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
India has shared an initial before and after of her new faceCredit: lovefromreyn/Instagram
5
She underwent a skin treatment for a more defined faceCredit: lovefromreyn/Instagram
5
The TV beauty was famously dubbed Love Island’s most attractive Islander everCredit: Instagram
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.
Read More on India Reynolds
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.
India Reynolds mocks her most awkward Love Island moment with throwback clip – do you remember iconic scene-
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
She returned to the spotlight earlier this year after appearing on All StarsCredit: Rex
5
India shared snaps from the treatment onlineCredit: lovefromreyn/Instagram
The late night circuit got its version of a unique crossover event Tuesday night as Jimmy Kimmel and Stephen Colbert appeared as guests on each other’s shows.
It was a fitting stunt considering both talk show hosts have been at the center of noteworthy professional situations shrouded in political and national significance, and both orbit in the same universe of President Trump’s contempt. The two hosts, who have vocally supported each other through the respective ordeals on their shows, were now able to continue the mutual backing in full force, face-to-face.
In the wake of the fallout of Kimmel’s suspension earlier this month over comments he made related to the death of conservative pundit Charlie Kirk, the recently reinstated host charged ahead with moving his L.A.-based show to Brooklyn for a week as planned, with Colbert among the star-studded list of guests. Colbert was effusive in his support of Kimmel after ABC pre-empted his talk show, criticizing the decision as “blatant censorship.”
Kimmel, meanwhile, appeared on “The Late Show,” alongside pop star Sam Smith. Earlier this year, CBS announced it was canceling “The Late Show” and would end after the season wraps in May 2026 — marking not only the end of Colbert’s run at the helm, but also bringing the late night institution to a close after a 30-year run. The decision, the company said, was due to financial reasons and not — as many have speculated — because of Colbert’s criticism of a deal between the Trump administration and Paramount, the parent company of CBS, the network that airs “The Late Show,” over.a 2024 “60 Minutes” interview with former Vice President Kamala Harris. Kimmel was one of the many who expressed disdain over the decision, even campaigning for Colbert to win an Emmy though Kimmel was on the same ballot. (Colbert ultimately won.)
Ahead of Kimmel’s appearance on “The Late Show,” Colbert hosted another late-night host, Conan O’Brien, who appeared as a guest Monday, opening the conversation with, “Stephen, how’s late night? What’s going on? I’ve been out of it for a little bit — catch me up on what’s happening.”
“I’ll send you the obituary,” Colbert replied.
Here are five standout moments from the night of shared grievances.
Stephen Colbert, left, and Jimmy Kimmel backstage at “The Late Show.”
(Scott Kowalchyk/CBS)
Colbert says he ‘sweat through his shirt’ the day he told his staff ’The Late Show’ was canceled
In his first sit-down interview since the “The Late Show” was canceled, Colbert walked Kimmel through the timeline of his show’s cancellation. He said he received the news from their mutual manager, James Dixon, after the taping of his show on July 16. He got home to his wife, Evie McGee-Colbert, two and a half hours later. As he walked into the apartment, according to Colbert, his wife said, “What happened? You get canceled?”
Dixon knew for a week but had been hesitant to relay the news to Colbert, who was on vacation. Once he learned the show’s fate, Colbert said he was unsure about when he should break the news to his staff, debating whether to wait until after the summer break or in September. His wife, though, said he would tell them the following day.
“We get into the building,” he said, “I go up the elevator, I walk through the offices. By time I get to my offices, I have sweat through my shirt because I didn’t want to know anything my staff didn’t know. And I said, ‘I’m going to tell my staff today,’ but then we couldn’t do a show if I told them because everybody would be bummed out and I would be bummed out.”
He only told executive producer Tom Purcell at first. He got through the whole show. And then he asked the audience and staff to stick around for one more act so he could record the announcement.
“My stage manager goes, ‘Oh no, we’re done, Steve, we’re done.’ And I said, ‘nope, there’s one more act of the show. Please don’t let the audience leave.’ And he goes, ‘No, boss, no. Boss. I got that. I got the thing here. We’ve done everything.’ And I said, ‘I’m aware of that. And I’m here to tell you there’s one more act of the show,’” he explained. “So I went backstage, I said, ‘Everybody, get on Zoom.’ I told everybody as briefly as I could so they wouldn’t find out about it on air. And then I went back out on stage to tell everybody. And I was so nervous about doing it right — because there was nothing in the prompter, I was just speaking off the cuff — that I f— up twice. And I had to restart and the audience thought it was a bit and they started going, ‘Steve, you can do it.’ Because I always messed up on the sentence that told them what was happening. And then I got to the sentence that actually told them was happening, and they didn’t laugh.”
Kimmel, in turn, shared that he found out about “The Late Show’s” cancellation while attending a No Kings protest march.
Kimmel says he took the call from ABC about his suspension from the bathroom
Jimmy Kimmel on “The Late Show with Stephen Colbert” Tuesday.
(Scott Kowalchyk/CBS)
Like Colbert, Tuesday marked the first time Kimmel had been interviewed since his suspension earlier this month, and he detailed the day he got the news he was being pulled from the air.
Kimmel’s office is busy — there’s roughly five other people working in there with him at all times, he told Colbert. So when ABC executives wanted to speak with him less than two hours before he was set to tape that night’s episode, Kimmel resorted to the bathroom to take the call in private.
“I’m on the phone with the ABC executives, and they say, ‘Listen, we want to take the temperature down. We’re concerned about what you’re gonna say tonight, and we decided that the best route is to take the show off the air,’” Kimmel said before the audience interjected with boos.
“There was a vote, and I lost the vote, and so I put my pants back on and I walked out to my office,” before telling some of his producing team the news, he said. “My wife said I was whiter than Jim Gaffigan when I came out.”
The decision on Kimmel’s suspension came so late in the day that the audience was already in their seats and had to be sent home, Kimmel told Colbert.
A sign of the times?
While touting the crossover event in his monologue (“We thought it might be a fun way to drive the President nuts so…”), Kimmel took time to stress the groundswell of support Colbert has both in New York, where he does his show, and in Kimmel’s homebase of L.A. To prove it, the camera cut to a photo showing signs that were displayed over the 101 freeway in L.A. when Kimmel went back on the air following his suspension. They read: “Public pressure works — Kimmel is back!”
“And this is the sign that is up now,” Kimmel continued, cutting to video of more recent signage over the freeway. “It says, “Now do Colbert.”
Gavin Newsom traveled to Brooklyn. Or did he?
Seth Meyers, left, Josh Meyers as California Gov. Gavin Newsom and Jimmy Kimmel on “Jimmy Kimmel Live!”
(Randy Holmes/ABC)
The California governor — who also moonlights (by proxy of his social media team) as the unofficial No. 1 Trump troll — made the cross-country trip to Brooklyn to surprise Kimmel on stage. Or did he? As the host mentioned the politician’s latest jab at Trump during his monologue, Newsom barreled onto the stage on a bike before finding his place next to Kimmel for a roughly six-minute spiel, delivered in his best California bro speak, on his mission to bring people together.
“L.A and N.Y.C., we’re not so different,” Newsom said. “I mean, we both just want to be free to smoke weed while riding our electric scooters to a drag queen brunch.”
