It was an extraordinary media moment: CBS late-night host Stephen Colbert on Tuesday publicly blasted his own employer over its handling of his interview with Democratic U.S. Senate candidate James Talarico of Texas.
Colbert contended that his own network prevented him from airing the interview in an effort to appease the Trump administration, which CBS has denied. He chose instead to put the sit-down with the Texas state legislator on YouTube, which is not regulated by the FCC.
The standoff not only highlighted the simmering tensions inside CBS with the late-night host, it also marked the latest flash point in the ongoing clash between the Trump administration and leading media and entertainment figures — including other late-night hosts Seth Meyers and Jimmy Kimmel — who have been openly critical of the president’s policies.
Federal Communications Commission Chairman Brendan Carr has been leading the charge, aggressively attempting to wield the long dormant equal time rules forcing broadcast TV stations to offer equal time to opposing candidates as a means of influencing the legacy media companies who President Trump believes treats him unfairly.
Carr contends the effort is a long overdue corrective to combat what he and Trump believe is liberal bias in broadcast network news coverage. He has even threatened to pull TV station licenses if programmers don’t get in line.
Last fall, he warned ABC that it could lose its TV station licenses after Kimmel made remarks on his program about slain right-wing activist Charlie Kirk that upset conservatives. Two major TV station groups pulled the program and the network suspended Kimmel‘s program for a week.
But experts say the efforts — along with the recent arrest of former CNN journalist Don Lemon over civil rights charges — pose a threat to constitutionally protected freedom of speech and would likely face court challenges.
“We don’t want the government trying to make decisions as to what counts as political speech and what doesn’t and what counts as fairness and what doesn’t,” media consultant Michael Harrison told The Times last month.
Some experts are also skeptical that Carr will ever make good on those threats through greater enforcement of the equal time provision.
Andrew Jay Schwartzman, a public interest communications attorney, said Carr is using his bully pulpit at the FCC to intimidate “a timorous broadcasting industry.”
“The Late Show with Stephen Colbert “ on July 23, 2024.
(Scott Kowalchyk / CBS)
“It’s just all bluster,” said Schwartzman. “Broadcasters are more interested in short-term regulatory relief from the FCC, and in the case of [CBS parent] Paramount, getting approval of a possible Warner Bros. Discovery deal.”
CBS cited financial losses as the reason for the cancellation of Colbert’s show, which ends in May, just two months before CBS parent Paramount Global closed its merger deal with Skydance Media, which required regulatory approval from the Trump administration. Paramount also has been attempting a hostile bid for Warner Bros. Discovery.
Paramount also drew scrutiny over its controversial decision to pay $16 million to settle Trump’s legal salvo against “60 Minutes” over the editing of an interview with his 2024 opponent, then-Vice President Kamala Harris. Most legal analysts viewed the case as frivolous.
Jeffrey McCall, a communications professor at DePauw University, said he understands why CBS did not want to invite FCC scrutiny.
“CBS could have other matters in front of the FCC,” McCall said. “So, I don’t blame CBS for trying to tell Colbert like, ‘hey, back off.’”
But McCall added that he sees no reason for the FCC to end or curtail the exemption daytime and late-night television talk shows have from laws requiring stations to offer equal broadcast opportunities to political candidates.
“They have a lot to do otherwise and I’m just not sure this is worth their trouble,” he said.
The equal time rules were devised at a time when consumers had a limited number of media options. Broadcast TV is no longer dominant in the era of streaming as evidenced by how the Talarico interview drew 8 million views on YouTube — more than three times the typical TV audience for Colbert’s “Late Show.”
Schwartzman noted that equal time provision cases are typically resolved quickly, as the rule only applies during an election campaign.
If Talarico’s interview had aired on TV and his opponents requested time, CBS would have to accommodate them ahead of the Texas primary election on March 3. (The network would not have been required to give time to Republican candidates).
CBS could have fulfilled the request by providing time on its affiliated stations in Texas. The opposing candidates did not have to appear on Colbert’s show.
“The remedy is you have to give them airtime,” Schwartzman said. “That’s all.”
CBS wanted Colbert to steer clear of Talarico because the FCC previously announced it is “investigating” ABC over the candidate’s appearance on “The View,” according to a network executive not authorized to discuss the matter publicly. Talarico was on the daytime talk show Feb. 2, which has led to the FCC launching an “enforcement action” on the matter.
Representatives from CBS and ABC declined comment.
Appearing Wednesday on Fox News Channel’s “The Ingraham Angle,” Carr brushed off accusations by Democrats that he was using the rule to silence their candidates.
“What we’re doing now is simply applying the law on the books,” Carr said.
When host Laura Ingraham noted that if CBS had aired the Talarico interview, it would have meant free airtime for Tarico’s primary opponent and high-profile Trump critic Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-Texas), Carr replied, “Ironically, yes.”
But Schwartzman noted that if the FCC punished a network for ignoring the rule, the move would likely be challenged in court and take years to resolve. Even if the policy were violated, that would not be enough to get a station license pulled.
“A single violation or even a couple of violations of FCC policy are meaningless,” Schwartzman said. “You have to demonstrate a pattern of violations.”
“We need more competition against THE ENEMY, the Fake News National TV Networks,” Trump wrote Feb. 7 on Truth Social. “Letting Good Deals get done like Nexstar — Tegna will help knock out the Fake News because there will be more competition, and at a higher and more sophisticated level.”
How Nexstar could take on the broadcast networks is a mystery. Nexstar is highly dependent on its affiliations with ABC, CBS, NBC and Fox due to their contracts with the NFL, which provide the stations with their highest-rated programming. Those network affiliations also give Nexstar leverage in its negotiations to get carriage on cable and satellite providers.
NEW passport rules being introduced next week are set to affect 1.26million people – but airlines could allow passengers to avoid them.
Currently, dual citizens in the UK, whose other nationality is from a country not subject to a UK visa requirement, can travel into Britain using their foreign passport.
Sign up for the Travel newsletter
Thank you!
The rules for entering the UK for those who hold dual citizenship will change in FebruaryCredit: AlamyThe Home Office has now said that expired British passports could be acceptedCredit: Alamy
From next Wednesday, dual citizens will need to show either a valid British passport, or a new digital certificate of entitlement to attach to their second nationality passport.
Without one of those, travellers could face being denied travel back to the UK.
Getting a British passport costs around £100 for an adult and on average takes between three and 10 weeks to obtain.
Meanwhile, the certificate of entitlement costs £589 and can take three to eight weeks to get.
As many as 1.26million people inEnglandandWaleshold more than one passport and are expected to be affected.
However, the Home Office has now said that travellers may be able to enter the country with an expired British passport.
Due to the tight turnaround of the change in rules, the Home Office has now said that an expired British passport could be used as “alternative documentation.”
A Home Office official told Sun Travel: “We recognise that this is a significant change for carriers and travellers, but we have been clear on requirements for dual British citizens to travel with a valid British passport or Certificate of Entitlement, in line with those for all British citizens.
“At their own discretion, carriers can accept an expired British passport as alternative documentation. Separately, individuals who have previously had a British passport can apply for an emergency travel document if they urgently need to enter the UK.
“In line with current practice, on arrival at the UK border, Border Force will still assess a person’s suitability to enter the UK and conduct additional checks if required.”
The Home Office do “strongly recommend” travellers obtain a British passport or the Certificate of Entitlement for the “smoothest travel experience.”
One airline has heavily hinted that it will accept an expired passport as a form of ID.
Ryanair has suggested it may allow dual nationals to board if they can show other forms of proof that they are British.
