plan

Jan. 9 (UPI) — The government of Bolivia confirmed it will introduce changes to 35 articles of a decree that established a package of economic adjustments, including the end of fuel subsidies, as groups affiliated with the Central Obrera Boliviana continue blocking highways at 29 points across the country.

Deputy Minister of Autonomies Andrea Barrientos said the changes are procedural rather than substantive and are aimed at adding clarifications, such as respect for the Constitution and mechanisms for social oversight, according to local daily El Deber.

No date has been announced for the changes.

The government said the amendments will not affect eliminating fuel subsidies. The decree set new reference prices that imply increases ranging from 86% to more than 160% compared with subsidized levels.

Authorities argue the measure is necessary to restore public finances and correct fiscal distortions.

The labor confederation, which has led protests and road blockades for the past two weeks in La Paz, Cochabamba, Potosí, Oruro and Santa Cruz, is demanding the repeal of the decree and denied the existence of any pre-agreement with the government.

Government officials estimated Thursday that economic losses from the labor confederation’s road blockades could reach $100 million a day, when considering the overall impact on industry, commerce and transportation.

“Industrial groups are talking about $20 million to $40 million a day. In commerce, transportation …. Without a doubt, we are easily talking about around $100 million a day,” the official said.

In a new phase of the political confrontation with President Rodrigo Paz, Vice President Edmand Lara on Thursday introduced a bill seeking to nullify articles of the decree that ended fuel subsidies.

Since the elections, relations between Lara and Paz have deteriorated. The vice president says he was excluded from executive decision-making and has declared himself in “constructive opposition.”

Lara’s initiative targets provisions of the decree enacted in December that dismantled a subsidy system in place for more than two decades and sharply raised gasoline and diesel prices.

The vice president, who also presides over the Legislative Assembly, said several articles are “unconstitutional” because they encroach on congressional powers and alter key rules governing investments in natural resources.

Criticism has focused on a fast-track mechanism included in the decree to approve investment contracts involving natural resources.

Analysts, lawmakers and unions warn that the expedited process could weaken legislative oversight and bypass constitutional requirements, such as environmental licenses and prior consultations with affected communities.

Political tensions escalated further with a new decree allowing the president to perform his duties digitally during temporary absences from the country. Paz is expected to travel to the World Economic Forum in Switzerland later this month, a trip that would normally require transferring power to the vice president.

At the same time, constitutional challenges were filed with the Tribunal Constitucional Plurinacional, whose ruling could be delayed due to a lack of quorum.

Opposition lawmakers, including members of the Libre alliance linked to former President Jorge Quiroga, also have objected to several articles of the decree.

The city of Los Angeles violated the state’s open meeting law when council members took up a plan to clear 9,800 homeless encampments behind closed doors, a judge ruled this week.

In a 10-page decision, L.A. County Superior Court Judge Curtis Kin said the City Council ran afoul of the Ralph M. Brown Act by approving the encampment strategy during a Jan. 31, 2024, closed session.

The encampment plan was part of a larger effort by the city to comply with a legal settlement with the L.A. Alliance for Human Rights, which had sued over the city’s handling of the homelessness crisis.

Kin, in his ruling, said the city is allowed under the Brown Act to confer with its attorneys in closed-door meetings to discuss legal strategy.

“However, what the City cannot do under the Brown Act is formulate and approve policy decisions in a closed session outside the public eye merely because such decisions are in furtherance of a settlement agreement,” Kin wrote.

Karen Richardson, a spokesperson for City Atty. Hydee Feldstein Soto, said her office had no comment on the decision, which was issued earlier this week.

The ruling delivered a victory to the Los Angeles Community Action Network, which advocates for homeless residents and had sued the city over the closed-door deliberations.

Lawyers for LA CAN have warned that the city’s goal of removing 9,800 encampments over four years has created a quota system that could make sanitation workers more likely to violate the property rights of unhoused residents. Under the agreement, the city must reach its encampment removal target this summer.

“The City Council approved an extremely controversial plan to clear almost 10,000 encampments entirely in secret,” said Shayla Myers, the group’s attorney. “They never disclosed the plan before they voted on it, or even after, and the only one they disclosed the plan to was the business community.”

Lawyers for the city have offered contradictory explanations for what transpired during the Jan. 31, 2024, meeting. Now, LA CAN is seeking a court order requiring that the city produce all records — including audio of the closed-door deliberations — to show what transpired.

The city’s strategy for clearing 9,800 encampments has become a major sticking point in its long-running legal battle with the LA Alliance. U.S. District Court Judge David O. Carter ruled that a tent discarded by sanitation workers can only count toward the city’s numerical goal if its owner has been offered housing or shelter first.

Feldstein Soto’s legal team, in a memo to the council, said later that the judge had “reinterpreted” some of the city’s settlement obligations.

In this week’s ruling, Kin found that the city violated the Brown Act a second time in May 2024, when the council went behind closed doors to take up another agreement — this one between the city and L.A. County on the delivery of homeless services.

The LA Alliance first sued the city and county in 2020, alleging that too little was being done to address the homelessness crisis, particularly in Skid Row. The city settled the case two years later, agreeing to create 12,915 new shelter beds or other housing opportunities by June 2027.

After that deal was struck, the city began negotiating an accompanying agreement with the LA Alliance to reduce the number of street encampments. Those talks dragged on for more than a year.

The LA Alliance ran out of patience, telling Judge Carter in February 2024 that the city was 447 days late in finalizing its plan and should be sanctioned. The group submitted to the court a copy of the encampment removal plan, saying it had been approved by the City Council on Jan. 31, 2024.

Video from that day’s meeting shows that council members went behind closed doors to discuss the LA Alliance case. When they returned, Deputy City Atty. Jonathan Groat said there was nothing to report from the closed session.

LA CAN demanded that the city produce any vote tally on the encampment plan. The city declined to do so, saying there was no vote.

“To this day, [we] still don’t know who voted for it, or even if a vote was taken at all,” Myers said.

Lawyers for the city have argued that they were not required to issue any report from that closed session meeting. They also have said that the Brown Act allowed the two agreements — the one on encampment removals and the other with the county — to be discussed behind closed doors.

Carter ruled last year that the city had failed to comply with the terms of its settlement agreement with the L.A. Alliance. On Tuesday, he ordered the city to pay $1.6 million to cover the group’s legal fees.

The judge also instructed the city to pay about $201,000 for fees incurred by LA CAN and the LA Catholic Worker, which have intervened in the LA Alliance case.

On Thursday, lawyers for the city notified the court that they intend to appeal the order to pay the various groups.

SACRAMENTO — California and its state-funded programs are heading into a period of volatile fiscal uncertainty, driven largely by events in Washington and on Wall Street.

Gov. Gavin Newsom’s budget chief warned Friday that surging revenues tied to the artificial intelligence boom are being offset by rising costs and federal funding cuts. The result: a projected $3-billion state deficit for the next fiscal year despite no major new spending initiatives.