As Kimmel pressed how exactly they can succeed in coming together, a blustering Newsom responded: “We already started, dog. These people get it. They have their own great late night hosts here in NYC, but tonight they chose my homie from L.A. They could be partying with my dude, J-Fall and The Roots crew — they’re a rap band … because you did look confused. Anyway, these Brooklyn-istas came to see you instead of checking out the political commentary of John Oliver or J-Stew or pay their respects to Colbert before he shipped off to Guantanamo Gay, or they could have gone and watched whatever that little creep Seth Meyers is doing … dude dresses like a substitute Montessori teacher. I mean, do you know why he sits down for his jokes? Same reason yo’ mama sits down to pee.”
Cue a special appearance from Seth Meyers, Kimmel’s friend and fellow late night host to rein in … his brother? For the non-late night connoisseurs reading this: Meyers’ brother, Josh, played the “Covid bro” version of Newsom during the pandemic in sketches that aired on NBC’s “Late Night with Seth Meyers.” Newsom took the gag further on Tuesday, impersonating Josh impersonating himself on Kimmel’s stage.
“We’re bros, but no, we’re not,” Newsom as Josh said. “Look, I get this all the time, probably because we’re both so hot.”
Meanwhile, keeping the planned awkwardness going, Kimmel took the opportunity to mention to Meyers that he was in town if he wanted to get dinner. Meyers responded: “What happened with your show? I thought this whole thing was, you know … “
“We’re back on the air,” Kimmel said. “We’re back on now.”
It should also be noted that Kimmel, Colbert and Meyers later posed for a photo onstage and uploaded it to their respective social media accounts with the caption, “Hi Donald!”
Guillermo brings the fun (and the tequila)
Guillermo Rodriguez, left, Jimmy Kimmel and Stephen Colbert taking a round of shots on “The Late Show.”
(Scott Kowalchyk/CBS)
Looking ahead at the remaining months Colbert will be on the air, Kimmel asked the host when he was going to “go nuts,” and suggested he lose his glasses and “maybe do some ayahuasca on set.” Kimmel then gifted him a bong with a Statue of Liberty design, which he called a “chemistry set.”
Colbert started playing along by unbuttoning his blazer and saying “f— that” to a signal that he only had a minute left in the segment. (“What are they gonna do, cancel me?” Colbert asked). Then, as if right on cue, Guillermo Rodriguez, Kimmel’s friend and sidekick on his show, came onto the stage with tequila (and three shot glasses) in hand.
On the first round of Don Julio, Colbert made a toast: “To good friends, great jobs and late-night TV.”
Colbert then poured another round and Kimmel pulled out the bong he had gifted the host. The group then took one more shot together and Kimmel toasted to Colbert.
Guillermo, who got a round of hearty cheers from the crowd, is known for giving out shots and toasting with A-Listers at awards shows and other Hollywood events.
Video from Pakistan shows an explosion outside a paramilitary headquarters in Quetta, where authorities say at least 10 people were killed and dozens injured in a suicide car bombing.
SCARLETT Moffatt has wowed fans after showing off her incredible weight loss – revealing she’s ditched her size 18 clothes for good.
The former Gogglebox star, 31, left viewers stunned as she unveiled her slimmer figure on Big Brother Late and Live on Sunday.
6
Scarlett Moffatt stunned fans with her incredible weight lossCredit: Instagram/scarlettmoffatt
6
She previously opened up about the gruelling bootcamps and rigourous exerciseCredit: Instagram/scarlettmoffatt
6
She appeared on Big Brother Late & Live on SundayCredit: ITV
Scarlett looked happier than ever as she wowed viewers in a dark green co-ord top and mini skirt with feather deatiling at the trims.
She oozed confidence wearing a pair of leopard print block high heels and styled her dark hair in classy loose curls.
The reality star posted her look on Instagram, with the caption: “Always been a huge fan of big brother, in fact my guilty pleasure will forever be a chicken kebab and watching reality tv!
“So glad I got to do a major tick off my bucket list and be at a launch night at @bbuk“.
Fans flooded the comments gushing over her transformation, with one saying: “You look amazing.”
Another added: “Stunning!!🔥 😍😍 need outfit drop pls!”
A third penned: “Looking beautiful gal.”
This comes after Scarlett revealed she finally feels “happier” than ever after years of yo-yo dieting, brutal bootcamps and body battles.
She admitted she once dropped to a size 8 after punishing herself with 700-calorie days and a gruelling Swiss bootcamp involving six hours of exercise – all in a bid to stay slim after releasing her controversial fitness DVD in 2016.
But despite shedding three stone, Scarlett confessed she was still miserable and wracked with body image issues.
Scarlett Moffatt reveals when she plans to marry policeman partner Scott as star opens up on wedding plans
Now, she says she’s proud to embrace her curves – and is finally comfortable in her own skin.
“The thing with being body positive and having body confidence is just celebrating everybody’s body,” Scarlett previously told The Sun.
“As long as you are healthy, being yourself and you’re being nice to people, you do you.”
The I’m A Celeb star said she regrets the years she “missed out” on life because of low self-esteem, but now urges fans to stop being so hard on themselves.
Scarlett even revealed her own trick – imagining she’s speaking to her younger self whenever negative thoughts creep in.
“Would you ever say horrible things to a six-year-old?” she said. “Of course not. So don’t say it to yourself either.”
Now proudly flying the flag as a plus-size TV presenter, Scarlett says she’s thrilled kids today get to see more diverse faces and body types on screen.
Since bursting onto Gogglebox in 2014 aged just 23, Scarlett has carved out a successful career in telly.
And now she’s moving into hard-hitting documentaries, with her latest, Britain’s Tourette’s Mystery: Scarlett Moffatt Investigates, airing soon on Channel 4.
6
Scarlett admitted she was 18 stoneCredit: Getty
6
She said her weight effected her self-esteemCredit: Getty
6
But now she is proudly flying the flag as a plus-size TV presenterCredit: Rex
Dancer Dianne Buswell announced she was expecting her first child with partner Joe Sugg earlier this month as she performed her first dance with Stefan Dennis on Saturday night
10:23, 28 Sep 2025Updated 10:24, 28 Sep 2025
Strictly’s Dianne Buswell showed off her baby bump on the live show(Image: CREDIT LINE:BBC/Guy Levy)
Strictly Come Dancing kicked off it’s first couples dances on last night’s show (Saturday 27 September) and one particular person who was glowing was pregnant dancer Dianne Buswell. She and her celebrity partner Stefan Dennis took to the dancefloor to perform a Foxtrot to the Neighbours theme song as she showed off her growing baby bump.
The Aussie native, 36, announced her pregnancy with partner Joe Sugg earlier this month and despite questions being raised about whether she would be able to still compete, Dianne proved she can do it all as she showed off her pregnancy glow.
For her performance, she wore a flowy blue dress with flower detailing and a v-neck, which perfectly held her growing baby bump. The pair received a score of 22 from the judges, putting them in eighth place on leaderboard out of the 15 contestants.
Dianne’s pregnancy didn’t go unmentioned on the live show as her co-stars flocked to congratulate her and make her feel special. Following their performance, host Tess Daly exclaimed: “Dianne, we can not let you leave the floor without saying congratulations.”
She responded gleefully: “Thank you so much! “That’s why we’re in blue tonight,” she laughed before saying: “Not really, but lets pretend!”
