standards

BBC Breakfast staff are rumoured to be raging at the “double standards” of suspending Kaye Adams from Radio Scotland whilst their own presenters remain in their roles whilst under review

The staff of BBC Breakfast are reportedly furious at the network bosses’ “double standards” after Kaye Adams was suspended from Radio Scotland following bullying allegations, while their own presenters, Naga Munchetty and Charlie Stayt remain in their roles, despite a review underway for similar claims.

Adams was pulled from her BBC radio show after allegations arose about her ‘bullying’ her colleagues. But, BBC Breakfast hosts Naga Munchetty and Charlie Stayt are under review for the same complaint, it has been alleged, and have not been suspended from their show.

BBC bosses are said to be considering a range of allegations about the duo, but while they have already taken action against Adams, they have not taken action against Munchetty and Stayt.

READ MORE: Loose Women star Kaye Adams ‘taken off air’ following internal complaintREAD MORE: BBC Breakfast’s Naga and Charlie announce heartbreaking news as guest living with incurable illness

A source said Adams’ suspension “put a cat among the pigeons” behind the scenes at the BBC: “The review on Naga and Charlie is rumbling on because new complaints keep coming up, which raise new questions, so they have to keep interviewing other people.

“The news about Kaye Adams’ suspension up in Scotland has put the cat among the pigeons because she’s been accused of the same thing as Naga and Charlie – bullying.

“People are saying it’s double standards and that the BBC are pandering to Naga particularly, because she is the big name because she has Breakfast and her 5 Live show. They are the nation’s broadcaster and should treat all complaints the same way.”

Adams was removed from her hosting job on BBC Radio Scotland while bosses conduct an inquiry. It is believed that complaints against the 62-year-old were raised under the BBC’s Call It Out scheme.

The initiative was set up after a review into the conduct of former MasterChef presenters Gregg Wallace upheld several allegations of inappropriate language and the misuse of power. The report also upheld an allegation that John Torode used inappropriate language. After allegations were brought against Wallace, a review into the working environment on MasterChef was conducted.

Following the review, both Wallace and Torode were told they would no longer be MasterChef’s presenters, though they did appear in the latest series as that had already been filmed. They will be replaced with Grace Dent and Anna Haugh for the next series.

The same Call It Out initiative that started from this situation and led to complaints from BBC Radio Scotland staff, rooted out complaints on BBC Breakfast.

When asked about the situation with Munchetty, Stayt and Adams, a BBC spokesperson said: “We do not comment on individual HR matters.”

Like this story? For more of the latest showbiz news and gossip, follow Mirror Celebs on TikTok, Snapchat, Instagram, Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and Threads.

Democratic members of Congress who saw Florida’s new immigration detention centre, Alligator Alcatraz, said they witnessed dozens of people in metal enclosures, bugs and mosquitos in bunk areas, indoor temperatures above 80 degrees and people screaming for help.

Republicans who also toured the facility tell a different story, describing the space as safe, clean and well-run. The federal Homeland Security Department, which oversees immigration detention, has called characterisations of inadequate conditions at the state-run Alligator Alcatraz “false”.

Homeland Secretary Kristi Noem was asked about Democrats’ accounts during a July 13 interview on NBC’s “Meet the Press”. She said the Florida-run facility is “held to the highest levels of what the federal government requires for detention facilities”.

“Our detention centres at the federal level are held to a higher standard than most local or state centres and even federal prisons,” Noem said. “The standards are extremely high.”

White House border tsar Tom Homan also touted the nation’s immigration detention standards as being a cut above those for prisons and jails.

When a reporter asked Homan about a 75-year-old Cuban man who had been living in the US for 60 years before he died in detention in Miami in June, Homan defended federal facilities.

“People die in ICE [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] custody,” he said, before saying ICE has “the highest detention standards in the industry. I’ll compare an ICE detention facility against any state prison against any federal facility. I’ll go head-to-head with any of them. … People say, ‘The detention centres are horrendous.’ Go look for yourself then come back and talk to me.”

Isidro Perez was the 11th person to die in ICE custody, almost six months into Trump’s second term. Twelve people died during former President Joe Biden’s last fiscal year in office.

ICE detention centres have standards akin to prisons. But it’s difficult to assess blanket statements about the standards of immigration detention compared with state, local or other federal facilities for a few reasons.