The Newsom administration on Friday released its proposed $348.9-billion budget for the fiscal year that begins July 1, formally launching negotiations with the Legislature over spending priorities and policy goals.

“This budget reflects both confidence and caution,” Newsom said in a statement. “California’s economy is strong, revenues are outperforming expectations, and our fiscal position is stable because of years of prudent fiscal management — but we remain disciplined and focused on sustaining progress, not overextending it.”

Newsom’s proposed budget did not include funding to backfill the massive cuts to Medicaid and other public assistance programs by President Trump and the Republican-led Congress, changes expected to lead to millions of low-income Californians losing healthcare coverage and other benefits.

“If the state doesn’t step up, communities across California will crumble,” California State Assn. of Counties CEO Graham Knaus said in a statement.

The governor is expected to revise the plan in May using updated revenue projections after the income tax filing deadline, with lawmakers required to approve a final budget by June 15.

Newsom did not attend the budget presentation Friday, which was out of the ordinary, instead opting to have California Director of Finance Joe Stephenshaw field questions about the governor’s spending plan.

“Without having significant increases of spending, there also are no significant reductions or cuts to programs in the budget,” Stephenshaw said, noting that the proposal is a work in progress.

California has an unusually volatile revenue system — one that relies heavily on personal income taxes from high-earning residents whose capital gains rise and fall sharply with the stock market.

Entering state budget negotiations, many expected to see significant belt tightening after the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office warned in November that California faces a nearly $18-billion budget shortfall. The governor’s office and Department of Finance does not always agree, or use, the LAO’s estimates.

On Friday, the Newsom administration said it is projecting a much smaller deficit — about $3 billion — after assuming higher revenues over the next three fiscal years than were forecast last year. The gap between the governor’s estimate and the LAO’s projection largely reflects differing assumptions about risk: The LAO factored in the possibility of a major stock-market downturn.

“We do not do that,” Stephenshaw said.

Iranian authorities are enforcing an internet blackout after protests escalated in Tehran. It’s been two weeks since demonstrations flared up in protest at harsh economic conditions. They’ve spread to more than 100 towns and cities and taken on a political tone.

SACRAMENTO — Gov. Gavin Newsom on Thursday unveiled a sweeping proposal to overhaul how California’s education system is governed, calling for structural changes that he said would shift oversight of the Department of Education and redefine the role of the state’s elected schools chief.

The proposal, which is part of Newsom’s state budget plan that will be released Friday, would unify the policymaking State Board of Education with the department, which is responsible for carrying out those policies. The governor said the change would better align education efforts from early childhood through college.

“California can no longer postpone reforms that have been recommended regularly for a century,” Newsom said in a statement. “These critical reforms will bring greater accountability, clarity, and coherence to how we serve our students and schools.”

Few details were provided about how the role of the state superintendent of public instruction would change, beyond a greater focus on fostering coordination and aligning education policy.

The changes would require approval from state lawmakers, who will be in the state Capitol on Thursday for Newsom’s last State of the State speech in his final year as governor.

The proposal would implement recommendations from a 2002 report by the state Legislature, titled “California’s Master Plan for Education,” which described the state’s K-12 governance as fragmented and “with overlapping roles that sometimes operate in conflict with one another, to the detriment of the educational services offered to students.” Newsom’s office said similar concerns have been raised repeatedly since 1920 and were echoed again in a December 2025 report by research center Policy Analysis for California Education.

“The sobering reality of California’s education system is that too few schools can now provide the conditions in which the State can fairly ask students to learn to the highest standards, let alone prepare themselves to meet their future learning needs,” the Legislature’s 2002 report stated. Those most harmed are often low-income students and students of color, the report added.

“California’s education governance system is complex and too often creates challenges for school leaders,” Edgar Zazueta, executive director of the Assn. of California School Administrators, said in a statement provided by Newsom’s office. “As responsibilities and demands on schools continue to increase, educators need governance systems that are designed to better support positive student outcomes.”

The current budget allocated $137.6 billion for education from transitional kindergarten through the 12th grade — the highest per-pupil funding level in state history — and Newsom’s office said his proposal is intended to ensure those investments translate into more consistent support and improved outcomes statewide.

“For decades the fragmented and inefficient structure overseeing our public education system has hindered our students’ ability to succeed and thrive,” Ted Lempert, president of advocacy group Children Now, said in a statement provided by the governor’s office. “Major reform is essential, and we’re thrilled that the Governor is tackling this issue to improve our kids’ education.”

SACRAMENTO — A far-reaching proposal to outlaw hydraulic fracturing and ban oil and gas wells from operating near homes, schools and healthcare facilities failed in the California Legislature on Tuesday, a major setback for progressive leaders who hail the state as the nation’s bellwether on environmental protection.

Gov. Gavin Newsom in September called on state lawmakers to ban fracking and voiced his support for safety buffer zones around wells, saying they posed a significant health threat to vulnerable Californians, primarily in predominantly Black and Latino communities near well fields and refineries.

The legislation that failed Tuesday was much more ambitious than what Newsom proposed, however, and faced fierce opposition from California’s oil industry, which holds tremendous political sway among Central Valley legislators, along with trade unions, a powerful force within the Democratic Party.

The bill would have banned fracking and a series of other well injection methods used to extract oil — all opposed by environmental activists. It would also have prohibited wells from operating within 2,500 feet of homes, schools, healthcare facilities and other populated areas. Newsom’s proposals were limited to a ban only on fracking and the consideration of a buffer zone.

“Obviously I’m very disappointed,” said state Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco), one of the legislators who introduced the legislation. “California really has not done what it needs to do in terms of addressing the oil problem. We have communities that are suffering right now, and the Legislature has repeatedly failed to act.”

Wiener’s bill failed to receive the five votes necessary to pass the Senate’s Natural Resources and Water Committee, the proposal’s first stop in the legislative process. State Sen. Susan Eggman (D-Stockton) was the only Democrat to vote against the legislation, but it failed largely because two other Democrats, state Sens. Bob Hertzberg of Van Nuys and Ben Hueso of San Diego, did not cast votes.

After the vote, Hertzberg said he supported California’s efforts to wean itself from fossil fuels but argued the bill did “nothing to foster that transition by reducing demand for oil in our state or in the global marketplace.”

Rudy Gonzalez of the San Francisco Building and Construction Trades Council made a similar argument when testifying by video during the committee hearing, saying the legislation would lead to the loss of thousands of well-paying union jobs at California’s refineries and in other petroleum-related industries.

“It doesn’t do for workers or for the environment what it claims,” Gonzalez said. “Our domestic supply factors in 32 million cars and trucks that are on our roads today. Ending extraction in California won’t end the supply or the demand for that. In fact, they’ll shift production outside of California or supply avenues to other nations.”