No airline has confirmed it will accept an expired passport as a form of IDCredit: Alamy
It told The Independent that they had been advised by the government that “documents that can be accepted” include an expired British passport.
The airline also told The Times that they “will allow” a passenger to board a UK flight if they are “satisfied” that they are a British or Irish national – or other UK status.
This includes “passengers who hold an old stamp/vignette with indefinite leave to remain.”
Sun Travel has gone to Ryanair for additional comment.
On the GOV.UK website it says that valid documentation should be obtained before travelling to avoid problems like “being denied boarding” when travelling to the UK.
It adds that dual British citizens who don’t have valid British passport or certificate of entitlement will undergo “additional identity checks” and “will not be able to go through UK passport control until their British nationality is verified.”
On the same day of these new rules, ETAs will also become essential.
However British nationals and dual citizenswith British or Irish citizenship are exempt from needing an ETA.
Eurostar offer an easy way to explore the continent without needing to hop on a plane, and a new rule change means it could become an even more convenient mode of travel
Travelling on Eurostar could soon be even easier(Image: Jonathan Brady/PA Wire)
Eurostar has announced a change to its check-in rules at St. Pancras International in London in a bid to ease overcrowding and make journeys easier for passengers.
Currently, passengers taking a Eurostar train need to arrive at least 60 minutes before their journey and then have to wait in the departures area. However, the change will see passengers able to arrive just 30 minutes before their departure time.
The Telegraph reports that there are plans to allow passengers to board their Eurostar train as soon as it arrives at St Pancras, reducing crowding in the departures area. Speaking to the news outlet, Wendy Spinks, Chief Commercial Officer at London St Pancras Highspeed, said that she wanted the experience of taking the Eurostar to be more like a train journey than flying.
She said: “It cannot be the equivalent of an airport departure lounge. We see it being a really quick process. Going straight to the train is part of the plan. It has become too close to the airport experience, where you check in, go to security, wait in the lounge and then rush to the gate.”
The changes come as Eurostar prepares to expand its services, including the introduction of double-decker trains, as well as new direct routes to Frankfurt and Geneva, expected to launch from early 2030.
It’s also expected that by then, Virgin Trains and Italian operator Trenitalia will be offering rival services from St Pancras, challenging Eurostar’s monopoly on the Channel Tunnel route. Wendy went on to admit that bottlenecks in the departure areas were an obstacle to expanding these services and offering international trains from all five of its available platforms.
St Pancras has also recently needed to install new kiosks with the technology to run the EU’s entry and exit system (EES), which will be required at all external border crossing points by April 9.
Last summer, Eurostar and London St. Pancras Highspeed announced they were joining forces on an ambitious project to double the capacity of St Pancras station, enabling the historic building to handle 5,000 international passengers an hour.
Expected to cost £100m, the plans would improve the “international area and its connection to the main concourse, helping the passenger flow and customer experience” by the end of 2028. A further phase could see arriving passengers redirected to a lesser-used upstairs area, and this change is set to be completed by the end of 2030.
Any new operators would share platforms with Eurostar, and passengers would need to make sure that they were boarding the correct train. However, it’s speculated that the expansion of St Pancras could cut check-in times to 15-minutes, meaning passengers could simply head straight to their service.
Have a story you want to share? Email us at webtravel@reachplc.com
Ensure our latest lifestyle and travel stories always appear at the top of your Google Search by making us a Preferred Source. Click here to activate or add us as your Preferred Source in your Google search settings.
He’s four months removed from disk replacement surgery in his lower back — the same back that has endured six other operations, including spinal fusion in 2017.
Woods won’t be taking part in this week’s Genesis Invitational, a tournament he has hosted since 2020, as he continues to recover from that procedure. The 15-time major championship winner told reporters at Riviera Country Club on Tuesday that he has been able to start taking full golf shots during his training.
Still, the 2026 Masters tournament is less than two months away. So considering everything mentioned above, it would seem pretty unlikely that Woods would be ready to compete in the first major championship of the year.
Right?
Well, a reporter asked Woods quite simply, “Is the Masters off the table for you?”
Woods gave an even simpler answer.
“No,” he said without hesitation or further elaboration. He did give a slight smile after a brief pause, for what that’s worth.
It should come as no surprise that Woods would be doing everything he can to be able to play April 9-12 at Augusta National. He has won the event five times, most recently in 2019.
Woods missed all of the 2025 season as he recovered from a back surgery the previous year and surgery for a ruptured Achilles tendon in March. He spoke Tuesday on the multiple challenges he faces in attempting to return to the PGA Tour and also brought up the possibility of playing on the PGA Champions circuit.
“The disc replacement has been one thing. It’s been a challenge to have had a fused back and now a disc replacement. So it’s challenging,” said Woods, who added that his back is still sore following the most recent procedure.
“And I entered a new decade. So that number is starting to sink in and has [me] thinking about the opportunity to be able to play in a cart. That’s something that, as I’ve said, I won’t do out here on this tour, because I don’t believe in it. But you know, on the Champions tour, that’s certainly an opportunity.”
During Stephen Colbert’s Monday night monologue on “The Late Show With Stephen Colbert,” he carried on per usual, introducing the Late Show Band and his guest Jennifer Garner. He then posed the question, “You know who is not one of my guests tonight?”
The late-night host was meant to have Texas state representative James Talarico on the show. But he said on air that he was “told in no uncertain terms by our network’s lawyers, who called us directly, that we could not have him on the broadcast.”
He continued on to explain the FCC’s new guidance for equal time rules under its Chairman Brendan Carr. The rules require broadcasters who feature political candidates to provide the same time to their rivals, if requested. Typically, news content, daytime and late-night talk shows have been excluded from these regulations, as it’s been an informal tradition for presidential candidates to make their rounds on various late-night shows.
But the FCC under Carr, who has made no secret of his intention to carry out an agenda that is aligned with President Trump’s wishes, has questioned whether late-night and daytime talk shows deserve an exemption from the equal-time rules for broadcast stations using the public airwaves. Many legal and media experts have said a stricter application of the rule would be hard to enforce and could stifle free speech
“Let’s just call this what it is. Donald Trump’s administration wants to silence anyone who says anything bad about Trump on TV, because all Trump does is watch TV,” said Colbert Monday night.
Earlier this year, ABC’s “The View” featured Talarico, as well as his main rival and fellow Democrat Jasmine Crockett. Talarico is currently facing off with Crockett and Ahmad Hassan in the Democratic primary for one of Texas’ two seats in the U.S. Senate. The FCC is also reportedly investigating his appearance on “The View.”
Experts consider the equal time rule to be antiquated, designed for a time when consumers were limited to a handful of TV channels and a dozen radio stations if they lived in a big city. The emergence of cable, podcasts and streaming audio and video platforms — none of which are subject to FCC restrictions in terms of content — have greatly diminished traditional broadcast media’s dominance in the marketplace. Carr has previously suggested that if TV hosts want to include political candidates in their programming, they can do it — just not on broadcast TV.
Colbert said he was taking Carr’s “advice” and revealed that his entire interview with Talarico was instead uploaded on YouTube. During the interview, Talarico calls out the Republican Party for initially running against “cancel culture.”
“Now they are trying to control what we watch, what we say, what we read. And this is the most dangerous kind of cancel culture, the kind that comes from the top,” said Talarico. “They went after ‘The View’ because I went on there. They went after Jimmy Kimmel for telling a joke they didn’t like. They went after you for telling the truth about Paramount’s bribe to Donald Trump.”