• ICE detention standards aren’t codified into law, so it’s difficult to enforce them.
• Different ICE detention centres are upheld to different standards based on the terms of their individual contracts.
• There isn’t one set of standards for local, state and federal prisons and jails. Some standards are mandatory or codified into law, others aren’t.

Several government watchdog agencies, advocacy organisations and news reports have long documented inadequate conditions at immigration detention centres.

In May, human rights group Amnesty International reported “physical abuse by guards, use of solitary confinement, unsanitary and overcrowded living spaces including dysfunctional toilets, inadequate medical care and poor-quality, expired food” at an El Paso detention centre.

Lauren Brinkley-Rubinstein, a Duke University associate professor who studies the health impacts of the criminal legal system, called Homan’s statement “very misleading”.

“In most respects, ICE facilities operate with less consistent oversight and legal accountability than state or federal prisons or local jails,” Brinkley-Rubinstein said. “ICE detention facilities and people that run them tend to be much less transparent about their operations.”

ICE has detention standards, but they aren’t set in law or universally applied

Several federal agencies and private companies run immigration detention facilities. ICE, the main agency tasked with immigration detention, has standards that all its detention centres are supposed to abide by.

For example, facilities have to be sanitary and have potable water. Detainees must have access to medical and mental healthcare, including getting prescription medications. Physical force should only be used when “necessary and reasonable” and not as a punishment. And detainees must be able to meet with their attorneys confidentially.

There are different sets of standards for facilities that hold immigrant detainees and other non-immigration-related detainees, such as local prisons, and for facilities that exclusively hold immigrants.

The standards for centres that also hold non-immigrant detainees “were based on jail standards in use by many jails”, University of Michigan law professor Margo Schlanger said, describing them as “the most stripped down version of jail standards”.

It’s unclear what standards Alligator Alcatraz is held to. The centre is state-run even though courts have repeatedly held that immigration enforcement is a federal responsibility. However, in a court declaration, Thomas P Giles, an ICE official, said the agency had toured the facility “to ensure compliance with ICE detention standards”.

Both sets of immigration standards are periodically updated, but there’s no timing coordination between ICE standards’ updates and other facilities’ updates. Standards are individually negotiated and implemented in separate contracts leading “to varying degrees of protection across detention facilities”, a 2021 Harvard Law Review article about immigration detention said.

Additionally, detention standards aren’t codified into law, making their enforcement difficult. Detainees’ complaints about the facilities’ conditions have little legal support to stand on because the industry is largely self-regulated, one immigration scholar argued.

“Standards are often merely guidelines and largely unenforceable. They are pliable and weak,” David Hernández, a professor at Mount Holyoke College who specialises in detention and deportation policy, said. “Very few facilities lose their contracts due to failing standards, or even deaths of detainees.”

Government watchdogs, nonprofit organisation, news reports detail inadequate conditions at detention centres

The Homeland Security Department is largely responsible for conducting inspections to ensure detention centres are meeting ICE’s standards. However, for years, government watchdog agencies and advocacy organisations have questioned the efficacy of these investigations, pointing to several instances of facilities not complying with ICE standards.

In 2020, Congress created the Office of the Immigration Detention Ombudsman to conduct unauthorised investigations of detention centres and to allow immigrants to file individual complaints for the office to review.

In March, the Trump administration tried to close the office. A civil rights group sued the administration. In response, DHS said in a declaration that the office would stay open but with a smaller staff. Immigration experts said this decision has severely limited oversight of detention centres.

News outlets and advocacy organisations have warned of inadequate immigration detention conditions, including overcrowding. The Trump administration is currently detaining about 60,000 people – that’s 20,000 more people than it has congressional funding to detain.

The external reports describe detainees in different locations being denied medical care, being placed in solitary confinement after complaining about conditions, not having access to legal resources and being targeted for being Venezuelan. Catholic University immigration law professor Stacy Brustin said these stories “mirror accounts” she and her students witnessed when visiting several detention centres.

“We heard shocking descriptions of overcrowding, sewage leaks, inoperable toilets, water running down cell block walls, insufficient access to water, spoiled or inedible food, inability to move freely in cell blocks for prolonged periods, and substandard medical care for individuals with serious, life-threatening conditions,” Brustin said. “All of these conditions violate ICE detention standards.”