As she and Stefan made their way upstairs, Claudia Winkleman decided to throw her an impromptu baby shower. Pro dancer Neil Jones came out wearing an animal costume and she was presented with balloons, a teddy bear and some cupcakes.
Fans flocked to X to compliment the mum-to-be during the live show as one person gushed: “Dianne’s baby bump awwwww,” Another fan said: “Dianne’s baby bump. So happy for Dianne and Joe. They met on Strictly 7 years ago and now a baby is on the way.”
Somebody else commented: “Stefan and Dianne were incredible and Dianne looked so beautiful! And her little bump showing,” while a fourth added: “Love this when the #strictly cast congratulated Dianne on her baby news, she is going to be an amazing mum.”
Her baby bump television debut comes after vile trolls complained about seeing her pregnant on the show. One troll in particular wrote on social media: “I don’t want to see her dance being pregnant, it’s already feeling uncomfortable and she’s only starting to show. It’s really not appropriate.”
Dianne posted it on her Instagram story and responded: “”I can’t believe in 2025 things like this are still being said.”
Her fans rushed to her defence, with one writing: “Saw @diannebuswell’s story and just had to say something. Her dancing pregnant in Strictly this year is nothing short of beautiful and magical. Women’s bodies are INCREDIBLE and I don’t actually think people realise that.
“This will show all of those people who believe this weird twisted notion that women should hide away when they’re carrying a baby that women are capable of much more & can do anything.
“You’re inspirational and incredible. We as a family cannot wait to watch you doing what you love and were born to do again every weekend. And we will be cheering you on as always beautiful.” Dianne reposted the comment with a series of happy crying and heart emojis.
She makes history as the first ever dancer to be pregnant while competing on the BBC One show.
Like that one friend who repeatedly promises to quit drinking after just one last round, the American government is staggering toward another shutdown. It’s starting to seem inevitable — because it looks as though neither side is going to swerve in this game of chicken.
Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), the Senate minority leader who somehow manages to perpetually look both tired and smug, can’t afford another political retreat. He’s refusing to give Republicans another blank check, aiming instead to wring out some key concessions in exchange for a few Democratic votes to get a funding bill through the upper chamber.
The problem? President Trump, who runs the show for Republicans, views a shutdown the same way Hans Gruber viewed the FBI in “Die Hard”: as a feature, not a bug. Shuttered agencies and mass firings of federal workers aren’t obstacles; they’re leverage (and sometimes the goal itself).
Schumer can’t back down, and Trump doesn’t want to back down. That’s why the shutdown feels more imminent than the last time we flirted with one, back in March, when Schumer and Democrats folded.
In fairness, their reasoning wasn’t crazy. Trump and Elon Musk were running roughshod with their Department of Government Efficiency, and a shutdown would have only given Republicans more discretion to decide which services (Space Force, a new White House ballroom and, I don’t know, a National Strategic Spray Tan Reserve) were “essential.”
Democrats also had a plausible reason to believe that Trump’s steep “reciprocal” tariffs would wreck the economy. They reasoned that if they just kept their heads down, the president would take all the blame for the crash — a reasonable idea that fell apart when Trump pumped the brakes before careening the economy off a cliff.
Since then, Trump has engaged in a campaign of authoritarian-tinged vengeance at such an impressive pace that the Democrats’ strategy of “playing possum” seems laughably passive and utterly naive — like assuming a hurricane will just get tired and stop.
So now Democrats are thinking, “Well, things can’t get any worse if we fight back.”
(Spoiler alert: Things can always get worse.)
Still, you can’t blame Dems for drawing a line in the sand, consequences be damned. Blocking government funding is one of the only mechanisms at the disposal of a minority party to demonstrate their opposition. Moral outrage and pride practically demand it.
Why help bankroll a government led by a man who doesn’t negotiate in good faith and seems intent on bulldozing democracy itself?
Why be complicit in normalizing — and funding! — Trump’s abnormal behavior?
Unfortunately, most voters don’t care about democracy in the abstract, and even fewer care about the inner workings of Congress. They care about kitchen-table issues.
So Democrats are trying to marry their righteous fury with something more practical and concrete — casting the shutdown as a battle to extend Obamacare subsidies and undo GOP Medicaid cuts.
If you’re keeping score, the opposition party is now trying to portray this looming shutdown as being about multiple things. And anyone who’s ever cracked a marketing textbook knows, that’s a fraught strategy. Dare I say “doomed”? If you can’t stay on one message, your opponent will control the narrative — meaning Republicans will blame the fallout on obstructionist Democrats.
Republicans have a simpler pitch that could almost fit on a bumper sticker: “We just want to keep things funded at the current level, plus toss in a little extra security for lawmakers.”
Which message will prevail? Who will take the blame if the government shuts down and Americans are suffering in myriad ways? Democrats say that Republicans control everything, so the buck stops with them. Republicans will say the Senate requires 60 votes and Democrats are withholding support to score political points. It’s not a slam dunk for either party. The American people just want the government to function, and neither side is making that easy.
You really have to squint to imagine a scenario where Dems could honestly declare “mission accomplished” when this is all over. Still, there is a growing sense that it’s better to go down fighting, even if you’re destined to lose (which they might be).
The good news: We’re not talking about the debt ceiling or a possible government default; it’s just a government shutdown (something that has happened many times already). Social Security checks will still arrive. Federal workers will eventually get paid. Parks will close. Life will stagger on.
And so, barring some deus ex machina, we slouch toward another shutdown: a bureaucratic farce that everyone can see coming a mile away. It accomplishes nothing productive, yet feels destined to happen — like the “Austin Powers” slow-motion steamroller gag, except stretched out over weeks, costing billions of dollars and hurting millions of lives.
We’ve seen this movie before. We’re the ones being flattened.
“These are the results from my breast reduction and uplift @pallmallcosmetics no implant, all still natural. Just lifted and reduced.
“4 sizes smaller (I say small) I wanted them kept on the larger side. My scarring is fading so well too!”
Former Page 3 girl Rhian was flooded with messages after showing off the results, with one fan writing: “They are amazing, so happy for you Rhian and glad you’re doing well and you feel great and better for doing it.”
Another said: “I think they look amazing and good on you for doing it. Your body, your choice.”
And a third added: “I’m so happy for you! And it’s amazing to share that you can have surgery without the need of implants and also for yourself and what you want!”
Rhian Sugden reveals 34GG boobs left her in agony and her nipples were ELEVEN cm too low before reduction surgery
Rhian made the decision to go under the knife after her cup size jumped from a DD/E to a HH following her pregnancy.
She previously told fans: “This breast reduction + uplift (no implants) has been completely life-changing.
“The weight off my back, the freedom to choose clothes I actually like, the confidence boost, the energy to move without pain, it’s like I’ve been given a new lease of life.”
4
She is married to actor and former Coronation Street star Oliver MellorCredit: Instagram
Sept. 23 (UPI) — Nexstar Media Group will not air “Jimmy Kimmel, Live!” and joined the Sinclair Broadcast Group in pre-empting the ABC talk show when it is scheduled to resume on Tuesday.
Nexstar officials announced their decision a day after Sinclair said it also would pre-empt Kimmel’s show due to his falsely claiming the alleged shooter of conservative activist Charlie Kirk was a MAGA supporter.
“We made a decision last week to pre-empt ‘Jimmy Kimmel, Live!’ following what ABC referred to as Mr. Kimmel’s’ ill-timed and insensitive’ comments at a critical time in our national discourse,” Nexstar officials said in a news release, as reported by NBC News.