“The Late Show with Stephen Colbert” is leaving the air come May, signaling the end of CBS’s longstanding relationship with the late-night talk show. Its cancellation was a “purely financial decision,” according to CBS. But it also came at a time when Paramount Global, which owns CBS, was seeking regulatory approval from the Trump administration to sell itself to Skydance Media. The merger was finalized in August.
L.A. Times staff writer Stephen Battaglio contributed to this report.
CORTINA D’AMPEZZO, Italy — Ukrainian skeleton athlete Vladyslav Heraskevych took his case to sport’s highest court Friday, detailing the reasons why he wanted to race at the Milan-Cortina Olympics in a helmet that paid tribute to his country’s war dead.
The arbitrator was moved by his story but ruled against him anyway, denying him his last chance for a win of any kind at this year’s Winter Olympics.
The Court of Arbitration for Sport denied Heraskevych’s appeal of his disqualification from the men’s skeleton race, agreeing with the International Olympic Committee and the sliding sport’s federation that his plan to wear a helmet showing the faces of more than 20 Ukrainian coaches and athletes killed since Russia invaded their country four years ago would violate Olympic rules.
“The court sided with the IOC and upheld the decision that an athlete could be disqualified from the Olympic Games without actual misconduct, without a technical or safety threat, and before the start,” wrote Yevhen Pronin, Heraskevych’s attorney.
The Court of Arbitration for Sport said the sole arbitrator who heard the case sided with IOC policy about what athletes at an Olympics can say on a field of play — and that the “memory helmet” Heraskevych brought to the Milan-Cortina Games would not align with the rules.
The arbitrator, the court said, “found these limitations reasonable and proportionate,” especially since Heraskevych could show his helmet away from the racing surface, such as in interview areas and on social media. Heraskevych also wore the helmet in training runs.
The court added that the arbitrator “is fully sympathetic to Mr. Heraskevych’s commemoration and to his attempt to raise awareness for the grief and devastation suffered by the Ukrainian people, and Ukrainian athletes because of the war.”
The appeal, which Heraskevych believed he would win, was largely moot anyway. He was disqualified from the competition 45 minutes before its start on Thursday, and whatever the Court of Arbitration for Sport said Friday wouldn’t have changed that.
“Looks like this train has left,” Heraskevych said after Friday’s hearing, knowing there was no way he could race. He left Cortina d’Ampezzo’s Olympic village on Thursday night with no plans to return.
He was blocked from racing by the IOC and the International Bobsled and Skeleton Federation on Thursday after the slider and his father emerged from a last-minute, last-ditch meeting with IOC President Kirsty Coventry — who was unable to get Heraskevych to change his mind.
Coventry reiterated Friday that she believed the disqualification was justified. The IOC made its decision based on the guidelines for athlete expression at the Olympics, he said.
They say, in part, “the focus on the field of play during competitions and official ceremonies must be on celebrating athletes’ performances.” Heraskevych never made it to the field of play — not in competition, anyway.
“I think that he in some ways understood that but was very committed to his beliefs, which I can respect,” Coventry said. “But sadly, it doesn’t change the rules.”
The IOC contends that the rule is in place for multiple reasons, including protecting the athletes from pressure from their own countries or others about using Olympic platforms to make statements.
“I never expected it to be such a big scandal,” Heraskevych said.
He also said he found it puzzling that his accreditation for the Games was taken away, then returned in short order Thursday in what seemed like a goodwill gesture.
“A mockery,” he said.
The Court of Arbitration for Sport did agree that Heraskevych should keep his accreditation.
Heraskevych said he felt his disqualification fed into Russian propaganda, noting that he and other Ukrainian athletes have seen Russian flags at events at these Games — even though they are not allowed by Olympic rule. He has previously spoken out against the IOC’s decision to allow Russians and Belarusians to compete at Milan-Cortina as “neutral” athletes and said the IOC empowered Russia by awarding it the 2014 Sochi Games.
He also wondered why other tributes from these Olympics, such as U.S. figure skater Maxim Naumov displaying a photo of his late parents — killed in a plane crash last year — have been permitted without penalty.
Italian snowboard competitor Roland Fischnaller had a small Russian flag image on the back of his helmet during these Games, and Israeli skeleton athlete Jared Firestone wore a kippah with the names of the 11 athletes and coaches who were killed representing that country during the 1972 Munich Olympics.
Pronin wrote that IOC representatives at Friday’s hearing said that “they were not punished because they did not declare this in advance, but did it after the fact, so there was no point in disqualifying them.”
The IOC said those cases were not in violation of any rules. Naumov showed his photo in the kiss-and-cry area and not while he was actually on the ice; Fischnaller’s helmet was a tribute to all the past Olympic sites he competed at, with Sochi included; and Firestone’s kippah “was covered by a beanie,” IOC spokesman Mark Adams said.
The IOC offered Heraskevych the chance to compete with a different helmet and bring the tribute helmet through the interview area after his runs. He also could have worn a black armband, which the IOC typically bans. It just didn’t want him making a statement by competing in the helmet.
“I think it’s the wrong side of history for the IOC,” Heraskevych said.
Reynolds writes for the Associated Press. AP journalists Annie Risemberg and Stefanie Dazio in Milan and Vasilisa Stepanenko in Warsaw contributed to this report.
The Trump administration has unveiled a sweeping set of regulatory proposals that would substantially change health plan offerings on the Affordable Care Act marketplace next year, aiming, it says, to provide more choice and lower premiums.
But it also proposes sharply raising some annual out-of-pocket costs — to more than $27,600 for one type of coverage — and could cause up to 2 million people to drop insurance.
The changes come as affordability is a key concern for many Americans, some of whom are struggling to pay their ACA premiums since the Republican-led Congress allowed enhanced subsidies expired at the end of last year. Initial enrollment numbers for this year fell by more than 1 million.
The proposed changes are part of a 577-page rule that addresses a broad swath of standards, including benefit packages, out-of-pocket costs and healthcare provider networks. Insurers refer to these standards when setting premium rates for the coming year.
After a comment period, the rule will be finalized this spring.
It “puts patients, taxpayers, and states first by lowering costs and reinforcing accountability for taxpayer dollars,” Mehmet Oz, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services administrator, said in a news release Monday.
“This proposal reads like the administration has found their next big thing in the catastrophic plans,” said Katie Keith, director of the Health Policy and the Law Initiative at the O’Neill Institute for National and Global Health Law at Georgetown University Law Center.
Such plans have very high annual out-of-pocket costs for the policyholder but often lower premiums than other ACA coverage options. Formerly restricted to those under age 30 or facing certain hardships, the Trump administration allowed older people who lost subsidy eligibility to enroll in them this year. It is not known how many people did so.
The payment rule cements this move by making anyone eligible if their income is below the poverty line ($15,650 for 2026) or if they’re earning more than 2½ times that amount but lost access to an ACA subsidy that lowered their out-of-pocket costs. It also notes that a person meeting these standards would be eligible in any state — an important point because this coverage is now available in only 36 states and the District of Columbia.
In addition, the proposal would require out-of-pocket maximums on such plans to hit $15,600 a year for an individual and $27,600 for a family, Keith wrote this week in Health Affairs. (The current out-of-pocket max for catastrophic plans is $10,600 for an individual plan and $21,200 for family coverage.) Not counting preventive care and three covered primary care doctor visits, that spending target must be met before a policy’s other coverage kicks in.