Oil industry officials have argued that a mandate for 2,500-foot buffer zones around wells would effectively shut down the vast majority of oil production in California. California was the seventh-largest oil-producing state in 2020, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

At the beginning of Tuesday’s hearing, Wiener acknowledged that the bill would have a major impact on oil production in California and faced major obstacles in the Capitol. But he said he was open to amending the bill and having a conversation with opponents of the legislation.

Before the hearing, Wiener amended the bill to extend the period of time allowed to phase out fracking and other forms of ejection wells. But that did little to temper opposition. On Tuesday, four senators on the committee, all Democrats, voted in favor of the bill while three senators opposed it — the proposal needed five votes to pass the nine-member committee.

Wiener said he is weighing whether to ask the committee to reconsider the legislation. He vowed to continue pushing the bill, in total or in part, during the current session and said his top priority is establishing health and safety buffer zones around oil and gas wells.

“If there is a path to narrowing the bill and getting the votes, we are very open to doing that,” he said. “We’ll have to see what’s possible.”

Even if the bill cannot be revived, buffer zones may still be mandated by administrative action. At the direction of an executive order by Newsom, officials with the state Department of Conservation have been holding public hearings in person and online throughout the year on proposed public health and safety protections for communities near oil and gas operations, including imposing possible buffer zones around wells. Those proposed regulations are expected to be made public this spring.

From the outset, the fracking ban and mandatory buffer zones created a fissure within the Legislature’s Democratic majority, with liberal legislators from coastal areas and major cities seeing the proposals as essential to combat climate change and protect vulnerable families, and business-friendly lawmakers and those from inland areas worried about the potential loss of tens of thousands of jobs and the effect on local economies in California’s oil-rich San Joaquin Valley.

A proposed fracking moratorium stalled in the Legislature in 2014, and just last year a bill calling for less stringent buffer zone requirements around oil and gas wells failed in the same Senate committee as this year’s bill.

Eggman voted in favor of the setbacks proposed in last year’s bill but against this legislation, saying it would “shut down oil production in California.” Most of her Central Valley constituents cannot afford expensive electric cars, she said.

“I’m just thinking about the rest of California and in my district: the people who commute, the people who have to drive trucks, the people who drive tractors. None of those are electric,” she said.

CHUCKLE Brothers comedy great Paul Elliott says he wants to show that all the world’s a stage — by appearing in Shakespeare plays.

The funnyman, 78, who received an MBE in the New Year’s Honours for his charity work, said he would love to play parts in the Bard’s repertoire given a chance.

But alas, poor Paul — famed for his “To me, to you” catchphrase with late brother Barry — admits he might struggle to learn all the lines.

Asked if he had any ambitions to do Hamlet, Paul said: “To me, or not to me, that is the question?

“I doubt very much I’d be able to learn those lines, but if it was offered, I’d have a go.”

One role he knows he does not stand a chance of getting is as the next James Bond.

TRAGIC LOSS

Tommy Lee Jones’ daughter ‘found dead on New Year’s Day in luxury hotel’

‘PREDATOR’ SMITH

Will Smith sued for sexual harassment by male tour violinist & TV star

He said it would be more like “the retired James Bond, at my age”.

But despite a Shakespeare play appearing to have neither rhyme nor reason it would be another chance for him to expand his acting range.

He played a gangland enforcer in last year’s crime flick Fall To The Top and said that he “jumped at the chance” to do it.

Paul said: “I thought, ‘well, that suits me down to the ground.’ I used to bully Barry around in Chuckle Brothers. Why not go one step further?”

The Chuckle legend also works as a club DJ and sells personalised videos to fans for £40 each on shout-out website Cameo.

Paul and Barry, from Rotherham, South Yorks, made almost 300 episodes of ChuckleVision for the BBC from 1987 to 2009.

Barry died of bone cancer in 2018, aged 73.

PALM BEACH, Fla. — President Trump is scheduled to meet with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu Monday, as Washington looks to create fresh momentum for a U.S.-brokered ceasefire in Gaza that could be in danger of stalling before a complicated second phase.

Trump could use the face-to-face at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida to try to leverage his strong relationship with Netanyahu and look for ways to speed up the peace process. Before that, Netanyahu met separately with Secretary of State Marco Rubio.

The ceasefire between Israel and Hamas that Trump championed has mostly held, but progress has slowed recently. Both sides accuse each other of violations, and divisions have emerged among the U.S., Israel and Arab countries about the path forward.

The truce’s first phase began in October, days after the two-year anniversary of the initial Hamas-led attack on Israel that killed about 1,200 people. All but one of the 251 hostages taken then have been released, alive or dead.

The Israeli leader has signaled he is in no rush to move forward with the next phase as long as the remains of Ran Gvili are still in Gaza. Netanyahu’s office said he met with Gvili’s parents in Florida.

Now comes the next, far more complicated part. Trump’s 20-point plan — which was approved by the U.N. Security Council — lays out an ambitious vision for ending Hamas’ rule of Gaza.

Iran and other topics likely to come up

The two leaders also are expected to discuss other topics, including Iran, whose nuclear capabilities Trump insists were “completely and fully obliterated” after U.S. strikes on its nuclear sites in June. Israeli officials have been quoted in local media as expressing concern about Iran rebuilding its supply of long-range missiles capable of striking Israel.

There are many key facets of the ceasefire’s second phase that Israel’s leader doesn’t support or has even openly opposed, said Mona Yacoubian, director and senior adviser of the Middle East program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

“This is going to be a really tall order, I think, for President Trump to get Netanyahu to agree,” she said.

“How he does that, what kind of pressure he puts on Netanyahu, I think, is going to be important to watch for,” said Yacoubian, who also said the two could exhibit ”a broader clash of approaches to the region.”

Next phase is complex

If successful, the second phase would see the rebuilding of a demilitarized Gaza under international supervision by a group chaired by Trump and known as the Board of Peace. The Palestinians would form a “technocratic, apolitical” committee to run daily affairs in Gaza, under Board of Peace supervision.

It further calls for normalized relations between Israel and the Arab world, and a possible pathway to Palestinian independence. Then there are thorny logistical and humanitarian questions, including rebuilding war-ravaged Gaza, disarming Hamas and creating a security apparatus called the International Stabilization Force.

The Board of Peace would oversee Gaza’s reconstruction under a two-year, renewable U.N. mandate. Its members had been expected to be named by the end of the year and might even be revealed after Monday’s meeting, but the announcement could be pushed into next month.

Netanyahu was the first foreign leader to meet Trump at the White House in his second term, but this will be their first in-person meeting since Trump went to Israel in October to mark the start of the ceasefire’s initial phase. Netanyahu has been to Mar-a-Lago before, including in July 2024 when Trump was still seeking reelection.

Much remains unsettled

Their latest meeting comes after U.S. Mideast envoy Steve Witkoff and the president’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, recently huddled in Florida with officials from Egypt, Qatar and Turkey, which have been mediating the ceasefire.