“We stand by that decision pending assurance that all parties are committed to fostering an environment of respectful, constructive dialogue in the markets we serve.”
Nexstar and Sinclair own a combined total of nearly 70 local stations that account for nearly a fourth of ABC stations, according to The New York Times.
Nexstar and Sinclair intend to air news programming instead of Kimmel’s talk show.
Rep. James McGovern, D-Mass., wrote a letter to Nexstar Media Group executives that “demands answers” regarding why they are pre-empting “Jimmy Kimmel, Live!” on affiliate stations.
“The public owns the airwaves — not the FCC chairman, not [President] Donald Trump and not Nexstar,” McGovern said Monday in a press release.
“Local TV stations have a responsibility to serve the public interest — not advance political vendettas against those who express opinions the government doesn’t like,” he continued.
“Using the threat of license revocation to strong-arm a network into silencing a comedian is not only corrupt — it’s almost certainly unconstitutional.”
During his opening monologue on Sept. 15, Kimmel said, “The MAGA gang desperately [is] trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them and doing everything they can to score political points from it.”
ABC and its owner, the Walt Disney Corp., suspended his show indefinitely the next day but announced it would resume Tuesday night.
It’s a number that’s both tantalizing and fraught, depending on your political perspective.
For Democrats, that eyelash-thin margin means they’re thisclose to regaining power and a political toehold in next year’s midterm election. All they need is a gain of three House seats. For Trump and fellow Republicans, it means their hegemony over Washington and life as we know it dangles by a perilously thin thread.
That tension explains the redistricting wars now blazing throughout our great land.
“History is on Democrats’ side, but it’s too early to know what the national political environment is going to be like,” said Nathan Gonzales, one of the country’s top political handicappers and publisher of the nonpartisan campaign guide Inside Elections. “We don’t know the overall mood of the electorate, how satisfied voters [will be] with Republicans in power in Washington or how open to change they’ll be a year from now.”
A look back offers some clues, though it should be said no two election cycles are alike and the past is only illuminating insofar as it casts light on certain patterns.
(Take that as a caveat, weasel words or whatever you care to call it.)
In the last half century, there have been 13 midterm elections. The out party — that is, the one that doesn’t hold the presidency — has won 13 or more House seats in eight of those elections. Going back even further, since World War II the out party has gained an average of more than two dozen House seats.
In Trump’s last midterm election, in 2018, Democrats won 40 House seats — including seven in California — to seize control. (That was 17 more than they needed.) A Democratic gain of that magnitude seems unlikely next year, barring a complete and utter GOP collapse. That’s because there are fewer Republicans sitting in districts that Democrats carried in the most recent presidential election, which left them highly vulnerable.
In 2018, 25 Republicans represented districts won by Hillary Clinton. In 2026, there are just three Republicans in districts Kamala Harris carried. (Thirteen Democrats represent districts that Trump won.)
Let’s pause before diving into more numbers.
OK. Ready?
There are 435 House seats on the ballot next year. Most are a lock for one party or the other.
Based on the current congressional map, Inside Elections rates 64 House seats nationwide as being at least somewhat competitive, with a dozen considered toss-ups. The Cook Political Report, another gold-plated handicapper, rates 72 seats competitive or having the potential to be so, with 18 toss-ups.
Both agree that two of those coin-flip races are in California, where Democrats Adam Gray and Derek Tran are fighting to hang onto seats they narrowly won in, respectively, the Central Valley and Orange County. (The Democratic gerrymander seeks to shore up those incumbents.)
You really can’t assess the 2026 odds without knowing how the redistricting fight comes out.
Republicans could pick up as many as 16 seats through partisan map-making, Inside Elections forecasts, a number that would be reduced if California voters approve Proposition 50. Erin Covey, who analyzes House races for the Cook Report, puts GOP gains as high as 13, again depending on the November outcome in California.
One huge element is Trump’s approval rating. Simply put, the less popular a president, the more his party tends to suffer at the polls.
Right now Trump’s approval rating is a dismal 43%, according to the Cook Report’s PollTracker. That could change, but it’s a danger sign for Republicans. Over the past three decades, every time the president’s net job approval was negative a year from the midterm election, his party lost House seats.
Another thing Democats have going for them is the passion of their voters, who’ve been flocking to the polls in off-year and special elections. The Downballot, which tracks races nationwide, finds Democratic candidates have far surpassed Kamala Harris’ 2024 performance, a potential harbinger of strong turnout in 2026.
Those advantages are somewhat offset by a GOP edge in two other measures. Republicans have significantly outraised Democrats and have limited the number of House members retiring. Generally speaking, it’s tougher for a party to defend a seat when it comes open.
In short, for all the partisan passions, the redistricting wars aren’t likely to decide control of the House.
“Opinions of the economy and Trump’s handling of it, the popularity (or lack thereof) of Republicans’ signature legislation” — the tax-cutting, Medicaid-slashing bill passed in July — as well as “partisan enthusiasm to vote are going to be more determinative to the 2026 outcome than redistricting alone,” Amy Walter, the Cook Report’s editor-in-chief, wrote in a recent analysis.
In other words, control of the House will most likely rest in the hands of voters, not scheming politicians.
EXCLUSIVE: Hollyoaks and Loose Women star Sherrie Hewson says older television viewers are being treated like “coffin dodgers” and more older people need to be seen on screen
Dan Laurie Deputy Editor of Screen Time
16:02, 19 Sep 2025Updated 16:06, 19 Sep 2025
Sherrie Hewson says TV bosses need to make more shows with older people in them(Image: Getty)
Sherrie Hewson says TV bosses need to make more shows with older people in them.
The former Loose Women star, 75, believes mature telly fans are being treated like “coffin dodgers” and broadcasters are “chasing the young and forgetting the old”.
According to a new report called The Upper Third, commissioned by Freeview broadcaster Great! TV, more than a quarter of viewers feel forgotten by today’s TV producers, despite watching more television than any other age group.
The Great! network – including Great! TV, Great! Action, Great! Mystery, and Great! Romance – is relaunching for the very audiences who feel left behind by normal TV, prioritising much-loved and classic, high-quality TV series and movies.
The former Loose Women, 75, panelist believes mature telly fans are being treated like “coffin dodgers” (Image: Mike Marsland/WireImage)
Speaking about the campaign, Sherrie said: “This is a brilliant campaign and long overdue. If you lived in my world, you’d know this is exactly what people want.
“Today’s TV so often chases the young and forgets the rest but for many of us, the joy of great television has always been simple – you just watch a show and you laugh, or you don’t. Funny is funny.
“Look at the adverts on television, you never see older people in adverts unless they’re in a funeral parlour or a cremation or life insurance. It’s like we’re being treated like coffin dodgers or something.”
Sherrie is currently playing Martha Blake in Hollyoaks(Image: Lime)
She continued: “I did the remake of Are You Being Served? and I played Mrs Slocombe and we got something like eight million viewers for that one episode and every character in that is older. Everybody loved it.
“You don’t have to remake these shows but just make the older shows more accessible so people can see them.”
Sherrie thinks entertainment shows such as Naked Attraction are taking too greater priority over the dramas and sitcoms she grew up loving.