In the rule, the administration wrote that the proposed changes would help differentiate catastrophic from “bronze” plans, the next level up, and, possibly, spur more enrollment in the former. Currently, the proposal said, there may not be a significant difference if premiums are similar. Raising the out-of-pocket maximum for catastrophic plans to those levels would create that difference, the proposal said.
“When there is such a clear difference, the healthier consumers that are generally eligible and best suited to enroll in catastrophic plans are more motivated to select a catastrophic plan in lieu of a bronze plan,” the proposal noted.
However, ACA subsidies cannot be used toward catastrophic premiums, which could limit shoppers’ interest.
Enrollment in bronze plans, which have an average annual deductible of $7,500, has doubled since 2018 to about 5.4 million last year. This year, that number likely will be higher. Some states’ sign-up data indicate a shift toward bronze as consumers left higher-premium “silver,” “gold” or “platinum” plans following the expiration of more generous subsidies at the end of last year.
The proposal also would allow insurers to offer bronze plans with cost-sharing rates that exceed what the ACA law currently allows, but only if that insurer also sells other bronze plans with lower cost-sharing levels.
In what it calls a “novel” approach, the proposal would allow insurers to offer multiyear catastrophic plans, in which people could stay enrolled for up to 10 years, and their out-of-pocket maximums would vary over that time. Costs might be higher, for example, in the early years, then fall the longer the policy is in place. The proposal specifically asks for comments on how such a plan could be structured and what effect multiyear plans might have on the overall market.
“As we understand it thus far, insurers could offer the policy for one year or for consecutive years, up to 10 years,” said Zach Sherman, managing director for coverage policy and program design at Health Management Associates, a health policy consulting firm that does work for states and insurance plans. “But the details on how that would work, we are still unpacking.”
Matthew Fiedler, senior fellow with the Center on Health Policy at the Brookings Institution, said the proposed rule included a lot of provisions that could “expose enrollees to much higher out-of-pocket costs.”
In addition to the planned changes to bronze and catastrophic plans, he points to another provision that would allow plans to be sold on the ACA exchange that have no set healthcare provider networks. In other words, the insurer has not contracted with specific doctors and hospitals to accept their coverage. Instead, such plans would pay medical providers a set amount toward medical services, possibly a flat fee or a percentage of what Medicare pays, for example.
The rule says insurers would need to ensure “access to a range of providers” willing to accept such amounts as payment in full. Policyholders might be on the hook for unexpected expenses, however, if a clinician or facility doesn’t agree and charges the patient the difference.
Because the rule is so sweeping — with many other parts — it is expected to draw hundreds if not thousands of comments between now and early March.
Pennsylvania insurance broker Joshua Brooker said one change he would like to see is requiring insurers that sell the very high out-of-pocket catastrophic plans to offer other catastrophic plans with lower annual maximums.
Overall, though, a wider range of options might appeal to people on both ends of the income scale, he said.
Some wealthier enrollees, especially those who no longer qualify for any ACA premium subsidies, would prefer a lower premium like those expected in catastrophic plans, and could just pay the bills up to that max, he said.
“They’re more worried about the half-million-dollar heart attack,” Brooker said. It’s tougher for people below the poverty level, who don’t qualify for ACA subsidies and, in 10 states, often don’t qualify for Medicaid. So they’re likely to go uninsured. At least a catastrophic plan, he said, might let them get some preventive care coverage and cap their exposure if they end up in a hospital. From there, they might qualify for charity care at the hospital to cover out-of-pocket costs.
Overall, “putting more options on the market doesn’t hurt, as long as it is disclosed properly and the consumer understands it,” he said.
KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF — the independent source for health policy research, polling, and journalism.
A plane passenger has sparked a debate after bringing up an unspoken ‘middle seat rule’ that she demands all fliers follow, but some people have claimed she’s being ‘cheeky’
15:04, 10 Feb 2026Updated 15:04, 10 Feb 2026
The woman urged people to follow one rule around the middle seat (stock photo)(Image: Boy_Anupong via Getty Images)
Nobody relishes being stuck with the middle seat on a plane. We all have our preferences when it comes to flying, and for virtually everyone, that means either bagging the window or aisle seat, while the dreaded middle spot remains the universally unwanted option for most travellers.
The middle seat earns its poor reputation because it offers none of the perks associated with its neighbours. You’re denied the scenic views enjoyed by window-seat occupants, and you miss out on the additional legroom that comes from stretching into the aisle. What’s more, if you’re flying solo, you’ll typically find yourself sandwiched between two strangers.
One woman has recently taken to social media to argue that there should be an unwritten “rule” observed by all air travellers, granting middle-seat passengers a modest degree of comfort – though whilst many backed her stance, others branded her simply “cheeky”.
Australian Molly Wroe posted a video on TikTok documenting her middle-seat ordeal on a recent flight. Throughout her journey, she found herself trapped between two male passengers who wouldn’t allow her access to either armrest – which she insisted violated a crucial unspoken aviation etiquette.
She questioned: “Who’s gonna tell these men I get both arm rests because I’m in the middle??”
Content cannot be displayed without consent
She reinforced her position in the caption, stating: “Middle person gets both armrests.”
This unofficial etiquette surrounding the middle seat has been debated before. It’s frequently suggested that passengers occupying the window and aisle seats shouldn’t monopolise their inner armrests, given they already benefit from an outer armrest plus the additional perks of avoiding the middle position.
Consequently, many argue that the middle seat passenger ought to have access to both armrests flanking their seat, as they’re denied the privilege of a decent view or extra legroom. This was precisely Molly’s argument in her video – though not everyone saw eye to eye with her stance.
Several commenters on her clip branded her “cheeky” for expecting access to both armrests. They contended there’s no “airline rule” stipulating the middle seat gets armrest priority, suggesting instead that she should simply ask her neighbouring passengers if they’d mind shifting their arms.
One person questioned: “Why would you get both, and they both get zero?” Another remarked: “Absolutely not, one each, which is fair; there are no rules regarding arm rests.”
A third commented: “Why don’t you tell them instead of filming? It’s not an official rule that the middle seat gets both armrests.”
However, others leapt to Molly’s defence, insisting it’s an unwritten rule rooted in basic courtesy. Whilst it’s neither a legal requirement nor an airline regulation that’s actively enforced, most passengers would willingly relinquish the armrest out of compassion, recognising that the middle seat is utterly miserable and warrants some degree of comfort.
One commenter remarked: “Everyone in the comments is not getting it, but you’re right. It’s an unofficial rule, but it’s just polite. Middle gets nothing, so they get both armrests. The window and the aisle each get their outer armrest and all the other perks.”
Another contended: “The window seat gets one armrest and the window, aisle seat gets one armrest and obviously the aisle to get up whenever they like, and the centre seat gets no window, no getting up when they like and BOTH armrests. THAT’S THE RULE ON ANY AND ALL AIRLINES.”
A third added: “They both have one on the outside, one gets the window, and one has free access to the toilet. Would seem fair to me.”
Restrictions on electronic items may vary between airlines – here’s what you should know
Ryanair is among several airlines that enforced a 15-item rule (stock image)(Image: Nicholas Ahonen via Getty Images)
When preparing for a holiday abroad, it’s easy to get carried away and overpack. But did you know that several airlines, including Ryanair, British Airways and Lufthansa, limit certain items in the cabin?
This rule specifically applies to electronic items, with only 15 at a maximum of 100Wh each allowed in your carry-on. While numerous firms maintain this restriction, it’s still best to check your airline’s website for the most up-to-date information before flying.
