit Dome.

DETROIT — In the frantic final firefight of the 1992 presidential campaign, this battered industrial city may have been ground zero.

In the last days before today’s vote, President Bush and Bill Clinton crossed paths over and over again through a narrow band of critical Rust Belt and Great Lakes states–from New Jersey and Pennsylvania to Ohio and Wisconsin. But no state occupied more of their attention than Michigan.

Into this battlefield, the two major contenders have fired television and radio ads, mailings, surrogate speakers and repeated visits of their own–to the point where even veteran local observers have been overwhelmed. Their efforts–reinforced by Ross Perot’s national television barrage–have put the campaign on everyone’s lips.

“There’s a lot of strong feelings on it this year,” said LeAnn Kirrmann, a Republican activist from Grand Ledge, as she waited for Bush to arrive at a rally near here Sunday.

That appears to be the case across the nation, as voters render their verdict on this stormy, vituperative and often path-breaking campaign. Polls show the percentage of voters paying close attention to the campaign has soared this fall, and most experts expect a large turnout–a dramatic conclusion to a campaign that has regularly produced moments of high drama.

“It’s a mortal lock that turnout is going up,” said GOP pollster Bill McInturff.

After tightening significantly last week, national polls show Clinton again holding a comfortable lead over Bush, with Perot lagging behind. Few observers are entirely certain that a campaign that has been consistently unpredictable doesn’t hold one or two more surprises. But a Bush comeback at this stage would rank as the most dramatic reversal of fortune in the final hours of a presidential race.

In their final maneuvering, both Bush and Clinton targeted this state for contrasting reasons that underscore the length of the odds facing the President.

The widespread economic uneasiness in Michigan–symbolized by the continuing turmoil of General Motors Corp., which led to a management shake-up Monday–has always made the state an uphill climb for Bush despite its Republican leanings in recent presidential campaigns.

It remains a daunting challenge for the President now: The latest statewide tracking poll for a Detroit TV station, released Monday night, showed Clinton leading with 46%, Bush with 30% and Ross Perot at 16%.

Facing such numbers, Bush might have written off Michigan in a different year to spend his last campaign hours elsewhere. But the President has been forced to pound relentlessly at the state because there appears to be no way he can win the necessary 270 electoral votes without Michigan’s 18.

That reality defines Clinton’s stake in the state. Although Clinton–with his strong base on both coasts–can probably win today without carrying Michigan, he has invested so heavily here precisely because he knows Bush cannot.

“That’s Clinton’s great advantage,” said Democratic strategist Tad Devine. “He can focus on trying to take just one link out of Bush’s chain.”

Clinton’s intense focus on Michigan represents the reversal of a traditional Republican tactic. Because the GOP base in the South and West left Democrats so little room to maneuver in past presidential campaigns, Republicans have typically been able to dictate the battlefield in the election’s final hours.

In past years, the Republicans devoted enormous resources to a single conservative-leaning state–usually Ohio–confident that if they won there, the Democrats could not reach an Electoral College majority.

This year, though, it is Clinton who has the lead and the flexibility to choose where to fight. He has selected Michigan as his version of Ohio.

“That is a pretty fair analogy,” said David Wilhelm, Clinton’s campaign manager. “Michigan is a linchpin to our Electoral College strategy; it is a state that if we win, it destroys almost any chance that Bush will be reelected.”

With the state playing such a central role in the strategies of both candidates, their efforts here have been enormous. “Some of us,” said Don Tucker, the Democratic chairman in populous Oakland County, “have started to think Clinton and Bush are running for President of Michigan.”

When Clinton arrived in Detroit on Monday for a lunchtime airport rally, it marked his third visit to the area in five days and his sixth trip to the state in two weeks.

On Sunday, Bush roused the faithful with a scathing attack on Clinton at a rally in Auburn Hills, just north of here–his third run at the state in eight days.

Last Thursday, voters from around the state were able to ask Bush questions in a televised town meeting from Grand Rapids. The next night Clinton flew to the Detroit suburbs to hold his own televised town meeting.

When Clinton forces made their final buy of television time last week, they estimated they were placing enough commercials on the air so that each Michigan resident would see them 14 times through Election Day.

Bush, both sides figure, is on the air even more heavily–especially with a foreboding spot about Clinton’s record as governor that might be titled “Apocalypse Arkansas.” From both sides, acerbic radio advertisements blare incessantly.