Sherrie thinks entertainment shows such as Naked Attraction are taking too greater priority over the dramas and sitcoms (Image: ITV)
She added: “Somebody’s paid to have these commissioned and I don’t get it. Maybe it’s because I’m the age I am but my daughter who’s 40 thinks its awful to so it’s not just me.”
Sherrie is currently playing Martha Blake in Channel 4 soap Hollyoaks, the mother of serial killer Jeremy Blake (Jeremy Sheffield).
She is also known for playing Maureen Holdsworth in Coronation Street, Lesley Meredith in Emmerdale, Joyce Temple-Savage in Benidorm and for her stint as Loose Women panellist.
According to the source, Anton found the offer to feature on this particular reality TV show “too good an offer to turn down”, especially since it involved “all expenses paid fun in the sun, with a bit of drama thrown in to boot.”
Though the TV personality, 31, will now be gearing up for his next appearance on-screen, he’s recently fallen out of favour with the public.
Anton became under-fire after making a post to Instagram where his followers accused him of using Ricky Hatton‘s death to boost his Instagram views.
Read Celeb Ex On The Beach
In a post mentioning the passing of the late boxer, Anton appeared to plug his services as a personal trainer and online coach.
Many commenters found this to be disrespectful and distasteful.
One commenter even said Anton needs to have a “word with himself” and reflect on his actions.
Featuring on Celeb Ex On The Beach will be another way for Anton to promote his company: another reason cited by the source for Anton’s decision to go on the programme.
“While Anton is focused on his personal training company, being on TV now and then always helps boost the business and keep those clients coming in.”
Anton featured on series five of Love Island back in 2019 before going all-in on his love for fitness.
Love Island’s Anton Danyluk reveals staggering 19lbs weight loss in just six weeks
Following his exit from the show, be became a bodybuilder and even fronted a BBC documentary called Anton Danyluk on Body Shame in 2023.
It is not yet confirmed exactly when Celeb Ex On The Beach’s fourth series is going to air, but a show source revealed “it’s in the very early stages but should film towards the end of the year.”
The show’s cast will consist of well-known faces from other reality shows including Love Island and MAFS, as well as Netflix stars.
6
Anton got close to Georgia Harrison on Love Island: All StarsCredit: Rex
6
He vowed it would be the last time he featured on a reality TV programmeCredit: MTV
Spanish cops have now released an image of James, in their desperate attempt to locate him.
He is pictured ordering food at the kebab joint wearing a blue T-shirt with his Jack Russell on his lap.
In one photograph, three diners appear to be enjoying a meal behind him as he stands at the checkout.
It comes as official records show James reported his passport as lost or stolen at the Irish Embassy on August 19 – a day after he was last seen or heard from.
At the time, his half-sister Nikita said: “We know he’d had a drink but as a family we don’t believe he would recklessly set sail in the dark at night,” she said.
“It doesn’t make sense for it to be ‘oh he fell overboard’ because he was drunk, there are a lot of holes in the story.”
Paddy’s Anchor previously shared appeals by James’ worried family on social media saying: “Many of you have been asking, so we want to share this post from Jemsie’s family.
“His sister is still searching for him after he was last seen here in Las Palmas.
CCTV Footage of last recorded sighting of missing British woman Sarm Heslop revealed in BBC documentary
“His boat has since been found off the coast of Gran Canaria, but there has been no contact from him since.”
A call was made between August 24 and 25 in relation to James’ boat as police found it a day later 50 miles offshore.
At first they said James’ Jack Russell, known as Thumbelina, wasn’t on board but later said she was found with the boat.
Timeline of James Nunan’s disappearance
August 18:
18:16: James films himself on Facebook Live walking at Playa del Confital beach
22:00: He is last seen leaving Paddy’s Anchor bar in Las Palmas
22:39: Bank records show he purchased food from Rico Doner Kebab
August 19: His passport is reported “lost or stolen” to an Irish consulate in Gran Canaria
August 22: James’ mum reports him missing to Essex Police
Between August 24/25: A call was made in relation to James’ boat
August 25: Police find his boat 50 miles off the south coast of Gran Canaria
August 27: Police say they have also found his dog Thumbelina
There remains no information on where James could be.
A witness came forward to claim he spoke to James as he said the Brit was drunk but not acting in any unusual manner.
He had reportedly told him about his sailing adventures and that he planned to head to Lanzarote.
Some pub staff also claimed they were told not to speak to anyone about his mysterious disappearance.
A man reportedly answered phone calls at the pub saying: “It’s an open investigation and we’ve been told not to speak to anyone and I’ve just got to go with that I’m afraid.”
8
James was sailing around the world when he vanished
8
James’ Jack Russell, known as Thumbelina, was found
Asked if it was local police or Mr Nunan’s family who had asked him not to speak, he said: “I can’t talk about it, sorry.”
After his boat was found with the dog on board, it was towed back to Argineguin in the south of Gran Canaria.
A spokesperson for the Civil Guard said: “We are looking into this case. Several lines of investigation are being pursued.”
Jemsie had been about five-and-a-half months into his solo sailing trip when he vanished – and had been planning to travel to Brazil.
Nikita added that a distress signal was sent out in relation to his boat between August 24 and 25.
The dog found on board has since been taken to an animal shelter.
Jemsie’s father has travelled to the island searching for any signs of the missing 34-year-old.
The Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office has confirmed it is “supporting the family of a British man who has been reported missing in Spain“.
The National Police in Las Palmas and court officials on the island have been approached for comment.
8
He was headed for Brazil on his world tour
8
Police confirmed he last used his card to buy food at Rico Doner Kebab
ITV has suffered a major blow after several of its shows received official complaints to Ofcom, with Love Island and This Morning and Celebrity Big Brother amongst them
This Morning received hundreds of complaints after Rylan Clark made controversial comments on immigration(Image: Ken McKay/ITV/Shutterstock)
ITV has suffered a major blow after several of its shows received official complaints. The TV and entertainment experts at OLBG have analysed Ofcom complaints data to reveal the TV shows that have amassed the most viewer complaints in 2025, and several titles from the broadcaster have made the list.
Love Island has hit the top spot, with the ITV2 dating show, which recently crowned Toni Laites and Cach Mercer as its most recent winners, notched up 13,585 complaints.
It wasn’t looking good for its spin-off All Stars either, which is due to return next year for a third series, as the show, which brings back famous faces from the villa, received 2,264 in total.
Love Island, which wrapped up its latest series in July, has taken the top spot with nearly 14,000 complaints(Image: Matt Frost/ITV/Shutterstock)
Celebrity Big Brother also made the list, just a month after Coronation Street favourite Jack P Shepherd was crowned the winner of this year’s edition of the hit reality series. In total,1,224 complained to Ofcom about goings on in the house.
ITV1’s This Morning is a newcomer to the top 10. Towards the end of August, Rylan Clark, who was co-presenting with Josie Gibson, shared his strong opinions on illegal immigration in the UK, which generated 713 Ofcom complaints. Later that day, Rylan Clark took to Instagram to release a statement explaining his stance.
At first, he said: “I find it absolutely insane that all these people are risking their lives coming across the Channel. And when they get here, it does seem, and I think this is why a lot of Labour voters as well are saying there’s something wrong, it feels like, ‘Welcome, come on in’. That’s the narrative we’re being fed.
