pocket

LOVE Island star India Reynolds has shown off her ‘new face’ after having fat pockets removed from her cheeks.

The TV beauty rose to fame as a finalist in the fifth series of the show before returning for the ITV2 show’s All Star edition earlier this year.

5

5

5

India has taken to social media this week to show off her latest facial procedure in order to gain a more defined look.

The star, once labelled as Love Island’s hottest contestant ever, underwent a tightening and uplifting skin treatment which helped to give her a more defined jawline along with a slimmer face.

She opted for a “High-Intensity Focused Ultrasound Therapy”, known for being “a minimally invasive procedure to rejuvenate and lift skin”.

India admitted her treatments could take up to 12 weeks to show clear results but she shared an initial before and after snap in which she revealed she was already very happy with the results.

Alongside the snap, India said: “Here’s my before and after, results take up to 12 weeks but this was my immediate result which I’m thrilled with!”

She then added alongside an arrow to a part of her cheek: “This little fat pocket has already reduced.”

India will continue to document her facial procedures on her Instagram page.

Earlier this year, she made her return to TV after taking a backseat in the spotlight.

She signed up for All Stars but left after one week amid a failed connection with Scott Thomas.

However, India has since found love with someone new since her return to dating on TV.

Appearing on Olivia Attwood‘s So Wrong It’s Right podcast earlier this year, India revealed: “After I came out of this series, the All Stars in January, I was like ‘I need to get my act together’ because I haven’t dated anyone properly in ages, I’m getting older, I want to have kids… get a move on.

“I downloaded Hinge and thought this is going to be great for me and then they deleted my profile for impersonation, they thought it was a fake account.

“I had to redownload it and I had to send my passport and go through this whole palaver just to go on a first date with someone.”

She then shared her excitement of her blossoming new romance, saying: “But I finally got it back, went on a first date and the first guy I went on a date with was really nice.

Olivia then asked if she was still dating the mystery man and a smitten India confirmed they were an item.

5

5

Maybe you can call Canada and Tesla (TSLA 3.94%) frenemies. The tension between the two entities has existed since Tesla allegedly manipulated Canada’s electric vehicle (EV) subsidy program. While Tesla believes it to be a misunderstanding and was later cleared of wrongdoing, it added to the political tension between the two nations, and added to the Canadian resentment toward Tesla CEO Elon Musk for then supporting the Trump administration.

It was a little messy, so it’s even more entertaining now that Canada might actually put more dollars in the pockets of Tesla. Here’s the situation.

What’s going on

Canadian automakers have been raising red flags and could be in for a bumpy ride if Canada’s electric vehicle (EV) mandate is enforced as currently described and EV sales don’t accelerate. Essentially, Canada’s EV sales mandate requires an automaker to ensure a certain percentage of new cars, SUVs, and light-duty trucks sold are zero-emission vehicles including hybrids.

Originally the mandate was supposed to start at 20% in 2026, but now it will begin in 2027 with the caveat that the initial target will be a challenging 27%. The percentage will rise steadily every year until 2035 when all new vehicle sales are intended to be EVs. For context, EV sales in Canada nearly reached 15% of total sales in 2024, but that was when the government was offering consumer rebates up to $5,000.

Once funding ran dry for the rebate in January, sales took a mighty plunge. The most recent data from Statistics Canada shows EV sales generated 7.7% of all new vehicle sales in July — a far cry from what’s going to be required to meet standards on average.

Image source: Tesla.

What are Canadian autos to do?

As most investors following the industry know, there’s a way to comply with these mandates by purchasing zero-emission credits from companies that have a surplus. Companies such as Tesla that only sell EVs and have no gasoline vehicle sales to offset, can simply sell their credits to needy gasoline-heavy automakers and pocket the money — it’s great business for pure EV makers. Zero-emission credit sales were instrumental during Tesla’s early years and still have been a major contributor to its financials.

The good news for Tesla is that Canadian automakers may not have an option other than to begrudgingly purchase from Tesla despite the ruffled feathers between the two entities. According to Canadian Vehicle Manufacturers’ Association president Brian Kingston, with 2026 models already being purchased, Tesla would be one — if not the only — automaker with a surplus of credits on hand to sell to other companies.

It also gets a little more complicated because as the targets become more challenging there will be more demand and less supply of these credits available, forcing some automakers to buy them ahead of time to be utilized when necessary. According to Kingston, estimates show over $1 billion has already been committed to this and could cost the Canadian industry more than $3 billion by 2030.

What it all means

Zero-emission credits have been a huge business for Tesla, and the company has generated billions and billions of dollars over the years selling them to needy automakers. Unfortunately for Tesla and other EV makers, changing policy in the U.S. has erased the need for these credits in the states.

In fact, Tesla was estimated to generate $3 billion from credit revenue in 2025 alone before the policy change knocked that estimate down by 40%. Tesla’s credit revenue is expected to plunge even further next year to $595 million before becoming irrelevant in 2027.

For investors, an extremely valuable Tesla revenue stream is about to dry up, unless Canada’s mandate stays as written. While it wouldn’t generate near the revenue the U.S. credit situation has, it would still be a welcome development as credit revenue in the U.S. fades rapidly — and Tesla could sure use a small win right now.

Aug. 29 (UPI) — President Donald Trump is attempting to recoup around $5 billion in federal funding already approved for distribution to the State Department and foreign aid programs, the White House confirmed Friday.

Trump is attempting to use the so-called pocket recession clause to claw back the $4.9 billion, a tactic last attempted in 1977 by then-President Jimmy Carter, a White House Office of Management and Budget spokesperson said Friday.

The clause allows the president to ask Congress to consider withholding the money, giving it 45 days to make a decision. In this instance, the 45-day window would run through the remainder of the fiscal year, which ends on Sept. 30. At that point, the funds would not be restored.

Trump made the request Friday in a letter to House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La.

The president is targeting around $3 billion already earmarked for the U.S. Agency for International Development, along with an additional $990 million to be sent to the State Department and $445 million in separate peacekeeping funding.

The pocket recession came into existence with the passing of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974.

In a post earlier this month, the U.S. Government Accountability Office addressed the issue of pocket recessions, calling them “illegal.”

It points to a 2018 review of the tactic, which “concluded that the ICA does not permit the withholding of funds through their expiration date. In reaching that conclusion, we considered the language in the law, legislative history of the ICA, Supreme Court case law, and the overarching constitutional framework of the legislative and executive powers. We found that there is no basis to interpret the ICA as a mechanism by which a president may shorten the time period that an appropriation may be used.”

A White House spokesperson Friday told The Hill the tactic is legal and that the budget office was aware of the GAO’s position, but that previous administrations failed to act by closing the loophole despite recommendations.

Earlier this week, Trump asked the U.S. Supreme Court to weigh in and block a lower court order compelling the federal government to release around $12 billion in foreign aid funding.