Official advice from Ryanair reads: “You may carry up to 15 personal electronic devices (smartphones, tablets, laptops, cameras, handheld game consoles, headphones, power banks). You may also carry up to 20 spare lithium batteries or power banks, provided they do not exceed 100Wh each.” It then also adds: “Devices or batteries over 100Wh are not permitted in the cabin or the hold.”
British Airways (BA) similarly states: “For your own personal use you can take up to 15 battery-operated Personal Electronic Devices (PED) that containing lithium batteries such as laptops, tablets, smart phones, cameras, music players, smart baggage tags (e.g. Apple AirTag).”
It adds: “If the watt hour (Wh) rating is not shown on the battery or cannot be determined, then the battery cannot be accepted onboard.”
Both airlines are among those that also have strict rules around ‘smart bags’. This generally describes rucksacks, backpacks, and other luggage that may include a built-in power bank for phones and laptops.
For Ryanair, passengers cannot bring a smart bag in the cabin if it has ‘non-removable batteries above 2.7Wh’. If the battery is removable, it must be ‘removed and placed in small cabin baggage underneath the seat in front’. Smart bags containing non-removable batteries are not allowed in the hold.
Meanwhile, BA does not allow any smart baggage on the flight if the ‘lithium battery/power bank for recharging devices cannot be detached from the bag by the customer’. If it is detachable, it will be permitted, provided it meets certain criteria.
While some airlines might have specific restrictions, the Government lists nine main items allowed in your hand and checked luggage. These include:
Hairdryers
Straighteners
Travel iron
Electric shaver
Most cameras
Mobile phones
Laptops
Tablet devices
MP3 players
Despite this, its site adds: “Check the restrictions on certain types of batteries or contact your airline if you’re not sure what you can carry[…] You can take hair curlers containing a gas cartridge in hand or hold luggage as long as the safety cover is fitted at all times. You must not take separate gas cartridges on board.”
Passengers using e-cigarettes should keep them in their hand luggage rather than in hold luggage. During security checks, placing electronic devices in a designated tray allows staff to quickly see and verify that no prohibited items are hidden.
Get all the hottest shopping deals, cash saving tips and money news straight to your phone by joining our new WhatsApp Community – The Money Saving Club. Just click this link to join https://crnch.it/eutplxS1
We also treat our community members to special offers, promotions, and adverts from us and our partners. If you don’t like our community, you can check out any time you like. If you’re curious, you can read our Privacy Notice here https://crnch.it/jeQqC872
Your annual TV Licence payment generally covers four key factors related to watching, recording, and downloading content
The price of a TV Licence increased last year (stock image)(Image: Newton Daly via Getty Images)
The price of a TV Licence rose for many in 2025, with the Government increasing the price to £174.50 last April. This annual payment is generally mandatory for any households or businesses that watch live TV or access BBCiPlayer.
However, you may be wondering what rules apply to people who exclusively watch DVDs or play games on their TV. Guidance on this matter is summarised on the official TV Licensing website, along with the answers to other frequently asked questions.
“You don’t need a TV Licence if you only use your TV for gaming or DVDs,” the website explains. “That’s as long as you never watch TV channels on any TV service, watch live TV on streaming services, or use BBC iPlayer.”
Two years ago, the Secretary of State announced a 2.9% increase in the licence fee, starting from April 1, 2025, in line with the annual CPI inflation. This resulted in a daily rise of just over 1p, and is only the second fee increase since April 1, 2021.
While standard coloured licences now cost £174.50 annually, black-and-white licences cost £58.50 per year. Future licence fee increases will be tied to CPI inflation over the next four years, ending in 2027. From April 2026, the fee will increase again by £5.50 to £180.
Official TV licensing guidance adds: “You could be prosecuted if we find that you have been watching, recording or downloading programmes illegally. The maximum penalty is a £1,000 fine plus any legal costs and/or compensation you may be ordered to pay.”
Certain people are eligible for discounted TV Licences, provided they meet specific criteria. Older adults claiming Pension Credit may also qualify for a completely free TV Licence if they are over 75 and/or living with a partner who receives the benefit.
Pension Credit is different to the State Pension. Pension Credit is a means-tested benefit for people over State Pension age on a low income, boosting weekly income to £227.10 if you’re single or £346.60 with a partner.
Those claiming Pension Credit can apply for a free TV Licence when they turn 74, but will still need to pay until the end of the month before their 75th birthday. After this point, they will be covered by the free licence.
This covers watching, recording, and downloading on any device.
Get all the hottest shopping deals, cash saving tips and money news straight to your phone by joining our new WhatsApp Community – The Money Saving Club. Just click this link to joinhttps://crnch.it/eutplxS1
We also treat our community members to special offers, promotions, and adverts from us and our partners. If you don’t like our community, you can check out any time you like. If you’re curious, you can read our Privacy Notice herehttps://crnch.it/jeQqC872
Everybody is talking about how the Trump administration is combining carrots and sticks in novel ways in its attempt to control Venezuela’s present and imminent future. But the stances that other governments around the world have taken after the bizarre reality that the US Navy choppers left behind is also worthy of a closer look.
Some governments have questioned Delcy Rodríguez’s legitimacy, or reaffirmed their support of the opposition victory in the 2024 election, while chavismo’s longtime allies and pragmatic regional partners have engaged with or recognized the interim government.
A pattern emerges: cautious engagement that aims to prevent a state of chaos that would make our country a more problematic place than it already is.
Neighbors Colombia and Brazil might favor the institutional continuity that Rodríguez offers, since the mayhem caused by a prolonged conflict would likely result in further migratory crises. China’s position appears to be financially driven, as the interest payments from Venezuela’s debt relied on oil shipments, which could be interrupted because of the increasing US involvement in the oil industry. In addition, it’s worth pointing out that Russia’s support is not as solid as previously considered, given statements by its ambassador that suggest broader divisions within of the chavista coalition.
Other governments framed their position along with their longstanding rejection of Maduro’s legitimacy and the electoral fraud of 2024. Most of their current leaders come from conservative parties and positioning themselves as actively anti-chavismo might perform well with their domestic constituencies. In addition, their response reinforced alignment with Washington, at a time in which US foreign policy became particularly focused on the region.
A third group opted for a delicate balancing act. While many support a democratic transition, they avoid endorsing Maduro’s removal, out of concern for future military interventions by the US, in particular because of Trump’s rhetoric on Greenland. These countries also emphasize elections and negotiated solutions. A notable addition of this group is Turkey, a longtime Maduro ally now seeking to preserve working relations with Washington amid shifting regional dynamics, particularly in Syria.
Colombia
Beyond “respecting” her swearing in, as stated by the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Rosa Villavicencio, President Petro’s administration has engaged in talks with Delcy Rodríguez and even suggested that there could be a meeting in Bogotá (although her government denied any imminent trips). On January 27th, Petro also demanded the return of Maduro and Flores, alleging that they were “kidnapped” and that they needed to face trial in Venezuela.
Brazil
Brasilia was quick to recognize Delcy Rodríguez as interim president. President Lula Da Silva condemned the military operation referring to it as an “unacceptable crossing of a line” and a “grave affront of sovereignty”. On January 9th, Rodríguez thanked Da Silva for his “support and solidarity.”
Nicaragua
In a statement during the UN’s Security Council meeting, that country’s representative condemned American military actions, recognized Delcy Rodríguez as interim president and called for the release of Maduro and Cilia Flores. The Rodríguez government also accepted the credentials of the new Nicaraguan ambassador Valezka López.