Two main challenges have complicated moving to the second phase, according to an official who was briefed on those meetings. Israeli officials have been taking a lot of time to vet and approve members of the Palestinian technocratic committee from a list given to them by the mediators, and Israel continues its military strikes.

Trump’s plan also calls for the stabilization force, proposed as a multinational body, to maintain security. But it, too, has yet to be formed. Whether details will be forthcoming after Monday’s meeting is unclear.

A Western diplomat said there is a “huge gulf” between the U.S.-Israeli understanding of the force’s mandate and that of other major countries in the region, as well as European governments.

All spoke on the condition of anonymity to provide details that haven’t been made public.

The U.S. and Israel want the force to have a “commanding role” in security duties, including disarming Hamas and other militant groups. But countries being courted to contribute troops fear that mandate will make it an “occupation force,” the diplomat said.

Hamas has said it is ready to discuss “freezing or storing” its arsenal of weapons but insists it has a right to armed resistance as long as Israel occupies Palestinian territory. One U.S. official said a potential plan might be to offer cash incentives in exchange for weapons, echoing a “buyback” program Witkoff has previously floated.

Questions about Gaza reconstruction

One displaced man in Khan Yunis, Iyad Abu Sakla, said Trump needed to urge Netanyahu to allow Palestinians to return to their homes. Under the agreement, most Palestinians are permitted in a zone just under half the size of Gaza.

“We are exhausted. This displacement is bad; it’s cold and freezing. Enough lying to us and enough insulting our intelligence,” Sakla said.

Israeli bombardment and ground operations have transformed neighborhoods across Gaza into rubble-strewn wastelands, with blackened shells of buildings and mounds of debris stretching in all directions.

Egypt, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Turkey are pressing for a negotiated deal on disarming Hamas and on additional Israeli withdrawal from Gaza before moving to next elements of the plan, including deployment of the international security force and reconstruction, three Arab officials said.

Three other officials, including two Americans, said the United Arab Emirates has agreed to fund reconstruction, including new communities, although they said plans have not been settled.

All the officials spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations between the various countries. The UAE did not respond to multiple requests for comment.

Weissert, Mednick and Magdy write for the Associated Press. AP writers Darlene Superville in Washington and Lee Keath and Fatma Khaled in Cairo contributed to this report.

Dec. 29 (UPI) — Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will visit with President Donald Trump Monday in Florida to discuss the peace plan with Gaza.

Netanyahu is also likely to lobby the president for help with Iran as it continues its work on nuclear weapons.

The meeting will happen at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort in Palm Beach, Fla. On Sunday, Trump met with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky at the resort to continue working on a peace plan between Ukraine and Russia.

Local officials have said that more than 400 people have been killed in Gaza since the cease-fire, NBC News reported.

The Trump administration wants to see progress on the plan’s second phase in January. That means a Palestinian technocratic government would be created. Hamas would disarm, and the Israeli Defense Forces would pull out of Gaza.

But some believe that Netanyahu will stall the process and demand Hamas fully disarm before the IDF withdraws. Hamas has said it will disarm as progress moves toward an independent Palestinian state.

Netanyahu and his staff have repeatedly rejected Palestinian statehood since October.

Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz said last week that Israel will build settlements in Gaza and “never fully withdraw” even as Hamas disarms, the BBC reported. This would violate the cease-fire agreement.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio will meet with Netanyahu before Trump’s meeting.

Two other tenets of the cease-fire haven’t yet emerged: A “Board of Peace” led by Trump is planned for governance of Gaza, and the International Stabilization Force, led by the United Nations, which will help with peacekeeping in Gaza.

Rubio has said those measures will be in place “very soon.”

Israeli officials are concerned that Iran is moving forward with its plans for ballistic missiles, and Netanyahu is expected to discuss options with Trump at Monday’s meeting.

Israel damaged the operations in June, but it wants to attack again, NBC News reported.

US President Donald Trump and Ukrainian leader Volodymyr Zelenskyy are talking up prospects of ending the war with Russia, after meeting in Florida. But they admitted there are ‘thorny issues’ to resolve about the status of the Donbas region which has been annexed by Russia.

IT’S rare for an X Factor star to still be around 16 years after losing what was once the biggest show on TV but Stacey Solomon played the long game – going on to become one of the busiest women in entertainment.

This year in particular has been huge for Stacey – having launched her own reality show and landing a spot judging on BGT – but insiders tell us the 36-year-old is struggling behind the scenes as she wades against the vicious turning tide.

The Sun has been told that mum-of-five Stacey is in panic mode as the negativity increases, desperate to get people back on side. 

A source revealed: “The bottom line is Stacey is no longer relatable. 

“People think she flaunts her wealth and moans all the time – now Stacey’s being advised to rein it in and shut her mouth or risk ruining everything she’s worked so hard for.

“The plan is for Stacey to go back to basics and remember who her audience is. No more bragging about expensive holidays and keeping in mind not everybody is in her position”

Stace cashed in on her relatable ‘ditzy’ personality and – instead of chasing a record deal – turned her attention to social media and the fast cash that comes with being an influencer. 

A Loose Women gig ensured she was always in the headlines while online posts sharing her tips and tricks for keeping a house going soon turned into something much more lucrative, releasing books and launching prime time BBC show Sort Your Life Out. 

She also signed with the BBC for the fly-on-the-wall series Stacey & Joe, which gave viewers a regularly uncomfortable insight into the ups-and-downs of her marriage to Joe Swash.

It has all helped determined Stacey, 36, build up an estimated net worth of £7.3million and live a comfortable life in a £1.3million Essex mansion she calls Pickle Cottage with Joe and her children. 

But nobody likes a show-off and Stacey’s girl-next-door mask has been slowly slipping for some time now, with fans turning on her for “flaunting her wealth”. 

Earlier this year she was branded “smug” after bragging about her latest family holiday to Turkey, which set her back a staggering £30,000 a WEEK. 

Not exactly the kind of holiday that most of Stacey’s followers – who ironically helped pay for the OTT break – can aspire to. 

And even Stacey’s crafting is becoming increasingly out of budget for the average person. 

Stacey shares Rex, six, Rose, four, and two-year-old Belle with Joe, 43. 

She is also mum to Zachary, 17, and Leighton, 13, from previous relationships. 

Creative Stacey left fans’ noses out of joint when she showed off homemade decorations for Belle’s birthday, revealing an incredible display of pink and red roses. 

Someone wrote: “Looks amazing….effective and dreamy..however I think the cost of flowers would be quite high for a lot of people… x.”

And another added: “Very expensive for the lay folk x.”

In another move which drew criticism, viewers of on Stacey & Joe were quick to notice her enthusiasm for plugging her private side-hustles – including fashion, homeware and perfume brands.

The repeated appearances of Stacey’s products, some seemingly laid out for the cameras, drew accusations that the show was breaching strict BBC rules against ‘talent’ promoting products on-screen.