“Here’s the iPad. Here’s the NHS in reception of your hotel. Here’s three meals a day. Here’s a games room in the hotel. Have a lovely time and welcome.”
Hours later, Rylan took to his Instagram where he wrote: “You can be pro immigration and against illegal routes. You can support trans people and have the utmost respect for women. You can be heterosexual and still support gay rights. The list continues. Stop with this putting everyone in a box exercise and maybe have conversations instead of shouting on twitter!”
Celebrity Big Brother has also received hundreds of complaints, just months after Coronation Street star Jack P Shepherd was voted the public’s favourite housemate (Image: Vianney Le Caer/REX/Shutterstock for Big Brother)
Other shows to make the top 10 complaints include Vanessa Feltz’ eponymous Channel 5 programme, a natural rival to Loose Women, thanks to its air time. The chat show received 1,986 complaints in total, whilst GB News’ Headliners notched up 1,347 and Today With Samantha Washington by Sky News received 1,270. Filling out the Top 10 was Martin Daubney (with Alex Armstrong) on GB News, which received 301 complaints from viewers.
The complaints come amid major budget cuts for ITV, which will bring about massive changes to its soaps and Daytime output for 2026.
Kevin Lygo, Managing Director of ITV’s Media and Entertainment Division, announced the big changes in May, and insisted that they will allow the company to ‘deliver’ to the audience whilst also investing in other genres.
He said: “Daytime is a really important part of what we do, and these scheduling and production changes will enable us to continue to deliver a schedule providing viewers with the news, debate and discussion they love from the presenters they know and trust as well generating savings which will allow us to reinvest across the programme budget in other genres.
“These changes also allow us to consolidate our news operations and expand our national, international and regional news output and to build upon our proud history of trusted journalism at a time when our viewers need accurate, unbiased news coverage more than ever.
“I recognise that our plans will have an impact on staff off-screen in our Daytime production teams.” He added: “We will work with ITV Studios and ITN as they manage these changes to produce the shows differently from next year, and support them through this transition.“Daytime has been a core element of ITV’s schedule for over 40 years and these changes will set ITV up to continue to bring viewers award-winning news, views and discussion as we enter our eighth decade.”
Remember when the notion of government censorship in the U.S. seemed like the plot of an Orwellian novel, or something that happened in other places, countries where masked militia kidnap people off the street and disappear them? Our 1st Amendment rights as Americans seemed to guarantee that would never happen here. The state could not take away our free speech.
It turns out we don’t need a state-sponsored crackdown to punish those who express sentiments that offend, because the private sector has stepped in to do the job. An office supply store, a news network and an airline carrier are among companies that recently fired staff who made comments about influencer Charlie Kirk’s death that were interpreted as celebratory, insensitive or blaming the conservative activist’s polarizing viewpoints for his targeted killing.
Now Washington Post columnist Karen Attiah says that she was unfairly fired over thoughts she expressed following the assassination of Kirk last week in Utah. She wrote: “The Post accused my measured Bluesky posts of being ‘unacceptable’, ‘gross misconduct’ and of endangering the physical safety of colleagues — charges without evidence, which I reject completely as false.”
“They rushed to fire me without even a conversation,” Attiah said. “This was not only a hasty overreach, but a violation of the very standards of journalistic fairness and rigor the Post claims to uphold.” She said that in her posts she exercised “restraint even as I condemned hatred and violence.”
Her comments were largely about gun violence and issues of race. Attiah mentioned Kirk directly in just one post, paraphrasing from a comment he made about Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson and former Texas Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, both of whom are Black. “’Black women do not have the brain processing power to be taken seriously. You have to go steal a white person’s slot’ — Charlie Kirk,” she wrote.
Attiah didn’t celebrate the death of Kirk in her posts or make light of his slaying, but she didn’t mourn him either. In the current political environment, that alone could be enough to make her employer nervous, even compared to all the other truly awful stuff out there.
Sadly, the cruel, inhumane and politicized responses that followed Kirk’s tragic killing shouldn’t surprise anyone. Social media behaved as it always does — as a repository for every good, bad and really bad impulse experience following a tragedy or crisis.
The same quotient of 20% civility, 80% ugliness enveloped X, YouTube, TikTok and the like when three months ago Minnesota state Rep. Melissa Hortman and her husband, Mark, were assassinated in their home in a politically motivated attack. Democratic state Sen. John Hoffman and his wife, Yvette, were also allegedly shot by the same suspect in their home but survived.
The difference back in June? There wasn’t a mass movement to fire, cancel or silence those who minimized the tragic killings or, worse, turned them into a trolling opportunity. Republican Sen. Mike Lee of Utah blamed the killings on the left — “This is what happens when Marxists don’t get their way,” he wrote on X — and posted a picture of suspect Vance Boelter with the caption “Nightmare on Waltz Street.” It was a crass reference to Tim Walz, Minnesota’s Democratic governor, who was Kamala Harris’ running mate in the 2024 presidential election. Lee (who is now publicly mourning Kirk’s death) was taking his cues from the top.
President Trump’s short condemnation of Hortman’s killing on Truth Social stated that “such horrific violence will not be tolerated.” There was no lengthy eulogy, he did not attend the funeral, and when asked the day after Hortman’s killing if he had called Walz, the president said, “I could be nice and call, but why waste time?”
In response to Kirk’s killing, Trump issued an order to lower American flags to half-staff at the White House, all public buildings, U.S. embassies and military posts. He announced he would posthumously award Kirk the Presidential Medal of Freedom. And during an appearance Friday on “Fox & Friends,” he promised vengeance against the left for Kirk’s killing, though the suspect — let alone his motives — were still unknown at the time.
“I’ll tell you something that’s going to get me in trouble, but I couldn’t care less,” Trump said. “The radicals on the right oftentimes are radical because they don’t want to see crime. They don’t want to see crime. They’re saying, ‘We don’t want these people coming in. We don’t want you burning our shopping centers. We don’t want you shooting our people in the middle of the street.’ The radicals on the left are the problem. And they’re vicious, and they’re horrible, and they’re politically savvy.”
The prospect of retribution from a thin-skinned leader leaves no mystery as to why major media outlets such as the Post, “60 Minutes” and MSNBC appear to be reshaping their newsrooms to be less critical of the current administration. The same now goes for break rooms, shop floors and office cubicles across all sectors of American working life. It’s not the Big Brother scenario envisioned in George Orwell’s cautionary tale about a totalitarian state, “1984,” but it’s a start.
On Thursday, a Brazilian Supreme Court panel found former President Jair Bolsonaro guilty of multiple charges, including leading a criminal group and attempting the violent overthrow of democratic rule. He was sentenced to 27 years and three months in prison.
According to the prosecution, Bolsonaro and members of his cabinet and the military sought to orchestrate a coup after his electoral defeat in November 2022 and assassinate current president and political rival Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva. Brazil’s judiciary associated the former president’s actions with the events that led to the ransacking of the presidential palace, Congress and the Supreme Court in the capital Brasilia by his supporters in January 2023.
While the verdict was welcomed by other Latin American leaders like Colombian President Gustavo Petro and Chilean President Gabriel Boric, United States President Donald Trump’s administration, a staunch ally of Bolsonaro, swiftly condemned it. In the days leading up to the court panel’s verdict, Washington intensified pressure on Brazil’s government by imposing a 50 percent tariff on Brazilian goods and issuing personal sanctions against Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes under the Magnitsky Act, citing alleged human rights abuses.