Cuba
In addition to confirming the deaths of 32 Cuban military officers during Maduro’s extraction, the Díaz Canel government remained supportive. In a speech condemning the attacks, the Cuban president said he was willing to give his “blood” for Venezuela. Cuban Foreign Minister Bruno Rodríguez was seen in Caracas with Rodríguez in a memorial ceremony for the Cuban officers killed on January 3rd.
Russia
On January 6th, the Russian Foreign Ministry celebrated the appointment of Delcy Rodríguez and referred to it as a measure to safeguard stability amidst “neocolonial threats”. Moscow also called for the release of Maduro and Flores. Later, on January 25th, the Russian Ambassador in Venezuela, Sergey Melik-Bagdasarov, claimed that Maduro was betrayed by Venezuelan security officers.
China
Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Mao Ning said her country “respected” the arrangement that led to Rodríguez’s swearing in. The Chinese ambassador Lan Hu in Caracas met with Rodríguez and stated that his country remains committed to Venezuela. Rodríguez thanked him for his support.
Mexico
On January 5th, President Claudia Sheinbaum condemned Maduro’s extraction, citing the country’s long standing rejection of foreign intervention. Mexico promoted a joint statement with Brazil, Uruguay, Colombia, Spain and Chile rejecting the military operation.
Spain
After “emphatically condemning” the US incursion, the Pedro Sánchez government saluted Delcy Rodríguez as its counterpart. Foreign minister José Manuel Albares said that, while they didn’t recognize the official results of the 2024 election, they were open to working with her administration. They also have been in contact with the opposition with the hopes of facilitating dialogue.
India
On January 4th, the Indian government expressed its concern over the situation in Venezuela and the “wellbeing of the people in Venezuela”. They called for peaceful and negotiated solutions. On January 30th, President Modi spoke with Rodriguez, referring to her as acting president and stating that both leaders would seek further cooperation between their countries.
Qatar
On January 10th, Delcy Rodriguez thanked the Kingdom of Qatar for facilitating the release of the first “proof of life” of Maduro. In addition, Qatari authorities said they were open to facilitate a dialogue for a peaceful resolution. The Rodríguez government also received the new Qatari ambassador, Salman Nabit Mubarak Abdullah.
Argentina
In an interview with Andrés Oppenheimer, President Javier Milei celebrated Maduro’s extraction and referred to it as a “liberation”. His government stated they trusted Trump’s transition plan towards democracy and peace.
Bolivia
In a statement on January 3rd, the Rodrigo Paz government released a statement showing support for “the Venezuelan people” in what he considered the beginning of a path of “recovery of his democracy” and considered “inescapable” that there is a “real democratic transition”. Shortly after Maduro’s removal, La Paz announced entry restrictions for individuals linked to chavismo.
Costa Rica
On January 5th, President Rodrigo Chaves emphasized that his country never recognized Maduro as a legitimate leader and expressed hopes that the political transition leads to democracy.
Dominican Republic
President Luis Abinader posted on X that his government was closely monitoring the events in Venezuela, and emphasized respect for the true results of the 2024 election. Foreign Minister Roberto Álvarez said they did not recognize Rodriguez’s government, but emphasized the need to re-establish consular relationships. Venezuela’s chancellor Yvan Gil announced that these relationships would be reactivated in the coming days after cutting ties in the aftermath of the 2024 electoral fraud.
Peru
Peruvian Interim President Jose Jerí had a phone call with Edmundo González, who the country recognizes as president elect. In a statement, his office said that he supported a political transition and hoped that the results of the 2024 election were respected.
Ecuador
Ecuador’s Foreign Affairs Office announced that it was restricting access to Venezuelans linked to the Maduro government. In addition, President Daniel Noboa celebrated the removal of Maduro by posting in his personal X account, “the time will come for all narco-chavista criminals. Its structure will end up falling all over the continent”. He also called for María Corina Machado and Edmundo González to take power. Noboa attended Machado’s Nobel Peace Prize ceremony in December 2025.
Panama
President José Raul Mulino of Panama, who also attended the Nobel Prize ceremony in Oslo, stated that his country does not intend to recognize Rodríguez as interim President.
Chile
President Gabriel Boric condemned the January 3rd attacks and called for a peaceful solution to the Venezuelan crisis. In a meeting at the UN Security Council, Chile’s representative stated that her country did not recognize the Maduro regime and also called for a peaceful and gradual transition process. President-elect José Antonio Kast, set to take office in March, celebrated Maduro’s capture in early January and called for regional cooperation to re-establish democracy and to “coordinate the safe and expeditious return of Venezuelans to their country.”
Paraguay
President Santiago Peña of Paraguay lamented the military incursion in the region, but stated that he didn’t see “any other alternative”. He called for a democratic resolution of the crisis and emphasized that Maduro’s removal was positive for the region. Peña also attended Machado’s Nobel Peace Prize Ceremony.
Canada
Canada’s Prime Minister Mark Carney emphasized that his country has not recognized Maduro since the 2018 presidential vote, and voiced his support for a transition. However, he called for restraint and adherence among all actors involved.
Italy
Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni stated that she is monitoring the situation in Venezuela. In an X post, she celebrated the announcement of the release of political prisoners and hoped that Rodríguez would usher in a “new era of constructive relationships between Caracas and Rome”. The Rodriguez government also accepted the credentials of the new Italian ambassador, Giovanni Umberto De Vito and, with approval of the National Assembly, named Maria Elena Uzzo as the new ambassador to Italy.
United Kingdom
Prime Minister Keir Starmer released a statement on January 3rd celebrating Maduro’s removal and saying that his government will “shed no tears about the end of his regime”. Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper reaffirmed support for a transition in a speech before the House of Commons, urging Rodríguez to take steps towards democratization.
Uruguay
Foreign Minister Mario Lubetkin stated on January 9th that his country does not recognize Delcy Rodríguez, arguing it had not extend such recognition to Maduro.
European Union
Annita Hipper, foreign affairs spokesperson for the European Commission, said the EU did not intend to recognize Rodríguez as interim president. In a press briefing, she emphasized that both Rodríguez and Maduro lacked electoral legitimacy. However, the European Commission has indicated it will maintain “limited contact” with Venezuelan officials.
Germany
While initially condemning Maduro, calling for a political solution and respect for international law, the Merz government stated it was still conducting a legal assessment of US actions. A spokesperson of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs questioned Rodriguez’s legitimacy.
France
After political backlash caused by Macron’s initial reaction celebrating Maduro’s extraction and calling for Edmundo González to be sworn in, a French government spokesperson said the president remained neutral about the method used to remove Maduro, and continued calling for González to be sworn in.
Turkey
After Maduro’s removal, President Erdogan has remained moderately silent. In the direct aftermath of the extraction, his government called for restraint of all parties involved for the sake of regional safety in a statement. On January 5th, Erdogan stated that he brought up his criticisms of the military operation to Trump during a phone call.
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has faced questions from the United States Senate about President Donald Trump’s ongoing campaign to slash interest rates, despite concerns that such a move could turbo-charge inflation.
Bessent appeared on Thursday before the Senate’s Financial Stability Oversight Council.
Recommended Stories
list of 3 itemsend of list
There, he received a grilling from Democrats over rising consumer prices and concerns about Trump’s attempts to influence the Federal Reserve, the US central bank.
One of his early clashes came with Senator Elizabeth Warren, who sought answers about a report in The Wall Street Journal that indicated Trump joked about suing his nominee for the Federal Reserve chair, Kevin Warsh, if he failed to comply with presidential demands.
“Mr Secretary, can you commit right here and now that Trump’s Fed nominee Kevin Warsh will not be sued, will not be investigated by the Department of Justice, if he doesn’t cut interest rates exactly the way that Donald Trump wants?” Warren asked.