PANIC MODE 

Stacey is someone who’s undoubtedly used to a bit of backlash here and there – a thick skin is required to survive in her industry. 

In May the ‘loveable’ and ‘goofy’ Stacey bared her teeth when she had an almighty diva tantrum over not winning a Bafta. 

Sort Your Life Out was nominated in the Entertainment category but lost out to Rob and Rylan’s Grand Tour. 

Stacey was furious – and didn’t hold back when she took to Instagram to share her thoughts. 

She said: “We didn’t win a Bafta. And I know I’m supposed to take it gracefully like a champ but, I’ll be honest, I’m devastated!

“I’m not handling it very well, I’m not taking it very gracefully – I’m devastated! I’m devastated for our whole team, like I’m so gutted for our team.”

And just months later she launched a blistering attack on the National Television Awards when Sort Your Life Out and her fly-on-the-wall Stacey & Joe were nominated in the same category.  

She told Magic Radio: “They’ve put Sort Your Life Out and Stacey & Joe in the same blummin’ category for some reason – we’re up against each other which is absolutely ludicrous.”

Our insider said: “Stacey’s been made aware the public aren’t fans of whinging – the Baftas meltdown was embarrassing and she came off as entitled.

“And the only thing she should’ve been was grateful when both of her shows were given nods at the NTAs.”

CAUSING TENSION

Stacey and ex-EastEnders star Joe tied the knot at Pickle Cottage in 2022 and the couple don’t shy away from airing their dirty laundry on their reality show. 

One scene on the most recent series showed them clashing after Joe allowed their kids to eat dinner on the sofa while Stacey was working away. 

During a tense phone call, a furious Joe branded his wife “out of order” before hanging up on her. 

Another episode saw Joe struggling with the chaotic school run while Stacey was on a luxury trip to Lake Como, Italy for a photoshoot. 

He didn’t hold back, confessing: “Stacey’s like the permanent teacher and I’m the substitute teacher that the kids just take advantage of.”

We’re told something else bubbling away is Stacey – who has six million Instagram followers to Joe’s two million – often left feeling like the backlash from the public is mainly aimed at her. 

A source said: “Things between her and Joe are tense at times because of the sudden unrelenting backlash.

“Stacey tells Joe she takes the brunt of the negativity and that he should be more understanding of the pressure she’s under.

“They love each other and their marriage is totally solid but when she wants to be Stacey can be cutting.

“On more than a few occasions a row has resulted in her telling him she’s sick of being the breadwinner – which is a real kick in the teeth for Joe.”

The couple now have the chance to take a break and reset over Christmas – although they are letting the cameras in to film a third series of their reality show.

And fans should expect a much more down-to-earth approach on the family show, with Stacey desperate to be seen as a relatable, hard-working mum once again.

christine.maiduc@latimes.com

For more on California politics, follow @cmaiduc.

ALSO

Updates on California politics

UPDATES:

2 p.m.: This article was updated to clarify that Fight Back California is targeting 30,000 voters in each of the seven districts.

This article was originally published at 3 a.m.

Dec. 24 (Asia Today) — People Power Party lawmaker Park Chung-kwon, a former North Korean defector, criticized the Unification Ministry’s plan to change the designation for North Korean defectors to “Northbound residents,” calling it “an idea you’d expect from a dictatorship.”

Park made the remarks Wednesday on Ato TV’s “Shin Yul’s Political Check,” saying he felt uneasy about what he described as a political intent to curry favor with the North Korean regime.

Park said some defectors feel discomfort with the current term, but argued the cause was misidentified. Changing the label to “Northbound residents” would not improve matters, he said.

He said the discomfort stems from social prejudice and alienation tied to their identity as people from North Korea, not from the wording itself.

Park said the fundamental solution is for defectors to settle successfully and integrate into South Korean society as citizens. He also claimed most defectors oppose the proposed change.

Park said the term “North Korean defectors” reflects people who came to South Korea seeking freedom and escaping oppression by the North Korean regime, and argued that meaning is not reflected in “Northbound residents.”

He also alleged the Unification Ministry conducted a survey on the name change targeting defectors and provided their personal information to a polling company without their consent. Park said he requested materials related to the survey results but the ministry has not disclosed them. He claimed there was no consensus among defectors and no discussion on the change.

Separately, Park criticized the revised Information and Communications Network Act passed in a National Assembly plenary session Wednesday, saying authorities label information as false to shut down the media and the public when it does not suit the ruling camp.

— Reported by Asia Today; translated by UPI

© Asia Today. Unauthorized reproduction or redistribution prohibited.

Dec. 24 (UPI) — Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky unveiled a 20-point peace plan hammered out in negotiations in Miami over the weekend that provides strong NATO-style security guarantees in exchange for land concessions. He said the plan was now being reviewed by Moscow.

Detailing the plan on Tuesday, Zelensky said “the main framework” included affirmation of Kyiv’s sovereignty, a non-aggression pact, a means to monitor the final border, Ukraine‘s non-nuclear status and limits on its military to 800,000 troops, The Kyiv Independent and RBC-Ukraine reported.

The plan also contains Ukraine-U.S.-Europe security guarantees, U.S.-Ukraine security guarantees, and a 15-year plan for Ukraine’s recovery and economic development involving raising as much as $800 billion.

European Union membership for Ukraine will form part of the security guarantees.

The document, which emerged from a 28-point-plan drafted by the White House and the Kremlin and first floated by President Donald Trump in mid-November, was expected to be delivered to the Kremlin by U.S. officials later Wednesday.

An immediate cease-fire comes into force as soon as Ukraine, the United States, Europe, and Russia sign — with Ukraine commiting to hold elections as soon as possible afterward. Who would sign on behalf of Europe was yet to be decided.

“We have made significant progress toward finalizing the documents,” Zelensky said.

However, Kyiv wants to put the plan to the people of Ukraine in a referendum which would take at least two months.

The main sticking point of territory remains with the plan calling for the frontlines in Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia and Kherson regions to form the de facto border, while Russia will pull out of Ukraine’s Dnipropetrovsk, Mykolaiv, Sumy, and Kharkiv regions.

The United States has proposed a compromise acceptable to both sides under which Ukrainian forces pull out of areas of its Donetsk region that Kyiv still controls in favor of a demilitarized “free economic zone” that Russian forces would not advance into.

“We are in a situation where the Russians want us to withdraw from Donetsk Oblast, while the Americans are trying to find a way for us not to withdraw because we are against withdrawal,” Zelensky said.

“We consider a free economic zone a potential option for a sovereign state to choose such a path. We fought for a single word — ‘potential.’ We believe that such potential economic zones can exist,” he added.

“If all regions are included and if we remain where we are, then we will reach an agreement. That is why it says ‘potential zones’ here. But if we do not agree to ‘remain where we are,’ there are two options: either the war continues, or something will have to be decided regarding all potential economic zones.”