For example, ICE standards say centres must provide detainees “a nutritionally balanced diet that is prepared and presented in a sanitary and hygienic”. Spoiled food is a violation.

Differences between ICE detention and prison standards

Some states have codified standards that their detention facilities are required to follow, others don’t. Some facilities are accredited by the American Correctional Association, which has its own set of standards.

All facilities have to comply with the US Constitution – particularly the 8th Amendment prohibiting “cruel and unusual punishments” in criminal cases and the 14th Amendment protecting people against deprivation of “life, liberty, or property, without due process of law”. Prisons and jails must also abide by federal laws related to sexual violence, inmates’ access to religious facilities, and people with disabilities.

“Courts have ruled that people who are incarcerated in these facilities have the right to care, safety, and humane treatment,” Brinkley-Rubinstein said.

Generally, prison and jail standards have similar provisions to the ones for immigration detention, such as access to healthcare and legal resources and having sanitary facilities.

Oversight practices also vary based on the facility. Some places are subject to independent oversight; others rely only on internal oversight.

The consequences for prisons and jails that don’t follow standards also vary.

“If the facility is under a consent decree and court supervision, the judge may require regular reports, appoint an independent monitor or a manager or even a receiver to operate all aspects of the facility,” said Andrea Armstrong, Loyola University New Orleans professor and prison conditions expert.

Some places may lose their contracts depending on the severity of the situation, Schlanger said. In other cases, facilities may face lawsuits.

Immigrants have more restrictions when trying to access courts to claim detention facilities are not upholding their standards. That’s because immigration detention is a civil rather than criminal form of detention.

That classification “creates a dangerous loophole where people can be held in carceral conditions without the constitutional protections that apply to those in the criminal legal system,” Brinkley-Rubinstein said.

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Friday joined President Trump and congressional Republicans in siding with the oil and gas industry in its challenge to California’s drive for electric vehicles.

In a 7-2 decision, the justices revived the industry’s lawsuit and ruled that fuel makers had standing to sue over California’s strict emissions standards.

The suit argued that California and the Environmental Protection Agency under President Biden were abusing their power by relying on the 1970s-era rule for fighting smog as a means of combating climate change in the 21st century.

California’s new emissions standards “did not target a local California air-quality problem — as they say is required by the Clean Air Act — but instead were designed to address global climate change,” Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh wrote, using italics to described the industry’s position.

The court did not rule on the suit itself but he said the fuel makers had standing to sue because they would be injured by the state’s rule.

“The fuel producers make money by selling fuel. Therefore, the decrease in purchases of gasoline and other liquid fuels resulting from the California regulations hurts their bottom line,” Kavanaugh said.

Only Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson disagreed.

Jackson questioned why the court would “revive a fuel-industry lawsuit that all agree will soon be moot (and is largely moot already). … This case gives fodder to the unfortunate perception that moneyed interests enjoy an easier road to relief in this Court than ordinary citizens.”

But the outcome was overshadowed by the recent actions of Trump and congressional Republicans.

With Trump’s backing, the House and Senate adopted measures disapproving regulations adopted by the Biden administration that would have allowed California to enforce broad new regulations to require “zero emissions” cars and trucks.

Trump said the new rules adopted by Congress were designed to displace California as the nation’s leader in fighting air pollution and greenhouse gases.

In a bill-signing ceremony at the White House, he said the disapproval measures “will prevent California’s attempt to impose a nationwide electric vehicle mandate and to regulate national fuel economy by regulating carbon emissions.”

“Our Constitution does not allow one state special status to create standards that limit consumer choice and impose an electric vehicle mandate upon the entire nation,” he said.

In response to Friday’s decision, California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta said “the fight for fight for clean air is far from over. While we are disappointed by the Supreme Court’s decision to allow this case to go forward in the lower court, we will continue to vigorously defend California’s authority under the Clean Air Act.”

Some environmentalists said the decision greenlights future lawsuits from industry and polluters.

“This is a dangerous precedent from a court hellbent on protecting corporate interests,” said David Pettit, an attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity’s Climate Law Institute. “This decision opens the door to more oil industry lawsuits attacking states’ ability to protect their residents and wildlife from climate change.”