But the Brazilian government and institutions were unshaken. Lula hailed the decision as “historic” and rejected US attempts of interference in Brazil’s internal affairs.
The verdict is indeed historic, not only because it marks the first time a Brazilian head of state was convicted on such charges but also because it demonstrates that despite Brazil’s tumultuous history, its democracy is a resilient, dynamic and adaptable system that works.
This may come as a surprise to some. After all, the country’s recent past reflects struggles with authoritarianism and repression. From the seven decades of imperial monarchy in the 19th century after independence from Portugal through the republican period, the revolution of 1930, the unstable parliamentarian regime, the military dictatorship during the Cold War and the impeachment of two presidents in the democratic era, Brazil could easily be labelled as an unstable and unpredictable state.
What is more, the country is situated in a region that has long known coups, dictatorships and authoritarianism, often backed or orchestrated by the US.
Brazil’s own military dictatorship was firmly supported by the US government. Washington encouraged and backed the military coup of 1964, which ushered in an era of bloody repression that would only end two decades later. And yet, the democratic system that followed proved resilient even when confronted with wrongdoing by political leaders.
In 1979, President Joao Baptista Figueiredo signed a law giving amnesty to both military personnel and opponents of the dictatorship in an attempt to pave the way for democratisation. It also served to cover up the military regime’s crimes and protect those responsible.
In 2021, Bolsonaro decided to break with this policy of amnesty for crimes against the state by signing legislation that criminalised coup attempts and attacks on democracy. It is this very provision that was used by the Supreme Court in its ruling against him.
This is not the only time Brazilian courts have used presidents’ own legislative agendas against them. In 2005 during Lula’s first term, the country was shaken by a major scandal of vote-buying in Congress. As part of his efforts to appease the public, the president enacted the Clean Record Law (Lei da Ficha Limpa) in 2010, which rendered any candidate convicted by a collective judicial body (more than one judge) ineligible to hold public office for eight years. In 2018, Lula himself was barred from running for president again under his own law due to a conviction for corruption.
But these are not the only examples of Brazilian democracy weathering political storms linked to its leaders. The country has been through two presidential impeachments without major shocks to the system. Right-wing President Fernando Collor (1990-1992) was removed from office due to corruption involving his campaign treasurer while left-wing President Dilma Rousseff (2011-2016) lost her position for manipulating the federal budget.
The removal of both leaders did not lead to institutional instability but instead paved the way for significant reforms. Among them are the Plano Real (Real Plan) of 1994, which finally brought inflation under control, and the labour reform of 2017, which established the primacy of employer-employee agreements over existing labour legislation.
Taken together, these examples show that Brazil’s political system derives institutional strength from the application of the rule of law across the ideological spectrum.
The Brazilian case calls for a reconsideration of the longstanding but inaccurate view that Latin America is a breeding ground for unstable and unpredictable democracies. It shows that institutions are functioning and demonstrate both modernity and adaptability.
Brazil thus offers a reference point for other democracies in the region and beyond.
The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial stance.
Aerial video from the Philippines shows dozens of shanty homes burning in the Tondo area of Manila, where a fire displaced more than 1,100 families. Fire crews worked through Saturday night before declaring the blaze under control in the early hours of Sunday.
LOVE Islander Millie Court has showcased her stunning figure in a beautiful red dress, leaving ex-boyfriend Liam Reardon to contemplate what might have been.
Millie took to Instagram to share a series of snaps of her wearing the plunging lace number.
6
Millie Court showed off her stunning figure in the snapsCredit: milliegracecourt/Instagram
6
In another pic Millie sat on a staircase as she looked towards the cameraCredit: milliegracecourt/Instagram
6
In the third photo Millie had her back against the wallCredit: milliegracecourt/Instagram
6
Millie accessorised her look with multiple rings and two braceletsCredit: milliegracecourt/Instagram
Earlier this month The Sun reported that Millie and Liam had split up for the second time.
It came after they’d first fallen for each other on series seven of the ITV2 reality show, which they went on to win.
They then broke up for the first time in 2022, before getting back together a year later.
They host the Liam and Millie podcast together, and for a while they were able to keep a long-distance relationship going, despite her being based in Essex and Liam living in Wales.
But unfortunately, it seems the distance between them became increasingly problematic, and they broke up for a second time earlier this month.
A source close to the couple exclusively told The Sun Online: “Millie and Liam have tried so hard to make their relationship work.
“But unfortunately, the distance was just difficult and they have sadly ended their relationship for a second time.
“Obviously, they’ve worked things out before, so friends are hoping this might just be a blip as it’s all still very fresh.
“But right now they are spending time apart. Everyone who loves them hopes they can work it out.”
When they broke up the first time Millie said the decision to split wasn’t taken lightly but was “best” for both of them.
Watch the awkward moment Millie Court says she’ll ‘dump’ Liam Reardon as they clash in furious row
She said on Instagram: “Hi everyone, to avoid any speculation Liam and I wanted to share with you that we have separated.
“It’s been a tough decision and I am gutted but it’s ultimately what is best for us right now. Thank you to every single one of you for supporting our relationship.
“Nothing will ever take away from the amazing experience we shared in Love Island and the past year and I wish Liam all the best in everything he does.
“We’re both ready for new chapters and I’m excited for what’s next. Love, Millie.”
Liam also addressed their first split, saying they were struggling to keep pretending to be happy, when that wasn’t how they were truly feeling.
He said: “We want to keep it a bit more private to a certain extent.
“We spend our lives on social media, it’s hard not to share the relationship.
“But after Love Island we plastered as much of each other out there as possible, and I kind of felt like we had to show people we were really happy all the time even if we were unhappy.
“Now we’re just loving life.”
6
Millie and Liam in happier times, holidaying in the MaldivesCredit: Instagram
6
The pair triumphed on series seven of Love IslandCredit: Instagram
For almost two years, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has gone out of his way to avoid agreeing to a Gaza ceasefire.
In November 2023, a deal saw the release of 110 captives taken during Hamas’s October 7 attack on Israel.
But a week later, Netanyahu refused to extend the ceasefire, leaving the rest of the captives behind.
Since then, whenever a ceasefire has seemed to be within reach, Netanyahu has shifted the goalposts. In May 2024, Hamas accepted a proposed deal, but Israel denied agreeing and invaded Rafah instead. By September, Netanyahu had introduced a new condition: permanent Israeli control of the Philadelphi Corridor – the area between Egypt and Gaza – which both Cairo and Hamas rejected.
Later, after pushing the position that only a partial deal would be agreed to, Netanyahu changed the parameters and insisted that Israel would only agree to a deal that would see all the captives released – and not in return for an end to the war.
Even when allies advanced proposals, Netanyahu sidestepped them. Also in May 2024, then-US President Joe Biden announced that Israel had offered a ceasefire plan, but Netanyahu stayed silent, and no deal followed.
When a deal was agreed and implemented, Netanyahu ensured it broke down. In January 2025, under pressure from incoming US President Donald Trump, Netanyahu accepted a phased ceasefire deal that would continue until a final settlement to end the war was agreed. Yet by March, Israel unilaterally violated it, resuming bombardment and blockade.
And last week, as Hamas negotiators met in Doha to discuss a new US-backed proposal, Israel bombed them, effectively sabotaging the talks.