Zelensky’s mention of other potential economic zones refers to his preferred solution to the other big outstanding issue of the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant, which has been occupied by Russian forces since shortly after their full-scale invasion in 2022.

Ukraine opposes a U.S. plan under which Ukraine, Russia and the United States share equal control with Washington having overall jurisdiction, with Kyiv instead pushing for a U.S.-Ukraine partnership under which they would split the electricity generated 50-50.

Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky has given details of an updated peace plan that offers Russia the potential withdrawal of Ukrainian troops from the east that Moscow has demanded.

Giving details of the 20-point plan agreed by US and Ukrainian negotiators in Florida at the weekend, Zelensky said the Russians would respond on Wednesday once the Americans had spoken to them.

Describing the plan as “the main framework for ending the war” Zelensky said it proposed security guarantees from the US, Nato and Europeans for a co-ordinated military response if Russia invaded Ukraine again.

On the key question of Ukraine’s eastern Donbas, Zelensky said a “free economic zone” was a potential option.

He told journalists that as Ukraine was against withdrawal, US negotiators were looking to establish a demilitarised zone or a free economic zone. Any area that Ukrainian troops pulled out of would have to be policed by Ukraine, he stressed.

“There are two options,” Zelensky said, “either the war continues, or something will have to be decided regarding all potential economic zones.”

The 20-point plan is seen as an update of an original 28-point document, agreed by US envoy Steve Witkoff with the Russians several weeks ago, which was widely seen as heavily geared towards the Kremlin’s demands.

The Russians have insisted that Ukraine pulls out of almost a quarter of its own territory in the eastern Donetsk region in return for a peace deal. The rest is already under Russian occupation.

Sensitive issues including questions over territory would have to be resolved “at the leaders’ level”, but the new draft would provide Ukraine with strong security guarantees and a military strength of 800,000, Zelensky explained.

Much of the updated plan resembles what came out of recent talks in Berlin involving US negotiators Witkoff and Jared Kushner with Ukrainian and European leaders. The setting then moved to Miami last weekend where US President Donald Trump’s team spoke separately to Russian envoy Kirill Dmitriev and then Ukrainian and European officials.

There now appears to be far more detail on the territorial issue, although it is clear the Ukrainian side was unable to reach a consensus with the Americans.

Zelensky explained that if Ukraine was prepared to pull its heavy forces back by five, 10 or 40km in the 25% of Donetsk it still held to create an economic zone, making it virtually demilitarised, then Russia would have to do the same “accordingly by five, 10, or 40km”.

Russian troops are currently about 40km (25 miles) east of Ukraine’s “fortress belt” cities of Sloviansk and Kramatorsk, having captured the town of Siversk.

Russian President Vladimir Putin is unlikely to be impressed by the kind of compromise being proposed for Donetsk. He said this month that Russia would take control of the entire east of Ukraine by force if Ukrainian troops did not pull out.

Zelensky made clear that such a free economic zone would have to be under Ukrainian administration and police – “definitely not the so-called Russian police”. The current front line would then become the boundary of the economic zone with international forces on the ground along the contact line to ensure no Russian infiltration.

Russia has so far rejected a European proposal to police any peace deal through a Coalition of the Willing as a “brazen threat”.

A referendum would need to be held on the whole peace plan, Zelensky said, ad only a referendum could decide on the idea of a potential free economic zone in Donbas.

He emphasised that an economic zone would also have to be set up around the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant currently occupied by Russia, and that Russian troops would have to pull out of four other Ukrainian regions – Dnipropetrovsk, Mykolaiv, Sumy, and Kharkiv.

The main points of the plan reaffirm Ukraine’s sovereignty and propose a non-aggression pact between Russia and its neighbour with a monitoring mechanism.

As well as strong security guarantees mirroring Nato’s Article Five, which requires members to aid an ally under attack, Ukraine is to be allowed a maximum military strength of 800,000 in peacetime.

Discussions are still going on over a US plan to receive compensation in return for security guarantees, so Zelensky says it is not currently part of the document.

There is no reference barring Ukraine from joining Nato, which was in the original 28-point plan and something Russia has consistently demanded.

And the latest framework proposes that Ukraine joins the European Union with a defined date of accession. It is currently a candidate, but a number of other candidate countries are seen as first in line, such as Albania.

There are plans for a Ukraine investment fund of about $200bn involving both the US and Europe.

Among the other points is a requirement for Ukraine to hold elections as soon as possible after the deal is signed. Russia and the US have both pushed for a vote, even though Ukraine is under martial law because of the full-scale invasion.

WASHINGTON — President Trump has announced a bold plan for the Navy to build a new, large warship that he is calling a “battleship” as part of a larger vision to create a “Golden Fleet.”

“They’ll be the fastest, the biggest, and by far 100 times more powerful than any battleship ever built,” Trump claimed during the announcement at his Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida.

According to Trump, the ship, the first of which will be named the USS Defiant, will be longer and larger than the World War II-era Iowa-class battleships and will be armed with hypersonic missiles, nuclear cruise missiles, rail guns, and high-powered lasers — all technologies that are in various stages of development by the Navy.

The announcement comes just a month after the Navy scrapped its plans to build a new, small warship, citing growing delays and cost overruns, deciding instead to go with a modified version of a Coast Guard cutter that was being produced until recently. The sea service has also failed to build its other newly designed ships, like the new Ford-class aircraft carrier and Columbia-class submarines, on time and on budget.

Meanwhile, the Navy has struggled to field some of the technologies Trump says will be aboard the new ship.

The Navy spent hundreds of millions of dollars and more than 15 years trying to field a railgun aboard a ship before finally abandoning the effort in 2021.

Laser technology has seen more success in making its way onto Navy ships in recent years, but its employment is still limited. One system that is designed to blind or disable drone sensors is now aboard eight destroyers after spending eight years in development.

Developing nuclear cruise missile capabilities or deploying them on ships may also violate non-proliferation treaties that the U.S. has signed with Russia.

A U.S. official, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss ongoing plans, told the Associated Press that design efforts are now underway for the new ship and construction is planned to begin in the early 2030s.

Both Trump and Navy Secretary John Phelan spoke about the new Trump-class warship as a spiritual successor to the battleships of the 20th century, but historically that term has referred to a very specific type of ship — a large, heavily armored vessel armed with massive guns designed to bombard other ships or targets ashore.

This type of ship was at the height of prominence during World War II, and the largest of the U.S. battleships, the Iowa-class, were roughly 60,000 tons. But after World War II, the battleship’s role in modern fleets diminished rapidly in favor of aircraft carriers and long-range missiles. The U.S. Navy did modernize four Iowa-class battleships in the 1980s by adding cruise missiles and anti-ship missiles, along with modern radars, but by the 1990s all four were decommissioned.

According to a newly created website for the “Golden Fleet,” this new “guided missile battleship” is set to be roughly the same size as Iowa-class battleships but only weigh about half as much, around 35,000 tons, and have far smaller crews — between 650 and 850 sailors.