Times staff writer Tony Briscoe, in Los Angeles, contributed to this report.

June 20 (UPI) — Fossil fuel companies can challenge California setting stricter emissions standards for cars, the U.S Supreme Court ruled Friday.

California has stipulated that only zero-emission cars will be able to sold there by 2035, with a phased increase in ZEV requirements for model years 2026-2035. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has set a fleet-wide average of 49 mpg by model year 2026, with higher standards in the following years.

In the 7-2 opinion authored by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, the court ruled that oil producers have legal standing to sue over California’s clean car standards approved by the U.S. EPA. Dissenting were Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson, two of the court’s three Democratic-appointed justices.

“This case concerns only standing, not the merits,” Kavanaugh wrote in the 48-page opinion that included two dissents. “EPA and California may or may not prevail on the merits in defending EPA’s approval of the California regulations. But the justiciability of the fuel producers’ challenge to EPA’s approval of the California regulations is evident.”

The Clean Air Act supersedes state laws that regulate motor vehicle emissions, but it allows the EPA to issue a waiver for California. Other states can copy California’s stricter standard.

The states are Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Washington and the District of Columbia.

The EPA, when Barack Obama was president, granted a waiver for California, but President Trump partially withdrew it during his first term.

When Joe Biden became president in 2021, the EPA reinstated the waiver with the tougher emissions.

Last week, Trump signed a bi-partisan congressional resolution to rescind California’s electric vehicle mandate. California Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, called this move illegal and will sue over this order.

“You couldn’t buy any other car except an electric-powered car, and in California, they have blackouts and brownouts,” Trump said last week. “They don’t have enough electricity right now to do the job. And, countrywide, you’d have to spend four trillion dollars to build the firing plants, charging plants.”

Gasoline and other liquid fuel producers and 17 Republic-led states sued, arguing California’s regulations reduce the manufacturing of gas-powered cars. The lead plaintiff was Diamond Alternative Energy, which sells renewable diesel, an alternative to traditional petroleum-derived diesel. Valero Energy Corp. also joined in the suit.

Automakers were involved in the case.

California lawyers argue the producers have no legal standing, which requires showing that a favorable court ruling would redress a plaintiff’s injury.

The EPA said consumer demand for electric cars would exceed California’s mandate and hence the regulations wouldn’t have an impact.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit rejected the lawsuit.

“If invalidating the regulations would change nothing in the market, why are EPA and California enforcing and defending the regulations?” Kavanaugh wrote.

“The whole point of the regulations is to increase the number of electric vehicles in the new automobile market beyond what consumers would otherwise demand and what automakers would otherwise manufacture and sell.”

Sotomayor and Jackson separately wrote the case may become moot.

“I see no need to expound on the law of standing in a case where the sole dispute is a factual one not addressed below,” Sotomayor wrote.

She said she would have sent the case back to the lower court to look at the issue again.

Jackson said her colleagues weren’t applying the standing doctrine evenhandedly and it can erode public trust in judges.

“This case gives fodder to the unfortunate perception that moneyed interests enjoy an easier road to relief in this Court than ordinary citizens. Because the Court had ample opportunity to avoid that result, I respectfully dissent,” Jackson wrote.

The ruling does not prevent California and other states from enforcing standards, Vickie Patton, general counsel of the Environmental Defense Fund, told The Guardian.

“The standards have saved hundreds of lives, have provided enormous health benefits, and have saved families money,” Patton said. “While the Supreme Court has now clarified who has grounds to bring a challenge to court, the decision does not affect California’s bedrock legal authority to adopt pollution safeguards, nor does it alter the life-saving, affordable, clean cars program itself.”

LOVE Island viewers have been left outraged over ‘double standards’ following Helena’s raunchy sex confession.

It comes after fans called for a “misogynistic” star to be axed after a series of derogatory comments.

5

5

5

In yesterday’s episode, Helena admitted she previously had a threesome with two men.

Meanwhile, Harry, who she is currently coupled with, discussed this with the other lads.

It was during a boys’ night away from the villa, where they were met by three bombshells.

Those watching at home were not impressed and felt his remarks were unfair – while it came just a day after the pair snuck off to the Hideaway together to spend the night.