As for Perot, local observers say his ad assault has been less visible than in some other states. But his promises to shake up Washington have won him a strong following.

At one point early last week, Republican polls showed Perot surging over 20% in this state. With most of Perot’s gains coming from Clinton, that tightened the Michigan race considerably.

But, as has happened throughout the country, Perot’s support has slipped here since he accused the White House last week of engineering dirty tricks that forced his withdrawal from the race in July. Initially, the voters deserting Perot disproportionately moved to Bush, but now Clinton is winning his share of those voters and consolidating his lead.

“The President is unlikely to close the gap in Michigan on Election Day,” said GOP pollster Steve Lombardo.

Even with Clinton’s lead in the polls, Democrats here remain edgy. Almost without exception, they are haunted by the memory of 1990, when then-Gov. James J. Blanchard led Republican John Engler by 10 percentage points in the final polls–and then was swept from office by a strong Republican effort to get out their vote, coupled with a poor turnout in Detroit.

Democrats are insistent that won’t happen again. Registration is up in Detroit, and Mayor Coleman A. Young has put his shoulder into the Clinton effort. One local official estimated this weekend that 65% of registered Detroit voters could come to the polls today, compared to just 54% four years ago.

Unions are pushing hard too: The UAW has been distributing to members copies of a Flint newspaper article reporting that Ross Perot owns a Mercedes-Benz and other foreign cars. In Michigan, that’s not much different than burning a flag.

Republican efforts to turn out the vote are just as intense. In Oakland County alone, GOP volunteers made more than 150,000 calls last weekend, said Jim Alexander, the county GOP chairman.

Local observers say religious conservatives and anti-abortion activists are mounting powerful drives; thousands of copies of the Christian Coalition’s voter guide on the presidential candidates were distributed at Bush’s rally in Auburn Hills on Sunday.

Beyond its impact on the Electoral College, voting in Michigan should help answer some of the key questions on which the results will pivot around the nation. Among them:

* Can Clinton reclaim the so-called Reagan Democrats–the blue-collar ethnics who deserted the party during the 1970s and 1980s over taxes, the economy and the perception that Democrats favored minorities?

Stressing such issues as welfare reform and his support for the death penalty, Clinton has aggressively courted voters in Macomb County, a Detroit suburb renowned as the breeding ground of Reagan Democrats.

Republicans have fired back with targeted mailers hitting Clinton on trust and taxes. And Perot could be a formidable competitor in Macomb County and similar neighborhoods for the votes of working-class residents disgusted with Bush and the gridlock in Washington.

* Can Bush hold suburban Republicans and independents who favor abortion rights? Four years ago, he carried the generally affluent Detroit suburb of Oakland County by 109,000 votes. But the hard-right line on social issues at the Republican Convention did not play well there, and Democrats are optimistic that Clinton’s centrist message will allow him to make significant inroads, not only in Oakland County but in similar places in New Jersey, Illinois and Pennsylvania.

* Can Clinton get the high turnout he needs from blacks after a campaign so heavily focused on wooing white swing voters in the suburbs? The answer will affect the result not only here but in other industrial states, such as Ohio and Pennsylvania, as well as Southern battlegrounds like Georgia and Louisiana.

* Will young voters show up today? One reason Clinton’s margin diminished in some national surveys last week is those polls included very few young people among their likely voters–and Clinton, the first baby boomer to top a national ticket, has been running very well with the young.

In 1988, just 36% of eligible voters age 18 to 24 actually turned out. Mike Dolan, field director for Rock the Vote, a nonpartisan national effort to register and turn out young voters, predicts as many as half of them may vote this year.

Such a spike in turnout would be a huge boost for Clinton; in this state, for example, he has courted students at rallies at both the University of Michigan and Michigan State University.

One cloud on the Democratic horizon is the possibility of rain today in Michigan and much of the Midwest. Conventional wisdom holds that rain could dampen turnout in Detroit and other urban centers and pinch Clinton’s vote.

But many on both sides believe that interest in this campaign is so high that even rain won’t cool it off. “With all of the attention to the race this year,” Alexander said, “I don’t know if even rain is going to matter.”

Emma Groves, 35, from Belfast, was refused entry to Switzerland and detained at Zurich airport after making an easy mistake when packing

A woman was turned away from her holiday destination and held in custody after making one crucial error while travelling. Emma Groves, 35, from Belfast, made her way to Dublin Airport for a four-night break in Zurich, Switzerland on December 1 this year.