Its primary weapons will also be missiles, not large naval guns.

Trump has long held strong opinions on specific aspects of the Navy’s fleet, sometimes with a view toward keeping older technology instead of modernizing.

During his first term, he unsuccessfully called for the return to steam-powered catapults to launch jets from the Navy’s newest aircraft carriers instead of the more modern electromagnetic system.

He has also complained to Phelan about the look of the Navy’s destroyers and decried Navy ships being covered in rust.

Phelan told senators at his confirmation hearing that Trump “has texted me numerous times very late at night, sometimes after one (o’clock) in the morning” about “rusty ships or ships in a yard, asking me what am I doing about it.”

On a visit to a shipyard that was working on the now-canceled Constellation-class frigate in 2020, Trump said he personally changed the design of the ship.

“I looked at it, I said, ‘That’s a terrible-looking ship, let’s make it beautiful,’” Trump said at the time.

He said Monday he will have a direct role in designing this new warship as well.

“The U.S. Navy will lead the design of these ships along with me, because I’m a very aesthetic person,” Trump said.

Phelan said the new USS Defiant “will inspire awe and reverence for the American flag whenever it pulls into a foreign port.”

Toropin and Madhani write for the Associated Press.

Yury Ushakov’s remarks come a day after US and Russian officials held talks on the US proposal in Florida.

Russian President Vladimir Putin’s top foreign policy aide says that changes made by European countries and Ukraine to the United States’ proposals for an end to Russia’s war on Ukraine did not improve prospects for peace.

“I am sure that the proposals that the Europeans and Ukrainians have made or are trying to make definitely do not improve the document and do not improve the possibility of achieving long-term peace,” Yury Ushakov was quoted as saying by Russian news agencies on Sunday.

The US-drafted proposals for an end to the nearly four-year ⁠war, leaked to the media last month, raised European and Ukrainian concerns that they favour more of Russia’s wartime demands ​and that US President Donald Trump’s administration could push Kyiv into conceding too much.

Since then, European and ‍Ukrainian negotiators have met with Trump envoys in an attempt to add their own proposals to the US drafts, though the exact contents of the current proposal have not been disclosed.

The remarks from Ushakov came after Putin’s special envoy, Kirill Dmitriev, met in Florida on Saturday with US special envoy Steve Witkoff and Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner. Dmitriev said the talks would continue ​on Sunday.

The Miami meeting followed US talks on Friday with European and Ukrainian officials.

In the wake of those talks, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said his team should hold more talks with European allies.

“There is a shared sense that after the work by our diplomatic team in the United States, we should now hold consultations with European partners in a broader circle,” Zelenskyy said in a post on X on Sunday.

Three-way talks?

Zelenskyy had said on Saturday that Ukraine ‌would back a US proposal for three-way talks with the US and Russia if it facilitated more exchanges of prisoners and paved the way for meetings of national leaders.

Ushakov ‌said that a proposal for three-way talks had not been seriously discussed by ⁠anyone and that it was not being worked on.

Russia says that European leaders are intent on scuttling the talks by introducing conditions that they know will be unacceptable to Russia, which took 12-17 square kilometres (4.6 to 6.6 square miles) of Ukrainian territory per day in 2025.

Ukraine and European leaders say that Russia cannot ‌be allowed to achieve its aims in what they call its imperial-style land grab.

Ukraine battles attempted Russian breakthrough

In Ukraine, fighting continues with the Ukrainian army battling an attempted Russian breakthrough in the Sumy region, it said on Sunday, following reports that Moscow forcibly moved 50 people from a border village there.

This marks a renewed Russian advance in the part of the region previously largely spared from intense ground fighting since Ukraine regained land there in a swift 2022 counter-offensive.

“Fighting is currently ongoing in the village of Grabovske,” Ukraine’s joint task force said, adding the troops were “making efforts to drive the occupiers back into Russian territory”.

Zelenskyy said that over the week, “Russia has launched approximately 1,300 attack drones, nearly 1,200 guided aerial bombs, and nine missiles of various types” against Ukraine.

Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 after eight years of fighting in the country’s east.

After years of support from the United States for the Ukraine war to continue “as long as it takes”, the Trump administration is now pushing to end Europe’s war – quickly and imperfectly.

While details are still under negotiation, they include issues such as ensuring Ukraine never joins NATO and Russia’s control over about 20 percent of Ukraine.

To understand the implications for Europe, the US and their relations, host Steve Clemons speaks with Kurt Volker, Trump’s former special representative for Ukraine negotiations, and retired Colonel Heino Klinck, former director of US Army international affairs.

WASHINGTON — Treasury Secretary James A. Baker III faced open hostility to the Reagan Administration’s tax revision proposal Tuesday as the Senate Finance Committee began what is expected to be at least three months of testimony on overhauling the current tax code.

“The best simplification this committee could do for the country would be just to adjourn,” Sen. Steven D. Symms (R-Ida.) complained.

Senate Republican leader Bob Dole of Kansas, a committee member, conceded that progress on tax revision could be slow. “Once the initial glow has faded,” Dole said, “there are a lot of questions this committee has to deal with.”

Warning of ‘Fiscal Disaster’

Meanwhile, Martin S. Feldstein, former chairman of President Reagan’s Council of Economic Advisers, warned that the Administration’s tax proposal could be a “fiscal disaster if tax reform became a deficit-enlarging tax cut.”

Feldstein, who left the White House last year after several disputes over Administration policy toward budget deficits, told the House Ways and Means Committee that the tax proposal “is at best revenue neutral and has a substantial risk of losing revenue.”

Other economists testifying before the House panel, which originates tax legislation, also expressed skepticism over the Administration’s contention that the tax plan would raise as much revenue as the current tax system. They contended that the package could exacerbate deficits that are now expected to remain larger than $170 billion annually well into the next decade, even if the package of spending cuts now working its way through Congress becomes law.

“I suspect that the President’s proposal is a revenue loser, particularly after 1990,” said John H. Makin, director of fiscal studies at the American Enterprise Institute.

But Baker, in defending the tax proposal to the Senate panel, insisted that Reagan’s plan would lose only $11.5 billion during the next five years, substantially less than 1% of the $4.7 trillion that the government estimates it will collect in total revenues during that period.

Contradictory Attacks

In grilling Baker, senators on the tax panel attacked the White House proposal on a wide variety of sometimes contradictory points.

Sen. William V. Roth Jr. (R-Del.) complained that the proposal “tends to soak the middle class,” but he worried also that the plan would be too generous to consumers at the expense of those who save.

Some senators argued that the plan would do little to help businesses facing the threat of foreign competition, but others suggested that individuals should receive a more generous tax break even if it means increasing taxes for corporations.

Most members of the Republican-controlled committee warned that they would attempt to restore certain tax breaks that would be eliminated by the White House package.