Harry told the others – unaware Helena was listening from the villa: “For me, with Helena, it’s like, I don’t know if she’s just a good time girl. Like, as I know, the more I’m getting to know her, like…

“I’m having a good time, but I wanna have a long time.

“What I’m learning about her lifestyle, and like, what she does, like, she goes out a lot. We had the conversations – you were all there. She had a threesome.

“I don’t think that really worries me. Because like, I can guarantee I’ve done worse, sort of thing. But I think it did surprise me a little bit.

“What I’m learning about her lifestyle, and like, what she does, like, she goes out a lot. We had the conversations – you were all there. She had a threesome.

“I don’t think that really worries me. Because like, I can guarantee I’ve done worse, sort of thing. But I think it did surprise me a little bit.

“It’s not I wanted to take a step back or anything. It was just more like, okay, I need to learn more, just to figure out what she’s gonna really be like.”

Back in the villa, Helena raged:  “F**k me. Oh, my dirty laundry, is it?”

Harry continued:  “But if she’s still there, if she’s still in that phase of her life where it’s like, she wants to have a good time, then it might not be the right time for me and her.”

One fan said: “Yayyyy double standards.”

Another remarked: “He didn’t care about her background when they went to the hideaway.”

A third shared: “What’s Harry’s surname? Ah yes Double-Standard, my bad I forgot.”

While a fourth remarked: “Wow, the judgement of that boy when ‘hes done worse’ the putdown before the brag is wild! Must be from the insecurity of going thin in the front talking!”

A fifth chimed in: “Hmm double standards eh one rule for a guy and one for the girl.”

Elsewhere, Helena chose to recouple with Harry – despite him expressing an interest in Shakira still.

Outraged fans demanded Harry be booted out, with one penning: “Get harry out of here what the f**K.”

Another fumed: “Harry, with his terrible attitude and haircut, must go home.” 

And a third added: “I feel sorry for Helena being talked about in a dehumanising and misogynistic manner.”

Love Island airs on ITV2 and ITVX.

5

5

United States President Donald Trump has signed a series of congressional resolutions to roll back standards in California that would have phased out petrol-powered cars and promoted the use of electric vehicles (EVs).

But Thursday’s signing ceremony gave Trump a platform to strike blows against several of his political foes, including the Democratic leadership of California and ally-turned-critic Elon Musk.

Musk famously leads the electric vehicle company Tesla. California, meanwhile, has long been a Democratic stronghold, and since taking office for a second term in January, Trump has continuously sparred with its governor, Gavin Newsom.

Thursday’s resolutions gave Trump a chance to skewer one of Newsom’s signature environmental achievements: a state mandate that would have gradually required new cars in California to produce zero greenhouse gas emissions.

That goal was meant to unfold in stages. By 2026, 35 percent of all new cars sold would be emission-free vehicles. By 2030, that number would rise to 68 percent. And by 2035, California would reach 100 percent.

But Trump argued that California’s standards would hamper the US car industry and limit consumer choice. Already, 17 other states have adopted some form of California’s regulations.

“Under the previous administration, the federal government gave left-wing radicals in California dictatorial powers to control the future of the entire car industry all over the country — all over the world, actually,” Trump said on Thursday.

“ This horrible scheme would effectively abolish the internal combustion engine, which most people prefer.”

But critics point out that many carmakers did not necessarily oppose California’s mandate: Rather, automobile companies like General Motors had already put in place plans to transition to electric-vehicle manufacturing, to keep up with global trends.

Already, California and 11 other states have announced they will sue to keep the electric vehicle mandate in place. Here are three takeaways from Thursday’s signing ceremony.

A continuing feud with California

The decision to roll back California’s electric-vehicle standards was only the latest chapter in Trump’s long-running beef with the state.

Just last week, protests broke out in the Los Angeles area against Trump’s push for mass deportation, as immigration raids struck local hardware stores and other workplaces.

Trump responded by deploying nearly 4,000 National Guard members and 700 Marines to southern California, in the name of tamping down protest-related violence.

Though Thursday’s ceremony was ostensibly about the electric-vehicle mandate, Trump took jabs at the state’s management of the protests, blaming Governor Newsom for allowing the situation to spiral out of control.