Plates spinning
The Israeli government would insist that deals haven’t been reached because the Palestinian group Hamas has not been an honest broker, and because it will attempt to rearm must be eradicated.
But after the attack in Doha, Einav Zangauker, the mother of Israeli captive Matan Zangauker, who has been held in Gaza for almost two years, was clear about who was to blame.
“Why does the prime minister [Netanyahu] insist on blowing up any deal that comes close to happening? Why?” she asked rhetorically.
Why indeed.
Netanyahu is Israel’s longest-serving prime minister. One of the reasons for his success is his ability to keep multiple plates spinning – to juggle different priorities, even if they are sometimes contradictory, without resolving them fully.
Being able to juggle these priorities allows Netanyahu to push away decisions that could lead to him losing support from the public or from his political allies. And in a country like Israel, where parliamentary politics is based on who can keep the biggest coalition, that is vital.
Netanyahu is also facing domestic legal trouble – he is on trial for corruption – and staying in power is most likely his best bet at avoiding prison.
Coming back to the question of a Gaza ceasefire, Netanyahu has a fundamental problem: he is beholden to the messianic far right to prop up his government, and they have made it clear: an end to the war at this stage will see them walk away from the prime minister’s coalition, almost certainly causing it to collapse.
The far right – Israelis like National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir and Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich – want to push Palestinians out of Gaza and bring in Israeli settlers to live in the land left empty by those ethnically cleansed.
Netanyahu might not be completely averse to that goal, but he also understands the difficulty in achieving it. Even Israel would be stretched militarily if it were to try to conquer and keep the whole of the Gaza Strip, and months or years of high-intensity conflict would cause more dissent from a military that is heavily reliant on calling up thousands of Israelis as reservists.
And, of course, such a brazen attempt at ethnic cleansing would further isolate Israel internationally.
What comes next?
Instead, Netanyahu keeps the plates spinning. He keeps Ben-Gvir and Smotrich on his side by never agreeing to end the war, strings along mediators by sending negotiation teams to discuss proposals he won’t accept, and never fully commits to the military fight that would be necessary to try to completely take Gaza.
He insists that Hamas cannot be allowed to rule Gaza and rejects the Palestinian Authority ruling the enclave, while also saying Israel doesn’t want to control it.
How long can Netanyahu keep this up? There were times when he struggled, and it almost came crashing down.
Trump did not want to take “no” for an answer in January, forcing Netanyahu to agree to a deal that had been on the table for more than six months. That led to Ben-Gvir resigning his government position and Smotrich threatening to resign his if the deal progressed and led to an end to the war.
As previously mentioned, it did not. And Ben-Gvir quickly came back. Trump says contradictory things about ending the war, only to never firmly tell Netanyahu to stop.
The next Israeli elections have to take place before October 2026. Perhaps Netanyahu will be able to present enough wins to the electorate – he can already argue that he has weakened Hamas, defeated Hezbollah, and bombed Iran’s nuclear sites – to get enough support that he is no longer reliant on Ben-Gvir and Smotrich and can end the war on his terms, whatever they may be.
Or perhaps the war continues, potentially with pauses, only for Israel to return to bombing Gaza when it feels the need to.
Alternatively, continuing the war with no end in sight could increase both foreign and domestic opposition, ramping up the pressure on Netanyahu until he is either forced to make a decision on ending the war or faces defeat at the ballot box in 2026.
The Palestinians of Gaza – of whom Israel has killed more than 64,800 – are the ultimate casualties of the dragging out of this war, as well as the Israeli captives still held in Gaza.
For now, they will keep suffering – as Netanyahu keeps his plates spinning.
The services of a life-preserving, ego-boosting retinue of intimidating protectors — picture dark glasses, earpiece, stern visage — were cited by more than one Harris associate, past and present, as a factor in her deliberations. These were not Trumpers or Harris haters looking to impugn or embarrass the former vice president.
According to one of those associates, Harris has been accompanied nonstop by an official driver and person with a gun since 2003, when she was elected San Francisco district attorney. One could easily grow accustomed to that level of comfort and status, not to mention the pleasure of never having to personally navigate the 101 or 405 freeways at rush hour.
That is, of course, a perfectly terrible and selfish reason to run for governor, if ever it was a part of Harris’ thinking. To her credit, the reason she chose to not run was a very good one: Harris simply “didn’t feel called” to pursue the job, in the words of one political advisor.
Now, however, the matter of Harris’ personal protection has become a topic of heated discussion and debate, which is hardly surprising in an age when everything has become politicized, including “and” and “the.”
There is plenty of bad faith to go around.
Last month, President Trump abruptly revoked Harris’ Secret Service protection. The security arrangement for vice presidents typically lasts for six months after they leave office, allowing them to quietly fade into ever greater obscurity. But before vacating the White House, President Biden signed an executive order extending protection for Harris for an additional year. (Former presidents are guarded by Secret Service details for life.)
As the first female, first Black and first Asian American vice president, Harris faced, as they say in the protective-service business, an elevated threat level while serving in the post. In the 230-odd days since Harris left office, there is no reason to believe racism and misogyny, not to mention wild-eyed partisan hatred, have suddenly abated in this great land of ours.
The president could have been gracious and extended Harris’ protection. But expecting grace out of Trump is like counting on a starving Doberman to show restraint when presented a bloody T-bone steak.
“This is another act of revenge following a long list of political retaliation in the form of firings, the revoking of security clearances and more,” Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass angrily declared.
True.
Though Bass omitted the bit about six months being standard operating procedure, which would have at least offered some context. It wasn’t as though Harris was being treated differently than past vice presidents.
Gov. Gavin Newsom quickly stepped into the breach, providing Harris protection by the California Highway Patrol. Soon after, The Times’ Richard Winton broke the news that Los Angeles Police Department officers meant to be fighting crime in hard-hit areas of the city were instead providing security for Harris as a supplement to the CHP.
Not a great look. Or the best use of police resources.
All well and good, until the conservative-leaning Los Angeles Police Protective League, the union representing rank-and-file officers, saw fit to issue a gratuitously snarky statement condemning the hasty arrangement. Its board of directors described Harris as “a failed presidential candidate who also happens to be a multi-millionaire, with multiple homes … who can easily afford to pay for her own security.”
One person in the private-security business told Winton that a certain household name pays him $1,000 a day for a 12-hour shift. That can quickly add up and put a noticeable dent in your back account, assuming your name isn’t Elon or Taylor or Zuckerberg or Bezos.
Setting aside partisanship — if that’s still possible — and speaking bluntly, there’s something to be said for ensuring Harris doesn’t die a violent death at the hands of some crazed assailant.
The CHP’s Dignitary Protection Section is charged with protecting all eight of California’s constitutional officers — we’re talking folks such as the insurance commissioner and state controller — as well as the first lady and other elected officials, as warranted. The statutory authority also extends to former constitutional officers, which would include Harris, who served six years as state attorney general.
Surely there’s room in California’s $321-billion budget to make sure nothing terrible happens to one of the state’s most prominent and credentialed citizens. It doesn’t have to be an open-ended, lifetime commitment to Harris’ protection, but an arrangement that could be periodically reviewed, as time passes and potential danger wanes.
Serving in elected office can be rough, especially in these incendiary times. The price shouldn’t include having to spend the rest of your life looking nervously over your shoulder.
Or draining your life savings, so you don’t have to.