The pair dropped off their luggage and completed check-in before passing through security without any problems. Emma had reserved the Aer Lingus flight approximately three weeks earlier after spotting a hotel she fancied visiting on TikTok.

However, it wasn’t until the duo reached border control in Zurich that they discovered Emma had made a grave blunder which left her devastated. Following the loss of her passport several weeks beforehand, Emma had requested a replacement document, which arrived at her home.

Yet after discovering her original passport, she failed to destroy it and stored it in a drawer alongside her moisturisers and fake tan products.

Emma explained: “I had grabbed it [passport] the night before and give my passport to my boyfriend, he minds them because I do lose everything. Only the night before I thought ‘my goodness am I going to be able to travel, the gold has completely faded off’ this which is strange for it being a new passport. It was in a drawer with all my moisturisers and fake tans. So I did think it’s probably just rubbed off.”

Upon reaching the Swiss border, Emma discovered her passport had been flagged as cancelled. She recalled: “He just said ‘do you have another one’ and then it kind of clicked. The border police came and got me and my boyfriend.

“We went into this room and said we realised what had happened. I said I’ve got a new one but I’ve grabbed the old one so he said because it had been cancelled it was an invalid document.”

Emma was informed she would need to be flown back to Dublin before she could re-enter the country using her valid passport. Her boyfriend chose to remain in the country and await Emma’s return.

Emma found herself placed in a “weird” airport hotel, which she likened to a “mini prison”, containing roughly 20 beds separated by curtains.

She explained: “They put me in an airport hotel and I was in there for about three or four hours, but it was just like a room with a lot of beds in it separated by curtains. I just sat and watched Stranger Things get me through.

“It was scary enough in the hotel because there were a lot of people in there, and there kind of wasn’t really any security or even a locked door. It was a weird room.

“[In Dublin] we used a machine to drop off the luggage, but then we did have to go over to a desk to leave them, and she checked the passport and stuff. The passports were scanned so you’d think they would pick up if it was cancelled.

“Border security in Switzerland said I shouldn’t have been able to get that far. It wasn’t until like 6pm that they told me I’d be getting on the flight at 8pm.”

It’s understood that Aer Lingus verifies that a presented passport corresponds to the passenger’s identity and remains valid. In instances where a passport has been cancelled but remains in date, the discrepancy would be spotted upon entry to another country.

Emma was then accompanied around the airport by a chaperone before being boarded onto the aircraft first, as her passport had been seized. She was given a set of documents which stated she was denied entry and had her passport confiscated.

Upon her return to Dublin, her mother met her with her replacement passport, allowing her to purchase fresh flights to Zurich, which she described as an “expense she didn’t need”.

Emma explained: “When I flew over, I actually initially wasn’t going to bring the forms back, but my mum was like ‘just take them’, so I flew out fine but when I got to the Swiss border again the border control lady was like ‘oh this doesn’t make sense it says you’ve already been here but you haven’t left’.’I give her the forms and she was like ‘oh okay that kind of explains it’ and I got through.”

Emma was informed by border officials that she would face no future travel difficulties due to it being an honest mistake. A representative from Aer Lingus stated: “Passengers travelling with Aer Lingus are responsible for ensuring they have all relevant travel documentation and compliance with relevant laws and regulations of the countries they are flying to, from, or transiting through. Passports used for travel must be valid and in date. If a travel document is not valid for travel, passengers may be refused entry when they reach their planned destination, as was the case in this instance.”

FOR years Molly-Mae Hague was the influencer who up-and-coming social media stars aspired to be like – she had the huge brand deals, the hunky fiancé and millions in the bank.

But fast forward to today and the 26-year-old’s aesthetically pleasing life is no longer top of the wish list. In her place are a host of ‘real’ women with some serious career goals and leading the way is social media star Meagan Wells. Here, insiders tell us how being the so-called ‘anti-Molly’ has helped the rising mogul, the truth behind rumours she’s ‘sold out’ and what really happened with her former bestie, Asher Mary Lou.

More than half a million fans have been closely watching Meagan’s every move since she burst onto the scene in 2021 – sharing her Slimming World journey.

She describes herself as “Your Midsize Geordie bestie,” who puts confidence for curvy women at the forefront of her brand.

It saw many young girls flock to her as a source of inspiration as she shared her fashion hacks and body battles with her fans in her typical down-to-earth manner.