Bessent evaded making such a commitment. “That is up to the president,” he replied.
Senators Tim Scott and Elizabeth Warren speak during a hearing on the Financial Stability Oversight Council’s annual report to Congress [Jonathan Ernst/Reuters]
Pressure on Federal Reserve members
Last week, Trump announced Warsh would be his pick to replace the current Federal Reserve chair, Jerome Powell, who has faced bitter criticism over his decision to lower interest rates gradually.
By contrast, Trump has repeatedly demanded that interest rates be chopped as low as possible, as soon as possible.
In December, for instance, he told The Wall Street Journal that he would like to see interest rates at “one percent and maybe lower than that”.
“We should have the lowest rate in the world,” he told the newspaper. Currently, the federal interest rate sits around 3.6 percent.
Experts say a sudden drop in that percentage could trigger a short-term market surge, as loans become cheaper and money floods the economy. But that excess cash could drive down the value of the dollar, leading to higher prices in the long term.
Traditionally, the Federal Reserve has served as an independent government agency, on the premise that monetary decisions for the country should be made without political interference or favour.
But Trump, a Republican, has sought to bring the Federal Reserve under his control, and his critics have accused him of using the threat of legal action to pressure Federal Reserve members to comply with his demands.
In August, for instance, he attempted to fire Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook based on allegations of mortgage fraud, which she has denied.
Cook had been appointed to the central bank by Trump’s predecessor and rival, Democrat Joe Biden, and she has accused Trump of seeking her dismissal on political grounds. The Supreme Court is currently hearing the case.
Then, in early January, the Department of Justice opened a criminal investigation into Powell, echoing accusations Trump made, alleging that Powell had mismanaged renovations to the Federal Reserve building.
Powell issued a rare statement in response, accusing Trump of seeking to bully Federal Reserve leaders into compliance with his interest rate policy.
“The threat of criminal charges is a consequence of the Federal Reserve setting interest rates based on our best assessment of what will serve the public, rather than following the preferences of the President,” Powell wrote.
Senator Thom Tillis, a Republican who is not seeking reelection, has been critical of the probe of Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell [Jonathan Ernst/Reuters]
Bipartisan scrutiny of Powell probe
Given the string of aggressive actions against Powell and Cook, Trump’s joke about suing Warsh fuelled rumours that the Federal Reserve’s independence could be in peril.
Within hours of making the joke on January 31, Trump himself faced questions about how serious he might have been.
“It’s a roast. It’s a comedy thing,” Trump said of his remarks as he spoke to reporters on Air Force One. “It was all comedy.”
Warren, however, pressed Bessent about Trump’s remarks and chided the Treasury chief for not rejecting them.
“I don’t think the American people are laughing,” Warren told Bessent. “They’re the ones who were struggling with the affordability.”
The prospect of Trump exerting undue influence over the Federal Reserve even earned a measure of bipartisan criticism during Thursday’s council meeting.
Senator Thom Tillis, a Republican from North Carolina, opened his remarks to Bessent with a statement denouncing the probe into Powell, even though he acknowledged he was “disappointed” with the current Fed chair.
Still, Tillis emphasised his belief that Powell committed no crime, and that the investigation would discourage transparency at future Senate hearings.
He imagined future government hearings becoming impeded by legal formalities, for fear of undue prosecution.
“They’re going to be flanked with attorneys, and anytime that they think that they’re in the middle of a perjury trap, they’re probably just going to say, ‘I’ll submit it to the record after consultation with my attorneys,’” Tillis said, sketching out the scenario.
“Is that really the way we want oversight to go in the future?”
For his part, Bessent indicated that he backed the Federal Reserve’s long-term goal to keep interest rates at about 2 percent.
“It is undesirable to completely eliminate inflation,” Bessent said. “What is desirable is to get back to the Fed’s 2 percent target, and for the past three months, we’ve been at 2.1 percent.”
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent attends a Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee hearing on the Financial Stability Oversight Council on February 5 [Jonathan Ernst/Reuters]
Scrutinising the lawsuit against the IRS
As Thursday’s hearing continued, Bessent was forced to defend the Trump administration on several fronts, ranging from its sweeping tariff policy to its struggle to lower consumer prices.
But another element of Trump’s agenda took centre stage when Democrat Ruben Gallego of Arizona had his turn at the microphone.
Gallego sought to shine a light on the revelation in January that Trump had filed a lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) — part of his own executive branch.
Trump is seeking $10bn in damages for the leak of his tax returns during his first term as president. The IRS itself was not the source of the leak, but rather a former government contractor named Charles Littlejohn, who was sentenced to five years in prison.
Bessent was not named as a defendant in the lawsuit, though he currently serves both as the Treasury secretary and the acting commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service.
Critics have argued that Trump’s lawsuit amounts to self-dealing: He holds significant sway over the Justice Department, which would defend the federal government against such lawsuits, and he could therefore green-light his own settlement package.
In Thursday’s exchange with Gallego, Bessent acknowledged that any damages paid to Trump would come from taxpayer funds.
“ Where would that $10bn come from?” Gallego asked.
“ It would come from Treasury,” Bessent replied. He then underscored that Trump has indicated any money would go to charity and that the Treasury itself would not make the decision to award damages.
Still, Gallego pressed Bessent, pointing out that the Treasury would ultimately have to disburse the funds — and that Bessent would be in charge of that decision.
That circumstance, Gallego argued, creates a conflict of interest, since Bessent is Trump’s political appointee and can be fired by the president.
“Have you recused yourself from any decisions about paying the president on these claims?” Gallego asked.
Bessent sidestepped the question, answering instead, “I will follow the law.”
The engines are still 1.6-litre V6 turbo hybrids, as they have been since 2014, but one of the two electrical motors that recovered energy has been removed.
The total amount of electrical energy has been increased by a factor of three, but the battery is more or less the same size. If the battery is fully depleted, the engine loses 350kw (470bhp), leading to potentially dramatic speed differentials.
Drivers will be backing off towards the end of straights – and being careful about when they apply the throttle – to ensure the most efficient energy usage, even on a qualifying lap.
The cars are also smaller and lighter, have less downforce and have ‘active aerodynamics’ – where both front and rear wings open on the straights to increase speed and the possibility for energy recovery.
Norris said the new car “certainly feels more powerful and quicker” on the straight.
“The biggest challenge at the minute is battery management and knowing how to utilise that in the best way,” he said.
“It’s not simple. You can explain it in quite simple terms. It’s just you have a very powerful battery that doesn’t last very long, so knowing how to use it in the right times, how much energy, how much of that power you use, how you split it up around the lap…
“The biggest challenge is how you can recover the batteries as well as possible, and that’s when it comes down to using the gears, hitting the right revs.
“Obviously, you’ve got some turbo lag now, which we’ve never really had before. All of these little things have crept back in, but I don’t think that changes too much.
“In a perfect world, I probably wouldn’t have [all] that in a race car, but it’s just F1. Sometimes you have these different challenges.”
His team-mate Oscar Piastri said the cars were “not as alien as I think we might have feared” and insisted he “didn’t think F1 had lost its identity at all”.
The Australian added: “There’s going to be some things to get used to but in terms of some of the fears that maybe we had before we got on track, a significant majority of those have been alleviated now.
“There’ll be some differences, but I think fundamentally they’re still the fastest cars in the world.”
“You buy a player for a lot of money and he is not able to play for a rule I don’t understand. Hopefully they can change it,” he added.