In particular, they criticized Reagan’s proposals to abolish the deductions for state and local taxes and for two-earner couples, to eliminate the investment tax credit and alternative energy tax credits and to tax growth in the cash value of insurance policies. But Sen. Bill Bradley (D-N. J.), author of a separate tax revision proposal, argued that the White House tax plan does not go far enough in eliminating special tax preferences. He told Baker that he would try to eliminate some tax breaks for the oil industry and wealthy investors.

Exemption Hike Opposed

Sen. George J. Mitchell (D-Me.) challenged Baker’s contention that the best way to help families living below the poverty line to escape income taxes is to increase the personal exemption from the current $1,040 to $2,000 next year.

Mitchell said that he would introduce a proposal to limit the increase in the personal exemption and grant a larger increase than Reagan recommended in the standard deduction, or zero-bracket amount, a proposal that would help only taxpayers who do not itemize their deductions. Mitchell said that his approach would concentrate tax relief more directly on middle-income and lower-income families than would the Administration’s plan.

Baker vigorously defended the Administration’s plan against the attacks. “We think our plan is very fair,” he said, pointing out that the majority of taxpayers at every income level would receive tax reductions and that the average tax cut would be 7%.

Advertising on streaming services is a big new growth business for marketing and media companies, but consumers are increasingly frustrated by what they see and hear on their screens.

Ads might be too loud, of poor quality or irrelevant, and repeat too often. Sometimes, there’s an ad in a foreign language or a blank screen. As more streaming services launch ad-supported plans, viewers are experiencing these issues in greater numbers, which could come at a cost to the media companies.

“It can lead to them losing subscribers,” said Ruben Schreurs, chief executive officer of Ebiquity Plc, a London-based consultancy that says 75 of the world’s top 100 advertisers are clients.

Better, more-relevant advertising has been one of the recurring mantras of the connected-TV world. As online platforms gathered more data on their users, they were supposed to provide sponsors with targeted opportunities. Consumers would see spots for products they were more likely to want. Instead, those advances have become the source of viewer frustration.

National ad spending on streaming is expected to climb 13% to $12.3 billion this year, while such spots on traditional TV networks fall 4.9% to $33.8 billion, researcher Magna Global estimated in June. Streaming now reaches 96% of U.S. households, according to another researcher, Kantar Group & Affiliates, making the services a big opportunity for advertisers.

“We’ve seen more budget and spend move over,” said Joe Nowak, senior vice president of growth and strategy at Kantar.

Walt Disney Co. and Netflix Inc. have launched advertising-supported plans for their streaming services. At Netflix, ad-supported plans account for more than half of new subscriptions in markets where those plans are offered. They are usually offered at a discount. Disney+ with commercials is $12 a month, for example, while the ad-free version is $19.

Streaming offers advertisers distinct advantages over other media, according to Nowak, including interactive capabilities. On Amazon.com Inc.’s Prime Video service viewers can click into ads to buy the products shown.

In theory, advertisers can also target consumers more closely on streaming services. In traditional TV, all viewers typically see the same ads during a given broadcast. With streaming, commercials can become more personalized through a process called “dynamic ad insertion.” Audiences see commercials tailored to attributes like their location or viewing history.

It’s also easier and cheaper for advertisers, including smaller ones, to purchase streaming spots than it is on broadcast or cable.

Streaming ads are typically sold in online auctions, where spots for shows, sporting events and movies go to the highest bidder. That’s led to “democratization of access,” according to Ebiquity’s Schreurs.

“Instead of actual salespeople from the network negotiating directly with media agencies for big activations, big deals for well-known brands where they can vet the creatives, the process has become real-time,” he said.

Without that vetting, streaming platforms have less control over the ads that appear on their platforms. The smaller brands winning auctions may not have the same resources to produce high-quality commercials, according to Sean Muller, chief executive officer of the ad measurement platform iSpotTV Inc. These businesses sometimes rely on artificial intelligence to produce their ads, he said.

“You absolutely get a lot of that, and they do tend to be lower-quality,” Muller said.

Another common issue centers on ad frequency. With brands able to snap up ad blocks at auction, they sometimes get overzealous, feeding viewers the same spot over and over in a single show.

That’s particularly frustrating for streaming viewers, who are “more of a captive audience” than traditional TV audiences, who can easily change channels.

“Switching apps is a little bit of a pain in the butt,” Muller said.

And unlike the old days when consumers recorded programs to watch later, in the streaming era you can’t skip the commercials.

While streaming ads can pinpoint audiences based on their ZIP code, they sometimes miss wildly. For instance, viewers in a neighborhood with a large Latino audience may get an ad in Spanish even while watching a show in English.

“If it was done the right way, it would be running in Spanish-language content,” said Jim Wilson, CEO of Madhive, an ad platform designed for local advertisers.

There are other problems with streaming ads that seldom pop up on regular TV. For example, a blank screen sometimes appears during commercial breaks.

“They’re either not sold out on their inventory or there’s some sort of technical issue,” Wilson said.

But perhaps the biggest annoyance for streaming viewers happens when ads are ear-splittingly loud — a problem that used to crop up on conventional TV. That happens when streaming services fail to “normalize” the volume on ads before they are inserted.

In October, California passed a law requiring the services to keep the sound level of ads the same as the programming they accompany. It was inspired, according to state Sen. Tom Umberg (D-Orange), by one of his staffers whose sleeping baby was awakened by a loud streaming ad.

“This is a quality-of-life issue,” he said in an interview.

The legislation, which takes effect on July 1, 2026, could inspire changes on a national level and is one of the most well-known bills he’s worked on.

“This struck a chord with anyone who watches any entertainment on a streaming service,” Umberg said.

Miller and Palmeri write for Bloomberg.

Dec. 18 (UPI) — European leaders have agreed to continue funding Ukraine in its fight against Russia with a two-year, $105 billion loan to provide the embattled nation with munitions and other material in the ongoing war, the latest battle of which has dragged on since 2022.

European leaders failed to agree on the first choice to arm Ukraine, using frozen Russian state assets as backing for the loan.

The plan to use frozen Russian assets to back the loan fell apart in the final moments, a schism that risked making the EU appear indecisive at a critical moment in negotiations.

European leaders announced Thursday that they will instead use money from the EU budget to fund Ukraine’s defense effort. As a result, the backup plan could be more costly and difficult to mobilize than the original plan to leverage the stash of Russian money currently frozen in Europe.

European leaders said since the end result is the same, getting funds to Kyiv, they celebrated it as a victory.

“This will address the urgent financial needs of Ukraine,” Antonio Costa, the president of the European Council, said at a media briefing in Brussels.

Partly because of a cut in funding from the United States, Ukraine is facing a $160 billion shortfall over the next two years, according to forecasts by the International Monetary Fund. The EU sought to fill about $105 billion of that gap.

Costa added that the EU will reserve its right to use frozen Russian assets for continued funding in the future.