If she wants a boob job then she’s more than entitled too.

Insider on her changing look

In a surprisingly bold move just last month, Meagan made her intentions clear as she declared: “In a world full of Molly-Mae’s be proud to be a Bridget Jones.” 

The post raised eyebrows with her fans, and one of Meagan’s followers told The Sun: “She has always advocated for positivity but her Bridget Jones and Molly-Mae comment felt seriously misguided.

“There was such a clearer way she could have compared herself to a Bridget Jones-type without having to discourage anyone from following in Molly-Mae’s path.

“Many of us have been speculating in our group chats if she was simply using Molly’s name as she knows it will get her attention and likes.”

Meagan was quick to explain herself, telling her followers: “This isn’t shade to Molly-Mae. It’s the Molly-Mae effect on social media which is the side of social media that is all about perfectionism, clean girl, minimal aesthetics and if you feel you don’t sit in that (me), you are seen also.”

But behind the scenes things were really changing for Meagan and as her fame rose, she started to shed her girl-next-door image.

One fan questioned how honest her posts are, writing: “You’ve posted before about all the face/hair editing software you use on your face.”

While her weight has always been a hot topic on her socials, suddenly Meagan seemed slimmer than ever and then in September she shocked people when she decided to get a boob job. 

There were also trips to aesthetic clinics and getting her lips done and suddenly she looked a far cry from the girl who started off desperate to lose weight. She was a size 18 at her biggest and a 10 at her smallest.

Whilst no one could fault Meagan wanting to get fit and healthier as she embarked upon her own personal journey – the loyal fans who were with her at the start have now admitted to feeling “cheated”, accusing her of turning into everything she proclaimed she would never be.

Over the summer she posted a video in her bikini showing people how to pose on the beach but her followers were quick to point out that of course she looked good – with a full face of glam.

“I’m fairly certain any pose will work for you. Simply because you are a goddess,” remarked one.

And someone else added: “It helps that she is absolutely gorgeous anyway.”

But insiders tell us Meagan would be horrified by the suggestion that  it’s all a bit of an act, explaining: “There has never been any secret about her wanting to look her best – and if she wants a boob job then she’s more than entitled too.

“People need to remember she is growing up in the public eye and of course her style will evolve.

“She knows people were surprised by her new boobs, but she’s engaged now and just wants to look and feel her best. She’s got big plans for the future.”

Another source speculated: “Influencers will often do what it takes to stay relevant, and when they are offered  things it’s hard to turn it down. She might be allowed to change and grow, but it’s understandable why people might feel let down.”

Having seen her fame soar over the past few years, Meagan decided to launch a podcast with close pal and growing influencer Asher Mary Lou – Talking Thirty.

It started in November 2023, to much fanfare, and over the course of the year they bashed out three series by September 2024.

“They don’t even follow each other now – it was a real cut off.”

Insider on her fall out from Asher

During their last episode of the series, they joked it would be their last one ever, which turned out to be foreshadowing because it then disappeared without a trace – and even their Instagram has now been removed. 

They claimed to be too busy to record it any more, but the urgency with which they removed it from their bios suggested something much deeper going on.

Insiders tell us: “The girls grew close very quickly and decided to do the podcast pretty soon after meeting.

“But they realised they don’t actually have the same values and there was one row in particular, which they now both refuse to talk about, which made them end the friendship.

“They don’t even follow each other now – it was a real cut off.”

Meagan’s foray into podcasting might not have lasted long, but she has now set her sights on transitioning into the traditional celebrity world of TV, like many of her fellow Instagram influencers and TikTok stars.

Just this month, she shared a reel about her dreams of landing a spot on This Morning as part of a “Manifesting Morning TV” post.

Meagan told her followers how she’d undertaken a TV presenter course in the hopes of honing her skills.

Our insider added: “She’s very clear about what her goals are – like with everything she’s been very honest about what she wants career-wise.

“She’s not necessarily taking the traditional influencer route like Molly did and she’s determined not to lose herself along the way.”

Despite the worries and concerns, Meagan has long provided a safe space for her fans who have struggled with body image issues.

She has never shied away from showing off her body hang-ups which is far more than can be said for many Instagram influencers.

And while there may be questions about if she’s sold out and become skinny, she’s forging her own path – reaping the rewards of her fame and followers.

The Sun has contacted Meagan Wells’ representative for comment.