City’s other January signing, winger Antoine Semenyo, arrived at the club from Bournemouth four days prior to their trip to the north east for the first leg against Newcastle, in which he scored.
“Antoine arrived before the first [game] so could play. And now it’s the final. Why should he [Guehi] not play? Why not? We pay his salary, he is our player,” Guardiola added.
“I said to the club, they have to ask, definitely. I don’t understand the reason why he cannot play in the final in March, when I have been here for a long time.
“The rules to buy a player depends on Fifa, Uefa, the Premier League who say, OK the transfer window is open, when you buy a player you have to play, no? It’s logic. Of course we are going to try to ask [for] him to play. Pure logic.
Asked what he thought the answer will be from the EFL, City’s Spanish boss, added: “No. But we will try.”
City have already benefited from one rule change this season that allowed players to play for two teams in the same competition, instead of being cup tied.
That allowed Semenyo and Max Alleyne to feature in the semi-final matches, despite appearing for Bournemouth and Watford respectively in previous rounds.
UK airports that have scrapped 100ml liquid rule ahead of half-term – The Mirror
Need to know
Ahead of your next trip abroad, it’s important to know which airports still require liquids to be 100ml, as a number of major airports have ditched the limit at security
Check what airports require liquids to be 100ml and those that have scrapped the limit(Image: Getty Images/iStockphoto)
Airport rules have changed for 100ml liquids
Airports across the country have scrapped the 100ml liquid rule and now allow passengers to take up to 2 litres of liquids through security
The change is thanks to new CT scanners that provide security staff with detailed 3D images of bags and travellers can also leave their 2L liquids in their bags when going through airport security
Not every UK airport has implemented the switch, and some still require liquids to be 100ml or less. Some also require liquids to be in a plastic bag when going through airport security
It’s vital you check the airport before travelling, particularly in the lead-up to the February half-term, to avoid being delayed or having any liquid item confiscated at security
You should always check the airport’s rules, from where you are travelling home, as they can differ, particularly in a different country
List of airports that have scrapped the 100ml rule:
Birmingham
Bristol
Edinburgh
London Gatwick
London Heathrow
List of airports that still have the 100ml rule:
Aberdeen
Bournemouth
Cardiff
East Midlands
Glasgow International
Glasgow Prestwick
Inverness
Isle of Man
Leeds Bradford
Liverpool
London City
London Luton
London Southend
London Stansted
Manchester
Newcastle
Newquay
Norwich
Southampton
Teesside
Do you have a travel story to share? Email webtravel@reachplc.com
If you’re planning on a swim at one of France’s over 6,000 public pools this year, travel expert Simon Hood has a warning for you and advice about what to pack
13:40, 30 Jan 2026Updated 13:40, 30 Jan 2026
Men in France are only allowed to wear Speedos in swimming pools(Image: Getty Images/Cultura RF)
A travel expert has warned holidaymakers to think twice before dipping in France.
If you’re planning on a swim at one of France’s over 6,000 public pools this year, travel expert Simon Hood has a warning for you. Our French cousins to the south are traditionally known for their superior wines, fashion, and romantic charm. So much in fact that over 9-13 million Brits are estimated to visit the country’s beloved cities like Paris, and the glamorous Riviera each year.
However, while the European Union’s second-largest economy remains the envy of many, one little-known health regulation could upend many British holidays in the country this year. Simon, who is the executive director of John Mason International, says the rule is something to adhere to, or risk seeing you denied the ability to swim on your break.
Thought to date back to 1903, most public pools in France’s network of over 6,000 pools and open-air basins enforce a strict hygiene-based regulation on men’s swimwear.
Upheld by many levels of French local authorities règlement intérieur, or internal regulations, men must wear ‘tight-fitting swimwear’ like Speedos at public pools. Enforced by local municipalities or the ARS (French regional health authorities), disregarding the rule could see you packing from the local swimming pool.
So, while Speedos may certainly be out of fashion abroad, they’re integral for men’s attire in public pools in almost all major cities like Paris, Lyon, and Marseille.
Simon explained: “It may seem odd but failure to comply with these hygiene regulations could see you marched out of the pool and leave you waving at your family or friends from the outside. While most pools will offer appropriate swimwear onsite, it could set you back somewhere between €10-€20, a bit of an unnecessary spend, so before I’d recommend checking whether you need more appropriate swimwear or not.”
Some may think this law to be outdated and not enforced by French public pool staff and authorities, but Simon explains it comes from a very well-intended place.
“When you bottle it down, the rule stems from a concern about hygiene in the pools. It was originally enforced as culturally French people tend to walk around in swimwear well before they attend the pool in the summer months. Thinking about this, it means people could track all manner of dirt in once they jump into the pool hours later. We don’t wander around outside in our trunks in the UK, which is why it may seem odd, but local authorities are just trying to keep the pool clean.”
Eurocamp, a large holiday park chain with a number of sites in France, warns on its website: “If you’re headed for the beach, don’t worry: you can wear what you like. But it’s true that many swimming pools prohibit the majority of baggy or loose-fitting shorts. Why? Simply because of hygiene concerns.
“Of course, rules can – and do – vary from parc to parc. If in any doubt just ask. We’re only too happy to help and save you from any poolside blushes!”
The website adds information for those concerned by the policy. “Wearing tighter swimwear wastes less water. Their material usually dries quicker, staving off any potential buildup of bacteria,” Eurocamp’s blurb continues.
“But don’t panic: if you’re not keen on slipping on a pair of conventional Speedos, you can still opt for swimming shorts. Just make sure they’re more fitted, and above the knee, and opt for fabrics that are designed for the water. Have a look for a style called ‘jammers’ online, to get an idea of what’s usually allowed.”
There’s no sign these rules are due to be eased anytime soon. In May 2022, the French municipal authority in Grenoble attempted to wind down these restrictions, only to have the central government in Paris block any changes.
Simon added: “Like with any holiday, all I’d recommend is researching in advance since these rules exist for a reason. If Speedos aren’t your thing, either don’t swim or use a pool where these regulations don’t apply. At the end of the day, Speedos might be out of style, but missing out on a day at the pool due to your fashion choices could be worse.”
Serena Williams has refused to rule out returning to professional tennis after recently filing the necessary paperwork.
Williams, who won 23 Grand Slam singles titles, retired after the 2022 US Open.
In December, the International Tennis Integrity Agency confirmed to BBC Sport that the 44-year-old was back on the list of players registered for the drug testing pool.
At the time, the American said she was “not coming back” but during an interview on the Today Show on Wednesday, Williams did not rule out stepping back on to the court.
“I don’t know, I’m just going to see what happens,” Williams said.
Interviewer Savannah Guthrie pushed Williams further, saying “that’s a maybe to me”, and the seven-time Wimbledon champion said “It’s not a maybe”.
AFTER 20 years of strict liquid rules, airports are finally starting to scrap them.
The rule, introduced back in 2006 after a foiled liquid explosive bombing at London Heathrow, has long caused problems for unaware travellers heading abroad.
Sign up for the Travel newsletter
Thank you!
London Heathrow is the fifth UK airport to scrap all 100ml liquid rules
However, new CT scanners are slowly being rolled out across the UK, which will eventually end the rules that require liquids to be under 100ml, and fit in a small plastic bag.
Earlier this week, London Heathrow became the latest to lift some of the rules.
Despite this, there is some confusion – some airports no longer require liquids to be taken out of the bag, but still be 100ml, while others now allow up to 2l.
So we’ve rounded up all of the airport rules to explain which ones have lifted which rules, as well as which are yet to.