“If we didn’t go, Los Angeles right now would be on fire. It would be a disaster. And we stopped it,” Trump said, accusing Newsom of having “a faulty thought process” and trying to protect criminals.

Trump also drew a parallel to the wildfires that ravaged the Los Angeles area in January, whose flames were whipped and spread by dangerous wind conditions that kept aerial support out of the skies.

“Los Angeles would be right now burning to the ground just like the houses burned to the ground,” Trump said, referencing the wildfires. “It’s so sad, what’s going on in Los Angeles.”

California’s electric-vehicle mandate, he argued, would have likewise spurred another emergency.

“Today, we’re saving California, and we’re saving our entire country from a disaster. Your cars are gonna be thousands of dollars less,” Trump said.

“Energy prices would likewise soar as the radical left forced more electric vehicles onto the grid while blocking approvals for new power plants,” he continued. “ The result would be rolling blackouts and a collapse of our power systems.”

Earlier this week, Newsom and California Attorney General Rob Bonta dismissed Trump’s concerns as little more than an attack on state rights.

“Trump’s all-out assault on California continues — and this time he’s destroying our clean air and America’s global competitiveness in the process,” Newsom said in a statement. “We are suing to stop this latest illegal action by a President who is a wholly-owned subsidiary of big polluters.”

Newsom has also denounced the deployment of troops to Los Angeles as an “unmistakable step toward authoritarianism” and has sued to limit that action as well.

Trump weighs in on Elon Musk

As Trump continued to outline his reasoning for peeling back the EV mandates, his speech briefly veered into another area of conflict: his recently rocky relationship with Musk.

A billionaire, Musk leads several high-profile companies with government contracts, including the rocket manufacturer SpaceX and the satellite communication firm Starlink. And then, of course, there is Musk’s car company Tesla, which produces electric vehicles.

Musk was one of the largest donors in the 2024 elections, spending north of $280m to back Trump and other Republicans. Trump, for his part, featured Musk on the campaign trail and named him the leader of the newly created Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) shortly after his election.

In January, Musk joined the Trump administration as a “special government employee”, an advisory role with a time limit of about 130 days per year.

As he reached the end of that term, Musk became increasingly outspoken about Trump’s signature budget legislation, the One Big Beautiful Bill. While the bill would have cemented Trump’s 2017 tax cuts and funnelled more money into immigration enforcement, it would have also increased the national debt by trillions of dollars.

Musk also objected to the “pork” — the extra spending and legislative provisions — that were packed into the lengthy, thousand-page bill. The billionaire took to social media to call the bill a “disgusting abomination“, as the two men entered into an increasingly heated exchange of words.

Trump called Musk “crazy”, and Musk suggested Trump should be impeached. The billionaire has since said he “regrets” some of his remarks.

On Thursday, Trump repeated his assertion that Musk’s outburst was the result of his policies towards electric vehicles, something Musk has denied. Early in his second term, Trump pulled the plug on a goal set under former President Biden to have 50 percent of all new vehicles sold be electric by 2030.

“On my first day in office, I ended the green new scam and abolished the EV mandate at the federal level,” Trump said on Thursday. “Now, I know why Elon doesn’t like me so much. Which he does, actually. He does.”

He continued to muse on their unravelling relationship, saying that Musk “never had a problem” with his electric vehicle policies.

“I used to say, ‘I’m amazed that he’s endorsing me,’ because that can’t be good for him,” Trump said.

“He makes electric cars, and we’re saying, ‘You’re not going to be able to make electric cars, or you’re not gonna be forced to make all of those cars. You can make them, but it’ll be by the market, judged by the market.’”

Trump added that he feels Musk “got a bit strange” but that he still likes the car company Tesla — and “others too”.

An increase in auto tariffs ahead?

Amid the talk about his feuds with Musk and California, Trump also dropped a possible bombshell: More automobile tariffs may be on the way.

Already, Trump has relied heavily on tariffs — taxes on imported products — to settle scores with foreign trading partners and push for greater foreign investment in domestic industries, including car manufacturing.

“If they want a Mercedes-Benz, you’re going to have it made here. It’s OK to have a Mercedes, but they’re going to make it here,” he said on Thursday. “Otherwise, they’re going to pay a very big tariff.  They already are.”

Currently, automobiles imported to the US from abroad are subject to a 25-percent tax, a cost that critics say is passed along to the consumer.

But Trump warned on Thursday that he is prepared to go higher, as he has done with taxes on steel and aluminium.

“ To further defend our auto workers, I imposed a 25-percent tariff on all foreign automobiles. Investment in American auto manufacturing is surging because of it,” Trump said.

“Auto manufacturing — all manufacturing — is surging. I might go up with that tariff in the not-too-distant future. The higher you go, the more likely it is they build a plant here.”

Trump pointed to his negotiations over steel imports as a success story.

“American Steel is doing great now because of what we did. If I didn’t put tariffs on steel, China and a lot of other countries were dumping steel in our country,” he said. “Garbage steel, dirty steel, bad steel, not structurally sound steel. Real garbage.”

But by raising tariffs from 25 to 50 percent earlier this month, Trump said he protected the US steel industry. He also shared details about a deal that would see the Japanese company Nippon invest in the company US Steel.

“We have a golden stock. We have a golden share, which I control — or the president — controls. Now, I’m a little concerned whoever the president might be, but that gives you total control,” Trump said. “It’s 51-percent ownership by Americans.”

US industry leaders had been concerned that the deal with Nippon would see further erosion of the US manufacturing industry, which suffered from decades of foreign competition. The deal with Nippon has been previously described as a takeover, prompting concerns about the future and independence of the US steel industry.

MAFS Australia’s Adrian Araouzou has riled up fans after posting a video listing his “high standards” for his future wife.

In a video titled “Unpopular opinion 💁🏻‍♂️”, which he uploaded to Instagram, Adrian was seen eating food on a camp chair by a fire as he wrote across the screen.

6

6

6

He wrote: “High standards because I don’t want my kids to have a mum who’s drunk every weekend, thinks it’s ok to disrespect their body, looks at doing anything for their man as a chore, has no faith in God, or prioritises material things over nature’s beauty. ”

Fans weren’t best pleased with the message, and made sure he knew it in the comments.

“what do you bring to the table though…” said one, while another wrote: “Misogynistic manosphere springs to mind… Andrew Tate!”

“Good luck with that.. maybe u should join the priesthood.. no woman would touch u now with your attitude,” noted a third.

“You must also meet these requirements. Not only your future wife!” wrote a fourth.

The 31-year-old reality star appeared on the 12th season of the dating show favourite, marrying Awhina Rutene in the experiment.

However, while they initially seemed to like each other when they met at the altar, things went south quickly when Awhina revealed she had a six-year-old son.

He later became central to cheating speculation with another bride, Sierah, after they were seen playing footsie under the table at a dinner.

While they didn’t actually cheat, Adrian later left the experiment for a small period of time, leaving Awhina before eventually returning to complete the show.

He also was criticised for making his new wife cry in other scenes after refusing to take part in writing a confession letter.

At the Final Vows the pair decided to break things off, thinking they wouldn’t work.

However, in a strange twist, before the show was over they had their mind and opted to give their relationship a proper shot away from the series.

Unfortunately they didn’t work out, and since the show aired they have both remained single.

6

6

6

OKLAHOMA CITY — Oklahoma high school students studying U.S. history learn about the Industrial Revolution, women’s suffrage and America’s expanding role in international affairs.

Beginning next school year, they will also learn about false conspiracy theories surrounding the 2020 presidential election.

Oklahoma’s new social studies standards for K-12 public school students, already infused with references to the Bible and nationalist themes, were revised at the direction of state schools Supt. Ryan Walters. The Republican official has spent much of his first term in office lauding President Trump, feuding with teachers unions and local school superintendents, and trying to end what he describes as “wokeness” in public schools.

“The left has been pushing left-wing indoctrination in the classroom,” Walters said. “We’re moving it back to actually understanding history … and I’m unapologetic about that.”

The previous standard for studying the 2020 election merely said, “Examine issues related to the election of 2020 and its outcome.” The new version is more expansive: “Identify discrepancies in 2020 elections results by looking at graphs and other information, including the sudden halting of ballot-counting in select cities in key battleground states, the security risks of mail-in balloting, sudden batch dumps, an unforeseen record number of voters, and the unprecedented contradiction of ‘bellwether county’ trends.”

The new standard raised red flags even among Walters’ fellow Republicans, including the governor and legislative leaders. They were concerned that several last-minute changes, including the language about the 2020 election and a provision stating the source of the COVID-19 virus was a Chinese lab — a theory never proven — were added just hours before the state school board voted on them.

A group of parents and educators has filed a lawsuit asking a judge to reject the standards, arguing that they were not reviewed properly and that they “represent a distorted view of social studies that intentionally favors an outdated and blatantly biased perspective.”

Grassroots pressure on lawmakers

While many Oklahoma teachers have expressed outrage at the change in the standards, others say they leave room for an effective teacher to instruct students about the results of the 2020 election without misinforming them.

Aaron Baker, who has taught U.S. government in high schools in Oklahoma City for more than a decade, said he’s most concerned about teachers in rural, conservative parts of the state who might feel encouraged to impose their own beliefs on students.

“If someone is welcoming the influence of these far-right organizations in our standards and is interested in inserting more of Christianity into our practices as teachers, then they’ve become emboldened,” Baker said. “For me, that is the major concern.”

Leaders in the Republican-led Oklahoma Legislature introduced a resolution to reject the standards, but there wasn’t enough GOP support to pass it.

Part of that hesitation probably stemmed from a flurry of last-minute opposition organized by pro-Trump conservative groups such as Moms for Liberty, which has a large presence in Oklahoma and threatened to back primary opponents against lawmakers who reject the standards.

“In the last few election cycles, grassroots conservative organizations have flipped seats across Oklahoma by holding weak Republicans accountable,” the group wrote in a letter signed by several other conservative groups and GOP activists. “If you choose to side with the liberal media and make backroom deals with Democrats to block conservative reform, you will be next.”

Claims that changes ‘encourage critical thinking’

After a group of parents, educators and other Oklahoma school officials worked to develop the new social studies standards, Walters assembled an executive committee consisting mostly of out-of-state pundits from conservative think tanks to revise them. He said he wanted to focus more on American “exceptionalism” and incorporate the Bible as an instructional resource.

Among those Walters appointed to the review committee are Kevin Roberts, president of the Heritage Foundation and a key figure on its Project 2025 project, a blueprint for a conservative administration largely reflected in Trump policies; and Dennis Prager, a radio talk show host who founded Prager U, a conservative nonprofit that offers “pro-American” educational materials for children that critics decry as lacking in objectivity and accuracy.

In a statement to the Associated Press, Walters defended teaching students about “unprecedented and historically significant” elements of the 2020 presidential election.

“The standards do not instruct students on what to believe; rather, they encourage critical thinking by inviting students to examine real events, review publicly available information, and come to their own conclusions,” he said.

Recounts, reviews and audits in the battleground states where Trump contested his election loss all confirmed Democrat Joe Biden’s victory, and Trump lost dozens of court cases challenging the results.

Critics say Walters’ new standard is filled with misleading phrasing that seeks to steer the discussion in a particular direction.

Democrats characterized it as another political ploy by Walters, widely viewed as a potential candidate for governor in 2026, at the expense of schoolchildren.

“It’s harmful posturing and political theater that our kids do not need to be subjected to,” said state Sen. Mark Mann, a Democrat from Oklahoma City who previously served on the school board for one of the state’s largest districts.

Concerns about politicizing school standards

National experts on education standards also expressed alarm, noting that Oklahoma has historically ranked highly among the states for its standards.

Brendan Gillis, the director of teaching and learning at the American Historical Assn. who oversaw a research project that analyzed standards in all 50 states, said Oklahoma’s social studies standards had been “quite good” until the latest version.

In addition to concerns about election misinformation, Gillis said, “there was also a lot of biblical content that was sort of shoehorned in throughout the existing standards.”

He said a lot of the references to Christianity and the Bible misinterpreted the history of the country’s founding and lacked historical nuance.

David Griffith, a research director at the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, a conservative-leaning education think tank, said he was not aware of any other states that have tried to promote election misinformation in their curriculum standards.

He called the new standards an “unfortunate” departure from Oklahoma’s traditionally strong social studies standards.

“It is just inappropriate to promote conspiracy theories about the election in standards,” he said.

Murphy writes for the Associated Press. AP writer Christina A. Cassidy in Atlanta contributed to this report.